Imagine the united states without electoral.college

[Carvher]

This is arrant nonsense.
There is nothing the electoral college does to keep the country together.

How would California have too much sway if it was a straight national vote?
You do know more people voted Republican in California than in Texas, right?

If you can't figure out why California would have too much sway then I'm not going to waste my time explaining it.

 

[Butler1000]

If you can't figure out why California would have too much sway then I'm not going to waste my time explaining it.

In a straight vote they represent 10% of the population. So sure they would be a stop. But they are a lot more diverse in voting patterns than you think. There are many GOP districts there. Its just tgat there are more Dem ones.

 

[Valcazar]

As someone mentioned earlier in this thread, the electoral college helps make flyover states relevant.

It doesn't.
If that's your defense, it is an abject failure.
It makes swing states relevant, not flyover ones.

Also, if the presidency was decided with a straight up direct vote, then the Dems would have won the last 8 elections (if I'm remembering correctly). The last GOP president to win the popular vote with Bush Sr.. I'm not including Bush Jr. second term because it was still so close to 9/11 and the country was in the midst of two wars. That might be unfair, but I remember how he was going before the attack. It would have been hard for him to rebound and get re-elected without the attack and following wars.

The argument "If we had a democratic vote, we would lose and it would be unfair to us if we had to try and adopt more popular positions" is not a convincing argument in favor of the electoral college.

If you can't figure out why California would have too much sway then I'm not going to waste my time explaining it.

Does "California" dictate that Republicans living there can't vote Republican?
Because if it doesn't, California won't have any more sway than anybody else in a straight national vote.

 

[Valcazar]

Thats just about the most wishy-washy non statement I've seen from you. Fuck I clearly stated some sort of attack would have occurred.

But what the hell remote evidence is there that the FBI would have done anything different? Seriously who the hell in Western Civilization would have remotely thought 19 human beings would kill themselves by flying planes into the WTC, Pentagon, and presumably the WH? It was the same people out on the field. They would have made the same mistakes. Thats the point.

And those are real facts.

You think the same people are making the same decisions regardless of who wins elections.
This is nonsensical on its face.

"It would have happened anyway" is either a real statement that the towers go down or it is a non-statement that "some sort of attack would have been tried".

You meant the first, don't try and slink away to the second now.
Especially because the second requires by its very nature that the response and aftermath would be different and that isn't what you are arguing.

There were multiple warnings that got ignored. Might the same mistakes have happened? Possibly. Possibly not.

From what we know of the attacks, there were multiple points it could have been disrupted had leadership reacted differently and had different priorities.
So we just don't know and pretending Al Queda was guaranteed to take the towers down and all that entailed is silly.

 

[silentkisser]

It doesn't.
If that's your defense, it is an abject failure.
It makes swing states relevant, not flyover ones.



The argument "If we had a democratic vote, we would lose and it would be unfair to us if we had to try and adopt more popular positions" is not a convincing argument in favor of the electoral college.



Does "California" dictate that Republicans living there can't vote Republican?
Because if it doesn't, California won't have any more sway than anybody else in a straight national vote.

I think you may have misread my intentions. I'm totally for abolishing the electoral college. As for the part about Bush Jr. winning in 2004, that is technically the last time a GOP candidate won the popular vote. But, I discounted it because he got re-elected mostly because people didn't want to switch the presidency during a war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[Butler1000]

You think the same people are making the same decisions regardless of who wins elections.
This is nonsensical on its face.

"It would have happened anyway" is either a real statement that the towers go down or it is a non-statement that "some sort of attack would have been tried".

You meant the first, don't try and slink away to the second now.
Especially because the second requires by its very nature that the response and aftermath would be different and that isn't what you are arguing.

There were multiple warnings that got ignored. Might the same mistakes have happened? Possibly. Possibly not.

From what we know of the attacks, there were multiple points it could have been disrupted had leadership reacted differently and had different priorities.
So we just don't know and pretending Al Queda was guaranteed to take the towers down and all that entailed is silly.

Yes, I think FBI agents on the ground ignore someone reporting people looking to learn to fly a plane. Because thats what happened and there is no readon to think Al Gore in office changes that. Any difference would have occured at the Macro level and with the CIA. There was no co operation at that point. And the FBI was all about right wing types at that point as well. Ruby Ridge/Waco types.

And the target was always going to be the towers. It was symbolic. As well as the Pentagon and WH. So yes unless ypu can come up with specufic proof that Al Gore would have directed the FBI to abandon existing domestic terrorism priorities to target Muslim Students on Visas then I can state with confidence it happens.

Because no one was looking for anything like it.

 

[Carvher]

It doesn't.
If that's your defense, it is an abject failure.
It makes swing states relevant, not flyover ones.



The argument "If we had a democratic vote, we would lose and it would be unfair to us if we had to try and adopt more popular positions" is not a convincing argument in favor of the electoral college.



Does "California" dictate that Republicans living there can't vote Republican?
Because if it doesn't, California won't have any more sway than anybody else in a straight national vote.

Let me explain, Biden got 5.1 million more votes than Trump in California.

40 states didn't have that many people vote.

14 states had less than 1 million voters.

Now I could go on and explain this further for you but if you are smart you can connect the dots and realize that California would have more sway in a popular vote than it does with electoral vote.