Question: The Electoral College

Bamaro

Hall of Fame
Oct 19, 2001
22,151
1,617
173
Jacksonville, Md USA
This is the common argument, but in no way as unfair as allowing California, New York, and Texas to control the election. California and newyork are clear liberal states while Florida and Ohio lean one way or another. The only way to overturn a majority in both California and New York is to get an overwhelming lion share in Texas along with every Midwest and southern state.


Fwiw I think it's funny we only talk about popular vote when the democrats lose. We haven't talked about it for 8 years because the democrats won the EC pretty handily.
Those states wouldn't be controlling the election, the people would, nationwide, and we didn't talk about it over the last 8 years because it didn't make any difference:rolleyes:
 

81usaf92

Hall of Fame
Apr 26, 2008
14,584
3,215
178
Sylacauga,AL
Sure, but you know that argument cuts both ways. The interests and priorities of voters in FL do not necessarily mirror those of voters in CA or NY. Why is it okay for certain states to hold so much more electoral power over the others?

We see every election that fewer than half of Americans vote. I'd wager much of that is because the electoral college renders (presidential) voting in the majority of states irrelevant. I suspect that a popular vote would greatly increase voter participation. Even something as simple as a more representative electoral college could increase voter participation.
Florida is an equally liberal and conservative state, while California is a progressive dominant, and New York is a mainstream liberal dominat. Neither will ever elect even a mainstream conservative unless they have a candidate from their state. Florida is a perfect experiment in which way the country is leaning.

Unless we go to a parliamentary type of election where we choose everything at once, then there is no real reason to get rid of the EC because our system of government is designed for gridlock.
 

81usaf92

Hall of Fame
Apr 26, 2008
14,584
3,215
178
Sylacauga,AL
Those states wouldn't be controlling the election, the people would, nationwide, and we didn't talk about it over the last 8 years because it didn't make any difference:rolleyes:
New York, Illinois, and California outnumber the biggest conservative state by 43 million people. That's more or less a 4th of the population. So you are basically trading politically contested states that favor a 2 party system to who can win the most populated states which strongly favors liberal ideology. So yes those states control the election in your scenario.

Fwiw this is how revolutions and civil wars happen when power is strongly against the blue collar worker.
 
Last edited:

Tide1986

Suspended
Nov 22, 2008
15,670
0
0
Birmingham, AL
Sure, but you know that argument cuts both ways. The interests and priorities of voters in FL do not necessarily mirror those of voters in CA or NY. Why is it okay for certain states to hold so much more electoral power over the others?

We see every election that fewer than half of Americans vote. I'd wager much of that is because the electoral college renders (presidential) voting in the majority of states irrelevant. I suspect that a popular vote would greatly increase voter participation. Even something as simple as a more representative electoral college could increase voter participation.
If the EC suppresses turnout, then I'm pleased because it's discouraging those who don't give a crap about the country.
 

CharminTide

Hall of Fame
Oct 23, 2005
7,066
953
128
Florida is an equally liberal and conservative state, while California is a progressive dominant, and New York is a mainstream liberal dominat. Neither will ever elect even a mainstream conservative unless they have a candidate from their state. Florida is a perfect experiment in which way the country is leaning.

Unless we go to a parliamentary type of election where we choose everything at once, then there is no real reason to get rid of the EC because our system of government is designed for gridlock.
The fact that you think FL politics are more significant than CA politics does not address my point. A handful of states render the rest irrelevant, and I think that's a problem. As for a parliamentary system, we're basically already there in national politics. There was no ticket splitting in any state this year.

New York, Illinois, and California outnumber the biggest conservative state by 43 million people. That's more or less a 4th of the population. So you are basically trading politically contested states that favor a 2 party system to who can win the most populated states which strongly favors liberal ideology. So yes those states control the election in your scenario.
Why do you assume that everyone in CA and NY votes democratic?
 

CajunCrimson

Hall of Fame
Mar 13, 2001
19,375
1,506
173
Breaux Bridge, La
The fact that you think FL politics are more significant than CA politics does not address my point. A handful of states render the rest irrelevant, and I think that's a problem. As for a parliamentary system, we're basically already there in national politics. There was no ticket splitting in any state this year.


Why do you assume that everyone in CA and NY votes democratic?
If we get rid of the electoral college people should hope they do. Because right now most of the republicans stay home in CA, NY, IL
 

81usaf92

Hall of Fame
Apr 26, 2008
14,584
3,215
178
Sylacauga,AL
The fact that you think FL politics are more significant than CA politics does not address my point. A handful of states render the rest irrelevant, and I think that's a problem. As for a parliamentary system, we're basically already there in national politics. There was no ticket splitting in any state this year.


Why do you assume that everyone in CA and NY votes democratic?
You have used "this year" twice. This year doesn't address the common situation.

Even with this year results we are nowhere near a parliamentary government due to the lack of coalitions within government, and the fact we don't have a "real" third party that effectively decides power. Trump may have ran as a republican but that doesn't make him one of the guys. The likelihood of him totally undoing hundreds of years of policy within a 4 year period are highly unlikely even with both houses controlled by the republicans.

To the Florida part... Let's say Alabama traded populations with California but kept their strong conservative and evangelical political ideologies. Would you want them controlling the political agenda since the majority of the population is opposed to gay rights and strongly in favor of religious freedoms, or would you be saying Florida and Ohio are closely contested political states so we should make a system where extreme conservativism and liberalism isn't always in controlled due to high populations in states with dominat political ideologies.
 

Tide1986

Suspended
Nov 22, 2008
15,670
0
0
Birmingham, AL
The fact that you think FL politics are more significant than CA politics does not address my point. A handful of states render the rest irrelevant, and I think that's a problem. As for a parliamentary system, we're basically already there in national politics. There was no ticket splitting in any state this year.


Why do you assume that everyone in CA and NY votes democratic?
I don't know about significance, but obviously FL is more representative of America than California given FL's greater political diversity.
 

CharminTide

Hall of Fame
Oct 23, 2005
7,066
953
128
To the Florida part... Let's say Alabama traded populations with California but kept their strong conservative and evangelical political ideologies. Would you want them controlling the political agenda since the majority of the population is opposed to gay rights and strongly in favor of religious freedoms, or would you be saying Florida and Ohio are closely contested political states so we should make a system where extreme conservativism and liberalism isn't always in controlled due to high populations in states with dominat political ideologies.
This is a strange hypothetical that still assumes states, in a popular vote system, would move as blocks.
 

81usaf92

Hall of Fame
Apr 26, 2008
14,584
3,215
178
Sylacauga,AL
This is a strange hypothetical that still assumes states, in a popular vote system, would move as blocks.
They would, but they would be far more powerful. You can say " well there would be higher republican turnouts in CA, IL, and NY". That maybe but there is always that democrat that stays at home because he/she knows the results. More or less 1/4 of the state of California voted for democrat or republican. Of that near 1/4, 7.5 votes democrat and 4 mil for republican. Even if we say 3/4 of the California will vote in a popular vote controlled election, I don't see those numbers getting close enough to say California doesn't hold considerably more power than the rest of the states.
 

Latest threads

TideFansStore.com - Get your gear!

Purchases made through our TideFansStore.com link may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.