Posted on Nov 27, 2016
Poll: most people who voted in 2016 want to abolish the Electoral College
11.6K
681
224
11
9
2
The electoral college is an outdated system, based on slavery. Back when the constitution was first written, the southern states had massive enslaved populations that were not allowed to vote. Therefore, the voting population of landowning white men was far greater in the North than in the South. The southern states feared that they would be outvoted, and that slavery would be abolished, so they fought hard for an electoral college system, where states, not the citizens, voted for the president. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/electoral-college-slavery-constitution/
Today, in 2016, the electoral college is anti-democratic, and a travesty. An average vote in Wyoming counts 3.6 times as much as a vote in California. Why shouldn't all votes across the country be equal?
I know what some people will scream and shout: "oh, we are not a democracy, we are a republic. The founding fathers said so!" Well guess what? The founding fathers owned slaves, believed in genocide for the Native Americans, and thought that women were too stupid to vote. Why should we let the ideas of old rich white men 300 years ago hold us back?
And in case you say that the small states need to be protected from "the tyranny" of the majority of voters who live in New York or California, remember this. The voters in California and New York are far more educated than the average voter in Mississippi or Idaho. This is shown by the fact that the counties that Hillary Clinton won combine to make 64 percent of this country's economic activity and growth. The average red state depends on federal funding to survive, while the average blue state gives back more money to the country than they receive. http://www.businessinsider.com/red-states-are-welfare-queens-2011-8 . Why should the urban progressive majority of the country, who end up subsidizing and supporting the right wing minority, be systematically disenfranchised by our electoral system?
Hillary Clinton won the electoral vote by over 2 million. I myself didn't vote for Clinton, because I disagree with the system of capitalism as a whole, and feel that most democrats are too timid and afraid to fight for the necessary change in this country. However, even if I did vote, my vote wouldn't have mattered anyway, since I live in a non-swing state. If this election were decided by popular vote, I sure as hell would have be on the line at my nearest polling station. Why does the US claim to be so "free" and "liberty" when it systematically disenfranchises the majority of is population?
Today, in 2016, the electoral college is anti-democratic, and a travesty. An average vote in Wyoming counts 3.6 times as much as a vote in California. Why shouldn't all votes across the country be equal?
I know what some people will scream and shout: "oh, we are not a democracy, we are a republic. The founding fathers said so!" Well guess what? The founding fathers owned slaves, believed in genocide for the Native Americans, and thought that women were too stupid to vote. Why should we let the ideas of old rich white men 300 years ago hold us back?
And in case you say that the small states need to be protected from "the tyranny" of the majority of voters who live in New York or California, remember this. The voters in California and New York are far more educated than the average voter in Mississippi or Idaho. This is shown by the fact that the counties that Hillary Clinton won combine to make 64 percent of this country's economic activity and growth. The average red state depends on federal funding to survive, while the average blue state gives back more money to the country than they receive. http://www.businessinsider.com/red-states-are-welfare-queens-2011-8 . Why should the urban progressive majority of the country, who end up subsidizing and supporting the right wing minority, be systematically disenfranchised by our electoral system?
Hillary Clinton won the electoral vote by over 2 million. I myself didn't vote for Clinton, because I disagree with the system of capitalism as a whole, and feel that most democrats are too timid and afraid to fight for the necessary change in this country. However, even if I did vote, my vote wouldn't have mattered anyway, since I live in a non-swing state. If this election were decided by popular vote, I sure as hell would have be on the line at my nearest polling station. Why does the US claim to be so "free" and "liberty" when it systematically disenfranchises the majority of is population?
Poll: most people who voted in 2016 want to abolish the Electoral College
Posted from vox.comPosted in these groups: 
Election 2016
Voting
Election 2016 Voting
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 54
26
26
0
I voted- I don't want to change it. You should probably understand it before you repost. It was created so everyone had a voice and not one section of the country- which you should review other countries with out of control immigration poilicies before you reply.
(26)
(0)
COL Mikel J. Burroughs
Maj Marty Hogan There will always be winners and losers in an election and some will take it for what it is and others will grasp at straws to change our system. The Electoral College has a prupose and there are constant adjustments and redistricting that goes with that system to take in account changes in the various states. I think the way people are acting this election is ridiculous and most of them don;t even understand what they are protesting. I've asked a few and they couldn't even tel me what the Electoral college was about, its history, or anything. I find the politicians aren't listening to the majority of the people this election. They sent a mesage to our Government that change is needed - let's give democracy a chance people! The proponents of getting rid of the Electoral college need to grow up and get over the loss!
Maybe this is how they would like their election day to look like (Iraq December 2005) while I was deployed
Following the ratification of the Constitution of Iraq on 15 October 2005, a general election was held on 15 December to elect a permanent 275-member Iraqi Council of Representatives.
The elections took place under a list system, whereby voters chose from a list of parties and coalitions. 230 seats were apportioned among Iraq's 18 governorates based on the number of registered voters in each as of the January 2005 elections, including 59 seats for Baghdad Governorate. The seats within each governorate were allocated to lists through a system of Proportional Representation. An additional 45 "compensatory" seats were allocated to those parties whose percentage of the national vote total (including out of country votes) exceeds the percentage of the 275 total seats that they have been allocated. Women were required to occupy 25% of the 275 seats.
The change in the voting system would give more weight to Arab Sunni voters, who make up most of the voters in several provinces.[citation needed] It was expected that these provinces would thus return mostly Sunni Arab representatives, after most Sunnis boycotted the last election.
Turnout was high (79.6%). The White House was encouraged by the relatively low levels of violence during polling, with one insurgent group making good on a promised election day moratorium on attacks, even going so far as to guard the voters from attack. President Bush frequently pointed to the election as a sign of progress in rebuilding Iraq. However, post-election violence threatened to plunge the nation into civil war, before the situation began to calm in 2007. The election results themselves produced a shaky coalition government headed by Nouri al-Maliki.
Maybe this is how they would like their election day to look like (Iraq December 2005) while I was deployed
Following the ratification of the Constitution of Iraq on 15 October 2005, a general election was held on 15 December to elect a permanent 275-member Iraqi Council of Representatives.
The elections took place under a list system, whereby voters chose from a list of parties and coalitions. 230 seats were apportioned among Iraq's 18 governorates based on the number of registered voters in each as of the January 2005 elections, including 59 seats for Baghdad Governorate. The seats within each governorate were allocated to lists through a system of Proportional Representation. An additional 45 "compensatory" seats were allocated to those parties whose percentage of the national vote total (including out of country votes) exceeds the percentage of the 275 total seats that they have been allocated. Women were required to occupy 25% of the 275 seats.
The change in the voting system would give more weight to Arab Sunni voters, who make up most of the voters in several provinces.[citation needed] It was expected that these provinces would thus return mostly Sunni Arab representatives, after most Sunnis boycotted the last election.
Turnout was high (79.6%). The White House was encouraged by the relatively low levels of violence during polling, with one insurgent group making good on a promised election day moratorium on attacks, even going so far as to guard the voters from attack. President Bush frequently pointed to the election as a sign of progress in rebuilding Iraq. However, post-election violence threatened to plunge the nation into civil war, before the situation began to calm in 2007. The election results themselves produced a shaky coalition government headed by Nouri al-Maliki.
(5)
(0)
Maj Marty Hogan
PO1 Chris V. - Agreed. What bothers me the most is he is in position to be a leader one day
(1)
(0)
1stSgt Eugene Harless
Spot on, while on the outside the popular vote seems to be a common sense approach, the Electoral College garauntees people in less populated states and rural areas a voice in Federal decisions.
To put it plain City and Country folks have a different lifestyle and seek different regulations and limits on government. A prime example is gun laws. Its perfectly normal for a 16 year old in Iowa to drive around with a shotgun rack with three firearms in it to school during hunting season. Someone in a large city would be extremely uncomortable with that.
To put it plain City and Country folks have a different lifestyle and seek different regulations and limits on government. A prime example is gun laws. Its perfectly normal for a 16 year old in Iowa to drive around with a shotgun rack with three firearms in it to school during hunting season. Someone in a large city would be extremely uncomortable with that.
(1)
(0)
Suspended Profile
I know lots of people who voted this year; none of them want to abolish the EC and none of them think it's out dated. To the contrary, everyone I knows thinks the EC is an integral part of the American Experiment. I believe you are cherry picking or straight up looking at revisionist history to claim the EC is based on slavery.
Cadet PFC (Join to see)
MAJ (Verify To See) - And now those same European countries, with socialized health care for all, less gun violence in the entire eu combined than here in the usa, functioning democracies, and longer life expectancy rates laugh at us for being so stubbornly stuck in the past, following the words of rich old slaveholders 300 years ago.
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
Cadet PFC (Join to see) - you make no sense. I hope you take the opportunity of being on a social media site of veterans and elders to see a different point of view. Otherwise your time here is wasted and that would be a shame.
SPC Darren Koele
Cadet, after reading through all these threads, I begin to question the reason for your post. Is it truly for an honest discussion or is part of a larger scheme to push an agenda. What I am referring to is your initial post about the electoral college, then throughout the threads, you managed to bring up have the "progressive" talking points such as socialized health care, gun control, and of course, the reference to southern and rural states being "uneducated". Can you be honest with us and tell us your motive? I didn't want to make this a left vs right thing, but it seems that's where you brought it in a not so subtle way.
Now here's my bit. I used to want to get rid of the electoral college. You see, I was slow to mature and all through high school and even my early Army days, politics was the furthest thing from my mind. It also meant that, while Civics was offered in my high school, it was an elective and I did not choose it. I WAS uneducated. Then I educated myself as I matured. The more I educated myself, the more I saw the need for the electoral college. To put it succinctly, the electoral college is a way to create a balance of power (among other things). It is a way to recognize the power of the state as well as of the federal government. A popular vote throws all that power to the federal and that's where tyranny begins. True democracies have been tried, and they have all failed.
You complain that a farmer in Nebraska has more power than 10 in a New York apartment. We're not talking of 1's and 10's, we're talking hundreds of thousands and millions. If we went to a popular vote, all of those middle states; will be mere slaves to the coastal states. In fact, the middle states need not even bother voting because the coasts will decide what's best for everyone.
This crap about the electoral college being about race and slavery is a crock of s***. Then again, so is your source. Don't ask me where to go for reliable sources these days because there are so few that can be trusted anymore... and PBS is in that untrustworthy category. I wish they'd just stick to Bob Ross marathons. "We'll just paint a happy little electoral college over here. Buh Bye."
Now here's my bit. I used to want to get rid of the electoral college. You see, I was slow to mature and all through high school and even my early Army days, politics was the furthest thing from my mind. It also meant that, while Civics was offered in my high school, it was an elective and I did not choose it. I WAS uneducated. Then I educated myself as I matured. The more I educated myself, the more I saw the need for the electoral college. To put it succinctly, the electoral college is a way to create a balance of power (among other things). It is a way to recognize the power of the state as well as of the federal government. A popular vote throws all that power to the federal and that's where tyranny begins. True democracies have been tried, and they have all failed.
You complain that a farmer in Nebraska has more power than 10 in a New York apartment. We're not talking of 1's and 10's, we're talking hundreds of thousands and millions. If we went to a popular vote, all of those middle states; will be mere slaves to the coastal states. In fact, the middle states need not even bother voting because the coasts will decide what's best for everyone.
This crap about the electoral college being about race and slavery is a crock of s***. Then again, so is your source. Don't ask me where to go for reliable sources these days because there are so few that can be trusted anymore... and PBS is in that untrustworthy category. I wish they'd just stick to Bob Ross marathons. "We'll just paint a happy little electoral college over here. Buh Bye."
(2)
(0)
Suspended Profile
SPC Darren Koele - I'd be happy if he stuck with a point and kept on it. Most of us are men/women who have been around the world and seen a few things. I can handle a discussion, I enjoy conversation. I don't need or care to have a lecture about how wrong someone thinks I am without even being able to stick to a point and follow it through. There are several people on RP who lecture in the guise of "enlightening" and it simply doesn't work. Speaking for myself, I am unimpressed.
Back to the cadet, if he were to become a LT in my care he would have to learn humility and better communication skills.
We listen to learn - not for our next opportunity to speak.
Back to the cadet, if he were to become a LT in my care he would have to learn humility and better communication skills.
We listen to learn - not for our next opportunity to speak.
20
20
0
The electoral college was designed to protect the Republic from the "tyranny of the majority" and was fundamental to getting all of the colonies to agree to join. Had absolutely nothing to do with slavery. The small states like Rhode Island, Vermont, Delaware and New Hampshire (none of them being slave states) all expressed reservations at the constitutional convention about their needs being overwhelmed by the desires of large population states like New York, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania.
See also Alexis de Tocqueville "On Democracy in America" for insight on the American Republic from a French visitor in 1831 and his warning about why democracies fail.
Socialists (call themselves progressives now to confuse people) have been steadily eroding the core strength of the American Republic by eroding local and state power and pushing for a popular vote on everything at the national level. Example, U.S. Senators were originally appointed by the elected State governors because they were supposed represent their State not the people in the State. The People were represented by their elected official in the House of representatives. Progressives push through an amendment to elect Senators by popular vote which defeated a key protection from tyranny built into Constitution.
Pushing everything towards massive popular vote elections at the national level is a tactic of Progressives and now Globalists to actually diminish the will of the people. Pure democracy always leads to mob rule perfect for a Socialist tyrant like a Lenin or Castro to leverage for their own benefit.
See also Alexis de Tocqueville "On Democracy in America" for insight on the American Republic from a French visitor in 1831 and his warning about why democracies fail.
Socialists (call themselves progressives now to confuse people) have been steadily eroding the core strength of the American Republic by eroding local and state power and pushing for a popular vote on everything at the national level. Example, U.S. Senators were originally appointed by the elected State governors because they were supposed represent their State not the people in the State. The People were represented by their elected official in the House of representatives. Progressives push through an amendment to elect Senators by popular vote which defeated a key protection from tyranny built into Constitution.
Pushing everything towards massive popular vote elections at the national level is a tactic of Progressives and now Globalists to actually diminish the will of the people. Pure democracy always leads to mob rule perfect for a Socialist tyrant like a Lenin or Castro to leverage for their own benefit.
(20)
(0)
PO3 (Join to see)
TSgt Frank Shirley - Not mob rule, that's it. The Founders saw crazy people and crazy ideas and built a great system.
Oh and Congrats SN Greg Wright hats off to you.
Oh and Congrats SN Greg Wright hats off to you.
(2)
(0)
Suspended Profile
PO3 (Join to see) - If you want a complete democracy, then we need to do away with state governments and the systems that run and support each state.
Suspended Profile
equating the ability (privilege) to vote with education or thinking is exactly what the EC prevents and EXACTLY what the cadet and a few others pretend the EC was founded for. That is the ability to decide who votes and create rules to keep people from voting. In short, the cadet is proposing a system that he says he despises; I guess it's OK though since he believes it will benefit him. I'm not sure what they teach in college anymore but it's certainly not critical thinking.
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google