Killing the Electoral College Is a Very, Very Bad Idea

[Jack Davenport]

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). So far 12 states possessing 172 electoral votes have enacted NPVIC. Instead of abolishing the electoral college via constitutional amendment, NPVIC states have agreed to give their electoral votes to the candidate that wins the popular vote. This would go into effect once enough states join that the total number of votes will be 270. 98 votes are needed to get to 270. The 12 states that have enacted NPVIC are blue states. It's hard to see any red states enacting it. But if Democrats get their act together and win some of the these down ballot races, they can flip some state houses and be in a better position to pass NPVIC

It just might work, if you can find a way to get by that whole unconstitutional thing.

 

[sean miguel]

And ignore all states that are solid Republican or solid Democrat.
How many rallies did Trump had in states like Oregon, Louisiana, Massaschusetts or Kansas ? Same question about Hillary.
Just because there's about 0% chance these states could flip, the people who live there have about 0% chance to see any candidate coming to their state. They were both too busy focusing on a dozen of flip states to even consider visiting the rest of the country, listening to people from states like Maine, Okhlahoma, Delaware or Utah.

BFE North Dakota had as much say in the Kavanaugh confirmation as New York, Texas and California.

 

[Straight Shooter]

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

Musings from a beta male about the founding fathers is always entertaining. Especially when they have no clue about civics, the constitution or the elimination of mob rule by design.

 

[sean miguel]

And it's not even the same voice, but just a voice.

California still has 55 electoral votes vs. Wyoming's 3.

So suck my dick which has one electoral vote.

 

[tvstrip]

The United States is unique in that 50 states make up our union unlike countries like France and Canada that are districts or provinces.
All states must be represented thus the need for the electoral college.

Genuine question though: in terms of the end result of electing the actual leader of the country, would elections in places like Canada and any country that elect representatives by district be essentially the same as the electoral college? Yes, the obvious difference is that the district representatives actually have to work while the electoral college voter just votes for the prez and is done with it. But isn't the substantive effect the same, in that we basically have districts that elect a representative, who will always vote along party lines, and regardless of the total votes (popular vote) you will still have the leader determined by who gets the most representatives?

 

[Little Red Wagon Repairman]

The Democrats are upset about the results not the process. If they had won in 2000 and 2016 those political whores would proclaim it to be the best thing ever while the GOP would be trying to get rid of it as the GOP are also political whores.

Politicians, even your most beloved public servant, do not care about you. You have to care more about you than them also. A politician’s reason to get out of bed in the morning is to either hold onto his/her power or get more. The more successful ones will climb over anything or on top of anyone to get there.

 

[Johan]

An electoral system that allows the election to be decided by a handfull swing states is fucked up.
An electoral system in which the 4,483,810 of California's voters who voted for Trump did not made him win a single delegate but the 2,970,733 of Pennsylvania's voters voted for him made him win 20 delegates is fucked up
How can 4.5 millions of GOP voters in California be less valuable than 3 millions in Pennsylvania ?

This is why the electoral college should be killed : it ignores the voices of democrats in red states and republicans in blue states