How should we elect presidents?

[Engineering Owl]

It should also be mentioned Puerto Rico has ZERO political representation. But once, guess who it benefits!

[CF DolFan]

I don't take you at your word.  If you weren't a conservative and this wasn't a political advantage, you wouldn't support it.  Anyone who believes this votes Republican because they are hostile towards Democracy and would rather just win and get what they want.

I'm so confused. So the founding fathers were against Democracy? LOL. I mean they established it for the very same reasons I am for keeping it. The Founding Fathers established the Electoral College in the Constitution as a compromise between the election of the president by a vote in Congress (States) and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens. 

This whole "times have changed" so let's drop it is just silly. The only thing that has changed is the percent of liberals being allowed to vote in national elections.

[Fau Teixeira]

So the founding fathers were against Democracy?

yes, they were against democracy for slaves, women and anyone that didn't own land.

in fact, in the first election for president, new york, north carolina and rhode island had no electors for a few different reasons.

So lets take a look at what actually happened and not at some yankee doodle fictional version of what american democracy is, when in actuality it's a giant mess of some good ideas and some bad ideas. We've fixed some of it, like giving women the vote, and not enslaving people. Lets not act like fixing an outdated concept like the electoral collage is some crazy liberal idea.

Please also stop tossing in "immigration" and "open borders" as strawman arguments. It doesn't matter if california had  10 million non-citizens, not a single one gets a vote for anything. and has absolutely nothing to do with elections.

Also, you keep bringing up "states" and "cities", again .. states and cities aren't "people" and mean jack shit.

One person, one vote. No exceptions.

[CF DolFan]

yes, they were against democracy for slaves, women and anyone that didn't own land.

in fact, in the first election for president, new york, north carolina and rhode island had no electors for a few different reasons.

So lets take a look at what actually happened and not at some yankee doodle fictional version of what american democracy is, when in actuality it's a giant mess of some good ideas and some bad ideas. We've fixed some of it, like giving women the vote, and not enslaving people. Lets not act like fixing an outdated concept like the electoral collage is some crazy liberal idea.

Life must be pretty miserable that pretty much everyone prior to us lived horrible lives by your standards. Hell, the standards just 5 years ago would trigger people who think they are above the capabilities of their ancestors. It's a shame you weren't around in 1776 to set them straight.  

Honest question ... what race exactly hasn't had slaves? I mean slavery still exists and it isn't middle aged white men in America who have them. Plenty of people for you to let them know they are wrong and it isn't the US of A where you are "protected" to have an opinion because of those racist bastards we call Founding Fathers.  

[AQNOR]

This is poorly phrased.  We have to collectively agree how we all should live.
So, right now, Wyoming's votes count 80X the amount of Californians.  The state with more people should have more pull.  It's pretty obvious.

California does have more pull.   It gives the winner 54 electoral votes to Wyoming's 3.   If this country went straight up popular vote, most voters in Wyoming wouldn't even show up because they can't compete with those cities CF Dolfan mentioned.

[Spider-Dan]

If you go to a straight up popular vote, you're putting the election in the hands of the big urban cities.

Another way to frame that position is "You're putting the election in the hands of the areas that have the most people," which is bad for parties who hold unpopular policy positions.

[Spider-Dan]

If you went by the popular vote New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix and Philadelphia would decide the election and no one from states like Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, North Dakota, and South Dakota would have reason to vote nor would they have anyone who ever represented their interests. I feel each state should have only one vote regardless of population as no state is more important than another IMO.

Y'all only feel this way because the policies you support are deeply unpopular, which makes a more democratic system worse for you.  The interests of undemocratic authoritarians are best represented by a monarchy/dictatorship in which your guy wields absolute power and crushes the opposition with the full force of the state, but a close second would be the oligarchy you describe, where political power is apportioned not by population, but rather by arbitrary political lines drawn decades or centuries ago.

I'm forced to wonder why you think we should even bother with elections in the first place.

[Dave Gray]

CF, you argued against the electoral college on this very website 10 years ago, saying that it wasn't fair.  What changed?

[Fau Teixeira]

Life must be pretty miserable that pretty much everyone prior to us lived horrible lives by your standards. Hell, the standards just 5 years ago would trigger people who think they are above the capabilities of their ancestors. It's a shame you weren't around in 1776 to set them straight.

Yes, you're getting it. We live in unquestionably the best time to be alive as human beings. Never have we as a race been so fortunate to exist. 5 years ago we were worse off. 20 years ago we were worse still. There is no such thing as the "good old days", we are at the peak of humanity until we exceed it tomorrow and in the future.

Honest question ... what race exactly hasn't had slaves?

It doesn't matter, that's a completely irrelevant question. You may be stuck in a "whatabout" mind-frame, but it really doesn't matter. People 200+ years ago had bad ideas. We've recognized those ideas were bad and we changed them. Slavery was a bad idea. And it was undemocratic. You asked about democracy of the founders. They overall did fine for the time. They were coming from a monarchical system, and took steps to change. By no means is the system perfect. It was and still is full of bad ideas. The electoral college is a bad idea whose time has come and gone, and we should change it. And yes, the founding fathers were racist bastards. Many kept human beings as property. They weren't saints roaming the earth on bare feet with halos shining above their heads.

[masterfins]

Not that it even matters, but the electoral college is also harmful for both conservatives and democrats and serves to further divide the states and parties.  A conservative in California is useless and has no voice.  A liberal in Utah might as well not exist.  There is probably room for both of those states to be better and have more outreach from their national political party, but it's not happening, because there's no need.

The entire presidency is focused on the needs of like...6 States.  It's dumb; even if it had good intentions at one point, it no longer applies.

Part of the problem is that states choose to give all of their electoral college votes to the candidate that wins the popular vote in their state (there are two states that apportion the electoral votes between candidates based on the popular vote).  States choose how to hand out the electoral college votes.  Maybe it would make a difference if all states allocated them based on the popular vote in their state, but I doubt it.  Just like the NCAA March Madness or the new NCAA Football playoffs, there will always be someone complaining that it's not fair.

[CF DolFan]

CF, you argued against the electoral college on this very website 10 years ago, saying that it wasn't fair.  What changed?

Really? I find that hard to believe but I guess it's possible. Honestly I don't know why I would have felt that way.