Should the Electoral College be thrown in the bushes?

[BigMoneyGrip]

outside of NYC, NYS is the same shyt as the Midwest, have you ever been upstate New York? it's rural and country as fukk.

in reality, they are in the same boat.

Dude you must think you talkin to some clown of course I been upstate, I'm consistently up there and it's a lot of big business in regards to manufacturing but let's be clear NYS got 3 major cities

What I'm originally addressing is the states with no major cities like north and South Dakota, Montana etc those states irrelevant and shouldn't fukkin matter

 

[Maschine_Man]

Dude you must think you talkin to some clown of course I been upstate, I'm consistently up there and it's a lot of big business in regards to manufacturing but let's be clear NYS got 3 major cities

What I'm originally addressing is the states with no major cities like north and South Dakota, Montana etc those states irrelevant and shouldn't fukkin matter

It's not just about those states, I'm really talking about places like Tennessee, Minnesota, Indiana, Missouri, even places like Louisiana, Georgia, Michigan, Ohio, Western PA, all have large impact in agriculture, manufacturing, and energy.

Regardless, you are completely missing my point, I don't think the electoral college is great, but it's better than just a straight popular vote. there needs to be better control and management of the EC though, to ensure that it doesn't get used and abused(like it has been)

 

[Orbital-Fetus]

I live in the Midwest; I'd rather not have the coast cities determine who gets to be president every election.

if that's how you feel then you have to realize that republican will continue to win the presidency without the popular vote.
electoral college & repubs winning without popular vote democrats winning because more people want them.

 

[BigMoneyGrip]

It's not just about those states, I'm really talking about places like Tennessee, Minnesota, Indiana, Missouri, even places like Louisiana, Georgia, Michigan, Ohio, Western PA, all have large impact in agriculture, manufacturing, and energy.

Regardless, you are completely missing my point, I don't think the electoral college is great, but it's better than just a straight popular vote. there needs to be better control and management of the EC though, to ensure that it doesn't get used and abused(like it has been)

I'm not missing your point.. you want to have a clear picture post the GDP state by state for 2016/2017

 

[BigMoneyGrip]

It's not just about those states, I'm really talking about places like Tennessee, Minnesota, Indiana, Missouri, even places like Louisiana, Georgia, Michigan, Ohio, Western PA, all have large impact in agriculture, manufacturing, and energy.

Regardless, you are completely missing my point, I don't think the electoral college is great, but it's better than just a straight popular vote. there needs to be better control and management of the EC though, to ensure that it doesn't get used and abused(like it has been)

I'm not missing your point.. you want to have a clear picture post the GDP state by state for 2016/2017

 

[Futuristic Eskimo]

Any argument about how the electoral college should exist because it gives smaller states a voice is countered by the fact that New York and California have the same amount of Senators as Montana and North Dakota. We are electing a single person for a job where he/she should be representing every single American equally. All the current system does is encourage candidates to pander to special interests groups and disproportionately frame messaging to hit certain key states.

You'd see much broader public engagement in elections if people weren't resigned to that fact that their vote, in certain states, was irrelevant to the outcome of the presidential election and I think that would drive broader interest in political participation at the local level as well.

As far as I'm concerned, as most things go in this country's current political environment, people adopt positions based on what side they are on instead of thinking about what really makes sense going forward.

 

[Ill Lou Malnati]

Yes, but it never will be. Electoral college is not democracy.

 

[ghostwriterx]

wait, you think everything that happens outside of cities is manufacturing jobs? (not to mention the fact that there are still millions of manufacturing jobs in the US). what about food/agriculture? energy? etc.

No, that's not what I think. For one thing you keep harping on "manufacturing jobs" when the biggest industry in this country is service. Secondly your focus on small/rural areas seems to exclude large states.

California produces most of this country's fruits and vegetables, curious why you seem fine with the citizens in those upstanding communities not having a "voice"?

 

[wickedsm]

Gerrymandering is the bigger problem. It's interfering with the electoral college's function.

The electoral college is still necessary; NYC, Chicago, Houston/Dallas and SoCal would decide every election without it.

While I wouldn't want my Houston vote to "mean more" than some other person's vote elsewhere it's certainly bullshyt that the votes of 702, 000 greater Houston blue votes were worth nothing, while 217,000 North Dakota votes won 3 electoral votes.

 

[Maschine_Man]

No, that's not what I think. For one thing you keep harping on "manufacturing jobs" when the biggest industry in this country is service. Secondly your focus on small/rural areas seems to exclude large states.

California produces most of this country's fruits and vegetables, curious why you seem fine with the citizens in those upstanding communities not having a "voice"?

 

[Shogun]

Im starting to agree it should be bushed. It could force Republicans out of their comfort zone, and maybe help in erasing some of their archaic positions that are safeguarded by the electoral system.

At the very least it would shake things up, and any system that's results in goddamn Trump needs to be shaken up.

 

[ghostwriterx]

What voice do voters in states that are decidedly red/blue have right now?