As currently constructed? Absolutely.
The EC is ing stupid and should have absolutely been abolished as one of the post--Civil War amendments. We aren't a confederacy anymore. We are a nation divided into states, not a group of states coming together to form a country. The EC was made when the latter idea prevailed. It's outdated, and has been ever since we made it clear that states do not have the right to secede from the Union. If such change would result in one part gaining a massive upper hand due to having an inherently larger base, then the result would be the party coalitions shifting. Like maybe Republicans would have to care more about urban populations while democrats would have to try to appeal to more rural populations. This type of change is normal; the only folks who'd really hate it are the politicians who are way too comfortable with the status quo and maybe states like Iowa and New Hampshire who get off on leveraging their slight importance in the current system.
As currently constructed? Absolutely.
I don't particularly have a problem with the Electoral College. I think it does a fair job of balancing the fact that it would be very difficult for the rural population to live by the rules of the urban population (which is pretty much what would effectively happen if we went to something like the popular vote. It's just simple math). That doesn't mean I don't like the idea of straight up popular vote, but realistically it does come with some strings attached.
IMO, what's much worse is that in this day and age places like DC or PR do not have statehood and thus representation.
the Senate is more stupid, destructive, disenfranchising, since it screws the country every year, while the EC operates only every 4 years.
the situation 5 years ago, now it's worse:
The Small-State Advantage in the United States Senate
The Cons ution has always given states with small populations a lift, but the scale of the gap has grown in recent decades.
These 62 senators represent about one-fourth of the people in the United States.
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nyti...advantage.html
so 40 senators represent 75% of the population
=====================
Smaller States Find Outsize Clout Growing in Senate
The disproportionate power enjoyed in the Senate by small states is playing a growing role in the political dynamic on issues as varied as gun control, immigration and campaign finance.
http://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytim...cy-tested.html
iow, US govt is deeply broken, but it will never be fixed, because the oligarchy benefits from the brokenness of govt, which is owned/operated by the oligarchy.
Electoral college enables the candidate with less number of votes being elected.. this is beyond stupid![]()
Yeah why dont we make elections just like in the hole called Brazil![]()
Dude we're a hole country too
Sure but Brazil:
- imprisoned last 2 presidents
- last one was a soft coup
- knifed down leading presidential candidate in campaign trail
- military about to take charge of the country
Lets strive for that![]()
EC sucks. Republicans like it because without it their party would never win elections in today’s world
Getting rid of the electoral college makes it so the Presidents dont have to pander to ty swing states.
She would do it retroactively if she could.
The “muh rural vote!” argument is hilarious....rural American has gradually hollowed out for decades, and neither party has gone beyond superficial campaign pandering about how “rural voters are the backbone of America!” to actually help rural voters. No amount of voter handicapping is going to change the fact that life in rural America is increasingly ty.
Good point
But same thing can be said about urban voters. Especially minorty urban voters. No amount of Electoral College abolishments is going to make minority urban voters lives less ty
Its all pandering from both sides. Always has been
Oh and Hilary needs to keep her ing mouth shut. She lost states that had been carried by Democrats in every election since 1988, she doesn’t get to blame the EC for that. She shouldn’t have been greedy in thinking she could win Texas + Georgia while not even visiting Michigan or Wisconsin.
Agreed, by no stretch of the imagination am I saying that a pure popular vote would somehow lead to the enrichment of inner city America![]()
Yes because all that will happen if we scrap the electoral college
People in the inner city don't vote though.
You forgot the #
but rurals are pandered to in campaigns because it's cheap compared to national campaigns, and rural states elect reliable huge number of right wing Senators to overwhelm the Senators from the heavily populated states.
You’re completely missing my point.
Nah, that has an altogether different meaning. I just agree with her on the electoral college.
Could happen. I could see re s like Booker or Kamala Harris being voted president by idiot urbanites
2 terms of these clowns could easily take us to a military coup
They would make Trump look like G Washington
This is where the dramatics from the right get ridiculous. Cory Booker is a centrist corporate shill who’s currently propped up by the fact he’s the closest thing team blue has to another Obama. If he were president, all that would happen is maintaining the current status quo. The notion that he’s some kind of bleeding heart communist is completely divorced from actual facts.
you made several points. which one did you think I missed?
Repugs mastered the art of suckering rural states with social issues (abortion, guns, gays, Christian supremacy/Muslim hate), then did nothing to help rural states, and even have had plans, concrete, imminent intentions to hurt rural states, like closing 1000s of post offices, cutting Medicare/Medicaid, not expanding Medicaid, permitting for-profit colleges to screw (rural) students with no-value "degrees", etc.
Urbanization has been happening for 100 years, and will continue. Cities/suburbs are where the jobs are, not in rural areas.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)