The wisdom of crowds.

Lets extend this to it's logical extension. We favor democracy because it is the best. All votes should count equal. We all live in the same world so logically everyone in the world should have a vote. Therefore Asia should decide what happens in the world and smaller population countries like the USA should not have any more power or veto.

Probably not a lot of support for that scenario in the US but because liberals think they don't like Trump they are willing to throw out their constitution.

Hmmm?

Quote: kenarman

Lets extend this to it's logical extension. We favor democracy because it is the best. All votes should count equal. We all live in the same world so logically everyone in the world should have a vote. Therefore Asia should decide what happens in the world and smaller population countries like the USA should not have any more power or veto.

But would you be ok with asia voting in the US election, so long as it did so as part of an electoral college?

Let's take your position to its logical extension: if the EC is such a good idea, why is it applied to only one office? Shouldn't we elect every one from dog-catcher, to city hall, to state legislatures, to governors, etc. on an EC-type system? Wouldn't that be "better."

Quote:

Probably not a lot of support for that scenario in the US but because liberals think they don't like Trump they are willing to throw out their constitution.

I'd be careful at such cheap shots, when the Orange Man has urged a repeal of the First Amendment.

Quote: kenarman

Lets extend this to it's logical extension. We favor democracy because it is the best. All votes should count equal. We all live in the same world so logically everyone in the world should have a vote. Therefore Asia should decide what happens in the world and smaller population countries like the USA should not have any more power or veto.

Probably not a lot of support for that scenario in the US but because liberals think they don't like Trump they are willing to throw out their constitution.

Hmmm?

Liberals disliked the constitution brfore Trump. 1st, 2nd, and 10th amendments being their greatest sources of irritation. The EC was so good for them before the election when they thought Trump had a "narrow path" to victory. Then he flipped a few states and they realize they can't just ignore those darn white people in flyover country.

The bias between states to me makes a lot of sense in the House of Reps and Senate... these are creating a body of people to make decisions and discuss ideas. It makes less sense when voting on a single person... the smaller states have a large say in both for historical reasons, and as a conservative (small c) brake, which all societies should have.

But it's the system in place, it's not egregiously terrible. The arguments against it based on big cities are incorrect... if it's a pure numbers game, massing the vote in the rural, fly over states counts just as well. It's possible to do, and mass media (which Trump uses well, of course) allow a direct connection to Smalltown, Arkansas, just as well as Chicago.

Quote: rxwine

Hadn't thought about it in awhile, but I'm pretty sure the electoral college screws the idea of the wisdom of crowds.

That was the intent from the beginning.

the Thirteen Colonies had gained independence, but had trouble running a useful government under the Articles of Confederation. This led to drawing up the Constitution. Even then there was a split between slave states and free states. If representation and the general election ere decided only on the basis of citizens in each state, then the free states would dominate the slaves one at every turn. They'd have way more representatives, and more votes when electing a president.

Ergo two compromises: 1) slaves were counted at 3/5ths of their total number, among other things to apportion Representatives to the House. 2) the Electoral College, with each state having as many votes as the sum of Representatives and Senators.

The whole thing was a compromise to favor the slave states. Seeing as how that hasn0t been an issue for 150+ years, why is the compromise still necessary?

Quote: Nareed

That was the intent from the beginning.

the Thirteen Colonies had gained independence, but had trouble running a useful government under the Articles of Confederation. This led to drawing up the Constitution. Even then there was a split between slave states and free states. If representation and the general election ere decided only on the basis of citizens in each state, then the free states would dominate the slaves one at every turn. They'd have way more representatives, and more votes when electing a president.

Ergo two compromises: 1) slaves were counted at 3/5ths of their total number, among other things to apportion Representatives to the House. 2) the Electoral College, with each state having as many votes as the sum of Representatives and Senators.

The whole thing was a compromise to favor the slave states. Seeing as how that hasn0t been an issue for 150+ years, why is the compromise still necessary?

The system we have works just fine. There is no need to change it.

It was just fine when Hillary had a clear path and Trump's was narrow and difficult...

Quote: RonC

It was just fine when Hillary had a clear path and Trump's was narrow and difficult...

Yup. For months we saw every day on
every network the EC map, with a
talking head showing Trump had no
path to 270, why doesn't he just drop
out already. Fox was especially good at
making Trump look hopeless for getting
to 270. Karl Rove and Krauthammer
were on there almost every day saying
there was no or little hope, it was
Hillary's to lose.

Quote: RonC

The system we have works just fine. There is no need to change it.

It was just fine when Hillary had a clear path and Trump's was narrow and difficult...

Translation: because we won, it can't be broken.

No analysis, makes it just as bad as the Democrats saying it's broke for similar reasons.

Quote: rxwine

Translation: because we won, it can't be broken.
.

I just read a Nate Silver article that says
proposals to get rid of the EC have
happened in congress 700 times in
the last 200 years. And it's still here
and still working. He says it's not going
anywhere, there is nothing better to
replace it.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/most-people-hate-the-electoral-college-but-its-not-going-away-soon/

Quote: rxwine

Translation: because we won, it can't be broken.

No analysis, makes it just as bad as the Democrats saying it's broke for similar reasons.

It isn't broken. It functions as intended. The States were intended to be more like their own little countries; if you give a few of those little countries total control over the others (as electing the President by popular vote would do), the individuality of the states would be taken away. It isn't supposed to be a Democracy...who has ever taken the Pledge of Allegiance and said...

"To the Democracy, for which it stands..."