The real problem with the Electoral College.

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,171
US
62.50% is the cutoff point at which the electors are going to be split 3-1 if there are four electors in total. Below 62.50%, the electors are going to be split 2-2 if there are four electors in total.
Sounds like a formula destined for the SCOTUS at some point. Once you change from the current process and subsequently establish some formula like this, no matter how logical (or, given the mind of politicians because it is so logical), when it doesn't work for the losing side there will be a call to change it to their benefit. Stability and predictability is the best foundation for a successful governance. Every presidential candidate knows the formula to win and should campaign accordingly. It is not like the process is a surprise which is exactly what it will be once you change it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,519
Caribbean
Sounds like a formula destined for the SCOTUS at some point. Once you change from the current process and subsequently establish some formula like this, no matter how logical (or, given the mind of politicians because it is so logical), when it doesn't work for the losing side there will be a call to change it to their benefit. Stability and predictability is the best foundation for a successful governance. Every presidential candidate knows the formula to win and should campaign accordingly. It is not like the process is a surprise which is exactly what it will be once you change it.
There is SOME truth in that. At the same time I perceive that there tends to be a radical and conservative faction. And both of these factions do not react equally to losing fair and square by the rules - since opposition to or support of the current rules tends to be what define radical and conservative in the first place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rodger

Willempie

Ad Honorem
Jul 2015
5,724
Netherlands
There is SOME truth in that. At the same time I perceive that there tends to be a radical and conservative faction. And both of these factions do not react equally to losing fair and square by the rules - since opposition to or support of the current rules tends to be what define radical and conservative in the first place.
Not really. They are equally easy to be found on the opposing side when the subject is different, like when the discussion is inside the state.
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
35,941
T'Republic of Yorkshire
No politician will vote to dismantle the system that chose them.

Turkeys don't vote for Christmas, as they say.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,519
Caribbean
Not really. They are equally easy to be found on the opposing side when the subject is different, like when the discussion is inside the state.
I have a ton of data that says otherwise, but it's all on the wrong side of 1991.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
23,783
SoCal
No politician will vote to dismantle the system that chose them.

Turkeys don't vote for Christmas, as they say.
Once Turkeys are replaced by Tofurkeys, though, this could significantly change! :D



Tofukey--a Turkey that even a Turkey can eat without being a cannibal! :)
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,983
San Antonio, Tx
The only thing that makes any sense at all to me is simply, “One man/woman, one vote”. All the rest is obfuscation and deception. If I could, I would get rid of the Electoral College tomorrow morning. Anything that devalues my or anyone else’s vote is simply fraud.
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,983
San Antonio, Tx
Maybe the EC once made sense, but it doesn’t today. Anything that reduces the value of a single vote anywhere should be the subject of criminal proceedings. This is the South’s game and frankly, that dog ain’t gonna hunt no more.