Interesting. I’m watching the Obama press conference right now, and he has a distinctly different tone than I’ve previously seen.
Has nary a harsh word to say about Trump, even with some members of the press corps virtually begging for some smack talk.
My theory about the EC is that it occasionally lets the non-majority side win and that in itself is reason enough. If one side consistently gets 51% of the vote they would have a president 100% of the time. Wouldn’t it be more fair if they get a president 51% of the time? This just means each side takes turns being president which is about what we have now, so if the end result is good why change anything.
He’s a beaten man… His legacy is two historic wave midterm elections followed by the infinitely more qualified Democrat losing to Donald Fucking Trump whom he’s been shit talking, to his face, for years.
Bam’s legacy is a Republican house that could last decades, a R’ish senate and an R SCOTUS by 1 maybe as many as two.
And he is being followed by a clown… That his smug elitist ass never took serious.
That and Obama has always at least feigned class for the most part, and isn’t stupid enough to fire up the rioters and protestors because it just pushes more people right.
While I too like the theoretical thought of this as a replacement for the EC, gerrymandering would go into hyper-drive, no? The stakes to jam all of your opponents voters into one district, while you get 51% of the 3 surrounding it, would be too tempting. Great when your side is up, horrid when the other side is.
I would like to see all primaries on the same day and a shorter Prez cycle.
Exactly. The state of NY is an example of what would happen without the EC. In statewide elections candidates barely campaign north of Yonkers. Republicans running for Governor have in the past tried to win enough votes upstate to offset the urban vote, but it never works. Campaign promises for NYC mean nothing to us living upstate. Examples like the 15$ minimum wage, paid family leave, and the SAFE act are popular in NYC but extremely unpopular upstate.
Again: we’re just looking at this from different angles. I see this as an argument against the EC, not an argument for the EC. If the urban vote is enough to give a stranglehold on the entire state’s allotment of electoral votes, that means voters in upstate NY have no meaningful voice because NYC entirely controls the state’s bolus of electoral votes…so wouldn’t going to the national popular vote give those people more of a voice than they have presently?
My mom and dad said as much when I said I was voting Trump 
What I’m saying is that upstaters have no voice in state politics because of the the city. Take away the EC and you have that on a nationwide scale. The Presidential election would look like the NY governors race, effectively casting a blind eye to any voter not in a major urban area.
To the extent gerrymandering is happening, it’s happening already in congressional districts. I don’t think the incentive and ability to gerrymander would greatly change if the presidential election also fell along the same districts.
First, thanks for engaging in this discussion, because I think that (ultimately) we both want the same thing, which is “fairness” of a sort.
I just am reading the data differently than you are. The Electoral College is precisely the thing that renders voters like yourself (assuming that you are the upstate New Yorker described here) less valuable because a whole state’s allotment of votes can be controlled by that one city. Doing away with the EC would mean that the upstate New Yorker votes would actually count for something, right?
I guess what I’m driving at is that, instead of merely campaigning to win the individual states under a winner-take-all model, the candidates would actually have to engage more of the country. What am I missing here?
I am open to continued discussion, I honestly just can’t figure out how this would marginalize less-populous areas any more than they already are.
Isn’t the issue that Alright is mentioning that NYC dictates the popular vote in the state of New York?
For example, Portland dictates all of Oregon. Because the population is greater there. If our state had an EC system, barring a proportionate weight system, I’m sure we would swing Red for state-wide elections.
Well current metrics have trump gaining 2% more of the black vote than Romney. That may not sound significant, but considering it was Trump, it is.
The EC ensures that major population centers don’t decide the election for the rest of the country. If you look at the map and the way it played out, you would basically have NY, Chicago, and LA deciding every election. But the map by county shows overwelmingly by land mass that Trump did indeed win.
This still doesn’t make sense. The major population centers have the same influence over the election with the Electoral College as without it. Like I said a minute ago…
Requiring an entire state’s complement of electoral votes to go with the majority vote in that state makes it more likely that dense population centers will have disproportionately large sway, not less.
Not a prediction, but a recommendation. If California secedes, when their inevitable drought occurs, ever water truck sent to aid them should have “California sucks,” “Chomsky is a dolt,” or “#MAGA” on the side.
Not that this is going to happen. If Texas can’t secede, the land of granola and whole foods is unlikely to manage the feat.
That’s by design. Higher population centers should have more sway then lesser ones, but they should not decide everything for everybody. A electoral college gives more weight to higher populations but it also provides some weight to lesser zones which would have zero weight in a straight up and down vote.
A stright up and down vote gives most of the country no weight. The EC adds weight in areas that would be otherwise weightless and those people would not be heard.
If Cali were to succeed, I would give them zero trade status with the U.S.
It’s not going to happen, but fuck them if they managed.
This hysteria will soon die down. Liberals are to lazy to keep up the fight for long. They want somebody else to do the work for them.
I’ll say this much–I have always disliked Obama, but I was really impressed with his Wed post election speech. He even gave GWB and staff serious praise for helping him in transition. And here too, he won points with me
I’m not as cynical as beans is about Obama’s behavior. I do fundamentally believe that he doesn’t try to come off as elitist and lecturing (he just can’t help the lecturing, it’s sub conscious ). He suffers from the same disorder much of the Left siffers from, which has been covered extensively post election by articles and this forum. But I don’t think that means his class is fake.
I really enjoyed watching his post election speech…probably one of the few lol
Me too lately. It’s puzzling. Now that the game is over he’s coming off as balanced, sincere, and judicious.
If he ran his terms in office like that it would have been a whole different ballgame.
@ActivitiesGuy This is pretty much what I am driving at. The state of Oregon in this case is a microcosm of a nationwide election without an EC. In state elections the only vote that matters is Portland because their aren’t enough votes in the rest of the state to overcome their majority. The residents of the rest of the state are effectively at the mercy of Portland in decision making statewide.
I also am pleased to have a civil conversation about this. Refreshing after the year long election shitstorm.