November 26, 20169 yr On this point specifically obviously the electoral college itself isn't the distinction of a republic. But it needs to be noted we are not a democracy to those who repeat that notion in this thread and the ones that preceded it. But not only are we a Democratic Republic but we are also a nation of states. The electoral college comes into play when we realize this very notion of what a state is and why our system is so unique. We allow each state individually decide how they want to cast their vote for President. We allow different ideas and value systems to get a voice. I know many have lost respect for state rights in the modern era and truly forget the importance of why this system of states has been the backbone of the strength of this country. But if we continue to dilute the power of states why even have them? Is the electoral college faulty ? Sure I don't believe anything is perfect. But I do believe it is the best system any country has used to date . I believe it is far less faulty than a pure popular vote across state lines in a country so large and so vest. With different political identities , philosphies and values spread out in different pockets. I repeat the electoral college requires a candidate to win over different ideologies and values across a plurality of states. It doesn't allow a candidate to increase Margins in specific populations and regions , it requires you to appeal to a much larger spectrum. This isn't directed toward you but another talking point that bugs me is the "My vote didn'te count" mindset. It's complete hogwash. Everyones vote counts toward the race on how your state will decide to cast your state votes for the President. Just because the candidate you voted for lost your state doesn't mean your vote didn't count. It means your candidate didn't when your state. We are the United States of America and to be President you should have to win a Pluarilty of states not cities. Game, set, match.
November 26, 20169 yr We are the United States of America and to be President you should have to win a Pluarilty of states not cities. You really don't have to win a plurality of states to be president. In theory, you only need to win 11. California (55 votes) Texas (38 votes) Florida (29 votes) New York (29 votes) Illinois (20 votes) Pennsylvania (20 votes) Ohio (18 votes) Georgia (16 votes) Michigan (16 votes) North Carolina (15 votes) New Jersey (14 votes)
November 26, 20169 yr You really don't have to win a plurality of states to be president. In theory, you only need to win 11. California (55 votes) Texas (38 votes) Florida (29 votes) New York (29 votes) Illinois (20 votes) Pennsylvania (20 votes) Ohio (18 votes) Georgia (16 votes) Michigan (16 votes) North Carolina (15 votes) New Jersey (14 votes) So in your example I would have to win states in the Midwest , Northeast, southeast and the West coast. Thank you for proving my point. Never did I say a majority . But the electoral college forces you to win over ideas and population across the country and not just one region.
November 26, 20169 yr So in your example I would have to win states in the Midwest , Northeast, southeast and the West coast. Thank you for proving my point. Never did I say a majority . But the electoral college forces you to win over ideas and population across the country and not just one region. Yes you'd have to win a variety of states. But you did say plurality (which is what I though your point was)...winning 11 states is not a plurality of states. It's not even close. And while you'd have to win in different regions across the country, it still means you'd lose 39 states. Look, for the most part, the EC does work. Considering there's only been 5 instances in over 200 years of elections where the popular vote and EC didn't produce the same result, it's not horrible. However, it can lead to some very quirky results. Besides the 11 state scenario, I've seen many sources that show you can win roughly 25% of the vote (losing 75%) and still win the Presidency. While I get that we don't want any single area or region to have extra undo influence on election results, I also don't like the idea of popular vote being ignored or not counting for anything. Unfortunately, I'm not smart enough to come up with a better solution.
November 26, 20169 yr Yes you'd have to win a variety of states. But you did say plurality (which is what I though your point was)...winning 11 states is not a plurality of states. It's not even close. And while you'd have to win in different regions across the country, it still means you'd lose 39 states. Look, for the most part, the EC does work. Considering there's only been 5 instances in over 200 years of elections where the popular vote and EC didn't produce the same result, it's not horrible. However, it can lead to some very quirky results. Besides the 11 state scenario, I've seen many sources that show you can win roughly 25% of the vote (losing 75%) and still win the Presidency. While I get that we don't want any single area or region to have extra undo influence on election results, I also don't like the idea of popular vote being ignored or not counting for anything. Unfortunately, I'm not smart enough to come up with a better solution. We do not have a nationwide popular vote for any Federal office. I am confused why the presidency should be different. We let states decide who and how they want to elect someone to Federal office. Again because we are a nation of states. Plus this whole argument that a popular vote would increase turnout I'm just not buying. States like Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania didn't see lower turnout because they thought Donald Trump was going to win. Habib makes historical refferences I can atleast understand your entire argument is speculation.
November 26, 20169 yr The phantom complications of voting is not the reason for poor turnout. Also fair to say that laziness of voters isn't the only reason too. An article out today that supports some of the speculation that voter turnout is suppressed by some of the topics discussed in the thread. CHARTS: The Electoral College May Be Dragging Down Voter Turnout In Your State : NPR Edited November 26, 20169 yr by Hellcats
November 26, 20169 yr We do not have a nationwide popular vote for any Federal office. I am confused why the presidency should be different. We let states decide who and how they want to elect someone to Federal office. Again because we are a nation of states. Plus this whole argument that a popular vote would increase turnout I'm just not buying. States like Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania didn't see lower turnout because they thought Donald Trump was going to win. Habib makes historical refferences I can atleast understand your entire argument is speculation. FWIW, swing states do have higher turnout by roughly 5-15%. Despite having the highest number of EC votes, turnout in Texas and California is well below the national average. New York and Florida have the same number of EC votes, but turnout in Florida is about 10% higher than New York.
November 26, 20169 yr FWIW, swing states do have higher turnout by roughly 5-15%. Despite having the highest number of EC votes, turnout in Texas and California is well below the national average. New York and Florida have the same number of EC votes, but turnout in Florida is about 10% higher than New York. Again you are looking for direct cause and affect when there are many reasons for low turnout.
November 26, 20169 yr Again you are looking for direct cause and affect when there are many reasons for low turnout. I'm afraid we can't put this under a microscope and run a controlled experiment, but I don't think there is a more convincing explanation of the disparity between swing states and the rest. Education level tends to correlate with voter turnout, which could be a plausible alternative explanation as to why Ohio has a 10% higher turnout than Kentucky. But, that wouldn't explain why New York's turnout is 10% lower than Florida's.
November 26, 20169 yr I'm afraid we can't put this under a microscope and run a controlled experiment, but I don't think there is a more convincing explanation of the disparity between swing states and the rest. Education level tends to correlate with voter turnout, which could be a plausible alternative explanation as to why Ohio has a 10% higher turnout than Kentucky. But, that wouldn't explain why New York's turnout is 10% lower than Florida's. Why the lower turnout in the 3 states I listed this year ? I just don't like your isolated comparison. It is not very sceintific . Also even if I were to buy your reasoning why should I care or let it influence what I think is the best way to elect our president. None of that nullfies my points. But again I don't buy it. I have feeling I will get a specific response from someone on that question that will just show the core seperation of today.
November 26, 20169 yr Why the lower turnout in the 3 states I listed this year ? Turnout in Wisconsin and Michigan was above average this year. And the candidates treated those states like swing states. According to this map of campaign visits the campaigns were in those two states more than any other state besides Florida. Pennsylvania has traditionally been a swing state, and as the map shows the campaigns spent time there too, if not as much as in Michigan and Wisconsin where turnout was higher.
November 26, 20169 yr Turnout in Wisconsin and Michigan was above average this year. And the candidates treated those states like swing states. According to this map of campaign visits the campaigns were in those two states more than any other state besides Florida. Pennsylvania has traditionally been a swing state, and as the map shows the campaigns spent time there too, if not as much as in Michigan and Wisconsin where turnout was higher. [ATTACH]59310[/ATTACH] Then why all the articles blaming the losses in Wisconsin , Michigan , and Pennsylvania of low voter turnout in Urban areas ? Now I'm really confused. I've been in multiple discussions telling me from liberal friends their was historically low turnout in the counties Detroit , Milwaukee, and Philadelphia reside in.
November 26, 20169 yr For the record I'm still waiting for the reason why the electoral college needs to end. I've yet to see a convincing one but I do appreciate the effort.
November 26, 20169 yr Then why all the articles blaming the losses in Wisconsin , Michigan , and Pennsylvania of low voter turnout in Urban areas ? Now I'm really confused. I've been in multiple discussions telling me from liberal friends their was historically low turnout in the counties Detroit , Milwaukee, and Philadelphia reside in. I can't speak to someone else's claim, but lower turnout in black neighborhoods isn't mutually exclusive with a high statewide turnout. I also haven't looked at how turnout differed between 2012 and 2016, I'm simply looking at how turnout between swing states and the rest differed. And swing states mostly saw higher turnout percentages than the others.
November 26, 20169 yr I can't speak to someone else's claim, but lower turnout in black neighborhoods isn't mutually exclusive with a high statewide turnout. I also haven't looked at how turnout differed between 2012 and 2016, I'm simply looking at how turnout between swing states and the rest differed. And swing states mostly saw higher turnout percentages than the others. I don't know if I can agree with how your sampling then if your not looking at voter turnout election to election. Basically your argument is pushing for the elections and campaigns to be focused on largest Urban areas and the electoral college is the antithesis of this idea. So on that alone we will never agree. The campaigns were going to states in midwest, southeast, southwest and the Northeast . I don't see any argument that abolishing the electoral college would be more inclusive. Heck campaigns were going to Maine and Nebraska to win 1 electoral vote.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.