We're stuck with the electoral college. But there is a workaround

[Derec]

lpetrich, do you have to quote AOC on everything?

Is there a "Little Red Book" of "Quotations from Chairsibling Sandy" that is required reading for DSA types?

 

[lpetrich]

"3. Abolishing the Electoral College would plunge our republic into a nightmarish political system identical to the one we currently live under."

"(A) Candidates would not campaign much in rural areas."

AOC highlighted the part of the article that stated "First, the state of Texas elects its senators by popular vote, and yet, this did not cause Beto O’Rourke to campaign exclusively in Dallas, Houston, and Austin last year." and she concluded "#FactsAreFacts, America. The Electoral College has got to go."

"(B) Third-party candidates would sometimes act as spoilers."

As if that never happens with the EC - it has. Ralph Nader helped elect George Bush II.

"(C) It could lead to a situation where American politics is defined by polarization, and high levels of social animosity."

As if that never happens with the EC - it has.

"(D) It would create a political system in which an unqualified “media personality” could win the presidency."

As if that never happens with the EC - it has. Like our current pResident.


Ocasio-Cortez blasts Electoral College as a 'scam' | TheHill
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez calls the Electoral College a racist 'scam' - INSIDER

Ocasio-Cortez Mocks Middle America to Delegitimize Electoral College

 

[ZiprHead]

lpetrich, do you have to quote AOC on everything?

Is there a "Little Red Book" of "Quotations from Chairsibling Sandy" that is required reading for DSA types?

What's the matter, Derec? Did you drop your copy of Mein Kampf behind the toilet and are now dissatisfied with your reading choices here?

 

[lpetrich]

lpetrich, do you have to quote AOC on everything?

No, only when she's worth quoting, and I think that she is worth quoting here. Her indictment of the EC I found most entertaining, and much like what Queen of Swords used to do back in IIDB.

 

[Derec]

What's the matter, Derec? Did you drop your copy of Mein Kampf behind the toilet and are now dissatisfied with your reading choices here?

If I wanted to read it, I could always borrow a copy from Unterscharführerin Sandy's anti-Semitic squad mates Schütze Omar and Strurmfrau Tlaib ...

 

[Derec]

No, only when she's worth quoting, and I think that she is worth quoting here. Her indictment of the EC I found most entertaining,

It's just that you are quoting Corporal Sandy an awful lot.

and much like what Queen of Swords used to do back in IIDB.

Whatever happened to her?

 

[SimpleDon]

This strikes me as wanting to change the rules of the game because "my guy" didn't win (i.e. Al Gore in 2000, Hillary in 2016). Would Democrats still be wanting to eliminate the electoral college, if things were reversed and their candidates won the electoral college vote but lost the popular vote in 2000 and 2016? My spidey sense says no. We'd be hearing about how great and necessary the electoral college is.

The Republicans will switch over to wanting to do away with the electoral college when the inevitable happens and Texas becomes a blue state and their presidential election chances disappear completely.

 

[lpetrich]

No, only when she's worth quoting, and I think that she is worth quoting here. Her indictment of the EC I found most entertaining,

It's just that you are quoting Corporal Sandy an awful lot.

Corporal Sandy is sometimes very worth quoting.

Julia Ioffe on Twitter: "We are a country where two presidents who both lost the popular vote have now placed four justices on the Supreme Court. Democracy in action." / Twitter (2018 Oct 5)
then
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "It is well past time we eliminate the Electoral College, a shadow of slavery’s power on America today that undermines our nation as a democratic republic. https://t.co/00HZN3MI6F" / Twitter (2018 Oct 6)

Chris Hayes on Twitter: "Queens has more people than *SIXTEEN* states, fyi." / Twitter (2019 Jun 25)
 List of states and territories of the United States by population,  Demographics of New York City - it's 15 states and DC.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Yet one more reason to abolish the electoral college https://t.co/MfDXMBS8sa" / Twitter (2019 Jun 25)

and much like what Queen of Swords used to do back in IIDB.

Whatever happened to her?

She made it into Canada and she's now a citizen of that nation. She continues her writing career and she's been active in a messageboard for writers.

 

[lpetrich]

AOC takes heat from heartland after calling Electoral College a racist ‘scam’ | Fox News
Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA):

“Actually @AOC, eliminating the Electoral College would silence our voices here in Iowa and in many other states across the country,” the Republican senator tweeted, adding, “This is just more evidence of how out of touch the Democrats have become.”

...
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said that Ocasio-Cortez's statements were evidence that she never took a civics class, asserting the "Electoral College is good for Dems and GOP."

...
Republican National Committee spokesperson Elizabeth Harrington also took Ocasio-Cortez to task for believing that “it’s a ‘scam’ to allow anyone but coastal elites” to determine how elections are decided.

But what makes rural Republicans so specially deserving?

 

[Half-Life]

Thank God we have the electoral college. The Dems only won about 16 states in 2016. Trump won all the rest.

Whoever thinks a democracy means the winner of 16 states should become President is a fool.

 

[lpetrich]

Whoever thinks a democracy means the winner of 16 states should become President is a fool.

So it's one state one vote?

 

[Derec]

Whoever thinks a democracy means the winner of 16 states should become President is a fool.

So it's one state one vote?

Only if there is an Electoral College tie.

 

[Half-Life]

Whoever thinks a democracy means the winner of 16 states should become President is a fool.

So it's one state one vote?

Do you think it's fair to decide an election just because California has more people?

 

[ZiprHead]

Whoever thinks a democracy means the winner of 16 states should become President is a fool.

So it's one state one vote?

Do you think it's fair to decide an election just because California has more people?

Land doesn't vote.

 

[zorq]

Whoever thinks a democracy means the winner of 16 states should become President is a fool.

So it's one state one vote?

Do you think it's fair to decide an election just because California has more people?

I think it it's fair that my vote should be worth just as much as your vote no matter where either of us live. You think the vote of people in Wyoming should be worth 3 times as much as the vote of a California. That opinion is nutz.

Maybe it would be fair if we force people in Wyoming to pay triple the taxes of the people in California. Sounds like a plan right? No taxation without representation and all that?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Whoever thinks a democracy means the winner of 16 states should become President is a fool.

So it's one state one vote?

Do you think it's fair to decide an election just because California has more people?

Do you think it's more fair to decide an election on the basis of where the voters are, not the numbers? If 500 million lived in California, 50 million in the rest of the states, and a candidate wins all states but California, while his opponent gets 300 million votes vs. 30 million, is it more fair if the votes of those 30 million weigh more than the votes of the other 300 million?

What's your take on what's fair, or democratic? Number of states, regardless of population? Some other way?

 

[Half-Life]

Do you think it's fair to decide an election just because California has more people?

Do you think it's more fair to decide an election on the basis of where the voters are, not the numbers? If 500 million lived in California, 50 million in the rest of the states, and a candidate wins all states but California, while his opponent gets 300 million votes vs. 30 million, is it more fair if the votes of those 30 million weigh more than the votes of the other 300 million?

What's your take on what's fair, or democratic? Number of states, regardless of population? Some other way?

In that situation it would be unfair because then California would basically be voting for policy for California. Those policies will not be the greatest in other states.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

This ruling, while not a direct challenge to National Popular Vote, does undercut it rather severely.

Electoral College Members Can Defy Voters’ Wishes, Court Rules

Faithless Colorado elector Michael Baca challenged his removal by the State of Colorado. Although the election is over, he did eventually win his case and states can no longer remove faithless electors.

This does mean that if the popular vote goes one way nation-wide, and goes a different way in one state, the electors of that state can vote for whomever won that state in spite of the compact.

Here's one without a paywall. Faithless elector: A court ruling just changed how we pick our president

 

[bilby]

Thank God we have the electoral college. The Dems only won about 16 states in 2016. Trump won all the rest.

Whoever thinks a democracy means the winner of 16 states should become President is a fool.

Well said, comrade! Collectivisation is the only path to human happiness, and this individualistic nonsense must be crushed by the unassailable strength of the Marxist dialectic.

I knew you didn't really think that individuals had any worth. The collective is the only legitimate political entity! Forward to a bright Socialist future!!

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Do you think it's fair to decide an election just because California has more people?

Do you think it's more fair to decide an election on the basis of where the voters are, not the numbers? If 500 million lived in California, 50 million in the rest of the states, and a candidate wins all states but California, while his opponent gets 300 million votes vs. 30 million, is it more fair if the votes of those 30 million weigh more than the votes of the other 300 million?

What's your take on what's fair, or democratic? Number of states, regardless of population? Some other way?

In that situation it would be unfair because then California would basically be voting for policy for California. Those policies will not be the greatest in other states.

What would be unfair? That the candidate with 300 million votes is elected, or the candidate with 30 million votes?

That aside, California is not a person. Individuals decide whom to vote for, not California.