Ralin wrote: ↑
The Romulan Republic wrote: ↑
So, Electoral College apologists: tell me again why its so essential that tiny majorities in six states should be able to dictate the future of the entire country. Tell me how that's just.
Because the residents of those states are entitled to that degree of representation
This is an assertion, not an argument.
are they entitled to more representation than the people of other states? Why
are citizens of Wisconsin or Ohio or Florida or Colorado worth more than California or New York or Wyoming or Vermont natives? And don't give me that "it protects smaller states" crap- as I just noted, a Wyoming or Vermont voter's ballot is worth just about jack and shit under the current system.
Or is your argument simply "They're entitled to it because its the law"? Because yeah, no shit, its the law, but I can give you a long
list of examples which call into question the notion that something is right simply because it is legal, starting with the Fugitive Slave Act.
and no one has given a convincing reason to change it that doesn't boil down to them liking the popular vote more (which is a very suspect motive, given that this supposedly 'fair' procedural change would disproportionately benefit the Democratic Party).
No one has given a convincing reason for it other than the fact that it would mean our elections actually represented the choice of the voters, rather than being glorified opinion polls? Remember that the Electors don't actually have to vote the way their states voted- they can literally ignore the voters of their states as well as the nation-wide popular vote, and appoint whoever they want. Our President is picked by an un-elected committee.
Hmm, how about the fact that it would actually likely increase voter turnout and confidence in the fairness of our elections by ensuring that every vote counted, not just the votes of people in swing states? Or that it would give candidates incentive to campaign for votes across the whole country, not just in a few key "battleground states"?
As to your insinuation that opponents of the Electoral College just want to make it easier for Democrats to win, I could just as easily turn that around and argue that the Electoral College's proponents are suspect because the Electoral College disproportionately benefits Republicans. I could also ask why, if a majority of American voters want Democratic government, they should be denied that based on the will of slim, overwhelmingly white majorities in a handful of states. Why is it okay to have a system that favors Republicans against the will of the people, but wrong to support a system that favours (for the time being) Democrats in accordance with the will of the people?
Stripping them of that representation without amending the Constitution would violate their rights, and most people have made it clear they don't support that by electing state and Congressional representatives who won't do so.
It is legally debatable whether Electors could be required to vote in accordance with the popular vote, but even if we assume that the courts rule they can't be (which I acknowledge is likely), then that still leaves open the possibility of a Constitutional Amendment, as you so helpfully pointed out.
As to the notion that the current composition of the Congress represents some sort of popular referendum on the Electoral College, its obviously absurd. By that reasoning, the public has made their will clear on literally ever single issue, supports the status quo on every single issue, and it would therefore be wrong to discuss ever changing anything, because they elected the current Congress (leaving aside for the moment that Congressional races are subject to heavy gerrymandering and voter supression in many places).
I'd absolutely welcome an actual referendum on the subject, and, funny thing, I'm going to get it. Colorado recently voted to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (which seeks to effectively nullify the Electoral College by requiring electors to vote in accordance with their state's popular vote, to take effect once states totaling at least half of all electors sign on). But it was challenged, and its going on the 2020 ballot. Which means guess what? I get to be one of the first voters in the country to vote directly on the Electoral College.
It is just that a candidate who wins the support of the majority of the electoral votes wins.
"Its legal because its legal" is a fairly pointless argument, especially when discussing whether it should continue
to be legal.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver
"Trump admirers like @TuckerCarlson describe themselves as "nationalist." But their nationalism attaches not to the multiracial American nation... but to a multinational white race with a capital in Moscow"-David Frum