Agnostic.com

8 0

Should we rid ourselves of the Electoral College?

The 2000 election brought bad tastes when Al Gore lost to GW Bush by electoral votes though he had more of the popular vote. The same happened with Clinton in 2016. The college was devised because of the lack of education the high level of illiteracy of the general populous in 1776. But that has changed in the last 240 years. Because of the abundance of information available to the general public, should the President of the United States be elected on popular vote only?

SageDave 7 Nov 21
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

8 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

Stating that the EC is archaic is an understatement. Protecting voters rights, non-partisan efforts to prevent Gerrymadering, a return to paper ballots & automatic voter registration would make our democratic process better able to counter foreign meddling. There is no doubt that taking these steps BEFORE an election would have prevented the mango maggot from being declared!

ParkS Level 4 Nov 28, 2017
0

Electoral college kind of making a shield to the U.S. system against the the huge prapaganda effects to the people that live in the large cities in the expense of the votes of those who live the semi urban or rural area

0

kiramea 40% replied:1
I am curious to why you said no.

There is no reply button to your reply.
My answer No is there to challenge my bias.
If I say yes it wouldn't be an honest answer. It would be largely due to my selfish biased desire for a different outcome.
Anyone that did not complain about the elections when their choice won is exempt from an opinion. Funny how that works huh! The electoral college is just fine when your candidate wins but corrupt when they don't.
One needs to examine their gag reflex when in opposition to something they are annoyed at.
Are you justified in your dissent?
Are you simply accepting false and misleading information out of confirmation bias?
Would you rather believe a lie rather than the truth when it doesn't support your narrative?
These questions are the reason I say no.
It, no matter how frustrating the outcome has to be upheld out of a sense of fairness. When overly saturated cities are able to change the outcome of an election you still have to include those that share a different opinion.
A simple example is one of selfish desire such as Chicago, LA, NY, Portland. Have the desired outcome to support entitlements whereas smaller rural farmers are stifled. People in cities do not consider anything past their own desires. The electoral process works.

0

I am curious to why you said no.

0

Yes the time has come to get rid of it

0

I think they will just find another way to cheat....

0

our entire political, legal and financial system must be dismantled and rebuilt if any real progress is to be made.

The united states is no longer manageable as a single entity; we work too far from home and we are governed too far from home; we have no right to be sovereign on our land which is all owned by people who have no business owning it, forcing us all to live disposable lifestyles. They pollute everything with unnecessary business and tell us we can't get off the grid.

The first world is a mess, and right now most people are only talking about fixing the mafia by joining its ranks, look what happened to bernie sanders.

0

I think the Nebraska/Maine solution would be a better sell and be more representative than the current system.

Unicorn - Please expand on your comment...

Thank you MsOliver

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:4537
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.