The Electoral College

Idéfix wrote:Then electoral college was put in place because in 1787 they didn't have the communications and transportation technology to conduct a real national election, and because the coastal elites of the day who wrote the constitution didn't want the unwashed masses of the countryside voting on who should be president.

It won't go away anytime soon, but the more elections we have where the electoral college disagrees with the popular vote, the more likely it becomes that it will go away.

Hellsangel wrote:

Idéfix wrote:Then electoral college was put in place because in 1787 they didn't have the communications and transportation technology to conduct a real national election, and because the coastal elites of the day who wrote the constitution didn't want the unwashed masses of the countryside voting on who should be president.

It won't go away anytime soon, but the more elections we have where the electoral college disagrees with the popular vote, the more likely it becomes that it will go away.

When the difference is insignificant like 200,000+ in a total of 100 million+ votes and when most of the lead comes from populous states like New York and California, I doubt it.

Idéfix wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Idéfix wrote:Then electoral college was put in place because in 1787 they didn't have the communications and transportation technology to conduct a real national election, and because the coastal elites of the day who wrote the constitution didn't want the unwashed masses of the countryside voting on who should be president.

It won't go away anytime soon, but the more elections we have where the electoral college disagrees with the popular vote, the more likely it becomes that it will go away.

When the difference is insignificant like 200,000+ in a total of 100 million+ votes and when most of the lead comes from populous states like New York and California, I doubt it.

The differences in PA, MI and WI are smaller. There is no logical reason for the voices of New Yorkers and Californians to count less than those of Midwesterners.

Hellsangel wrote:Was put in place so cities in states like California and New York don't decide our President. It is not going away anytime soon. Deal with it.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:Was put in place so cities in states like California and New York don't decide our President. It is not going away anytime soon. Deal with it.

why is it called electoral "college"?  

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Idéfix wrote:Then electoral college was put in place because in 1787 they didn't have the communications and transportation technology to conduct a real national election, and because the coastal elites of the day who wrote the constitution didn't want the unwashed masses of the countryside voting on who should be president.

It won't go away anytime soon, but the more elections we have where the electoral college disagrees with the popular vote, the more likely it becomes that it will go away.

When the difference is insignificant like 200,000+ in a total of 100 million+ votes and when most of the lead comes from populous states like New York and California, I doubt it.

The differences in PA, MI and WI are smaller. There is no logical reason for the voices of New Yorkers and Californians to count less than those of Midwesterners.

This is part of the same irrational backlash against the so called "elites". I am not sure why a restaurant worker in NYC is any more of an elite than a laid off assembly line worker in Michigan or why his vote counts a fraction of the Michigander's vote.

Hellsangel wrote:Takeaways for Dems - Electoral College bad. Super Delegates good.

southindian wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:Takeaways for Dems - Electoral College bad. Super Delegates good.

Nope! Look up Donald Trump tweets from Nov 6th.

Your President-elect tweeted something like, "Electoral College should be abolished".... before he won and loved it.


He's on both side of all arguments.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:Because California is not an American state? They're only 13% of the U.S. GDP and produce nearly all our fruits, vegetables and nuts. How does it look if you get rid of those unproductive southern states which are such a drag on the American economy that take in federal give aways more than they give in tax revenue? That's a more interesting q.

Idéfix wrote:"I won bigly, if you don't count those who voted for my opponent!" 

Donald Trump knows that there are enough Stupid-Americans who will eat this shit up, so he keeps dishing it out, and his faithful meme makers swing into action to spread it all around.