Liberal Forum

Many argue that we should ban the electoral college and simply use the popular vote. Most countries do that. Some argue that the electoral college is needed to prevent tyranny of the majority in underrepresented areas. Both sides have presented valid arguments. There have been several times in history where presidents lost the popular votes but won the electoral. That is not an enigma. 

One of those times, that should stick out in history, was Abraham Lincoln. 

He only won 40% of the popular vote. Not surprisingly, he didn't win one single Southern state. The Democrats had 3 candidates, which was stupid of them because it divided up their electoral votes in 3 different ways. However, it would not have mattered. Lincoln still won the electoral even if you combined the 3 candidates. Lincoln - 180 and the democrats combined was 123. 

Only receiving 40% of the popular vote is a pretty bad loss. Not even close. Yet, the trajectory of the country then, and the nation today, would be so much different. I often wonder how the Western expansion would have worked out had Lincoln lost. It wouldn't be the United States of America like we know it today. 

Well?
 

Vegas » 06 Aug 2025, 10:23 am » wrote: ↑

06 Aug 2025, 10:23 am

Well?

There isn't anything wrong with it.
Get rid of people that have no ethical or moral values.
Lots of stuff would run better if that feature of human nature were toned down.

Progs like that reasoning: "It just doesn't have to be this way."  

DeezerShoove » 06 Aug 2025, 10:41 am » wrote: ↑

06 Aug 2025, 10:41 am

There isn't anything wrong with it.
Get rid of people that have no ethical or moral values.
Lots of stuff would run better if that feature of human nature were toned down.

Progs like that reasoning: "It just doesn't have to be this way."

What does the electoral college have to do with moral values and getting rid of people?

Vegas » 06 Aug 2025, 9:25 am » wrote: ↑

06 Aug 2025, 9:25 am

Many argue that we should ban the electoral college and simply use the popular vote. Most countries do that. Some argue that the electoral college is needed to prevent tyranny of the majority in underrepresented areas. Both sides have presented valid arguments. There have been several times in history where presidents lost the popular votes but won the electoral. That is not an enigma. 

One of those times, that should stick out in history, was Abraham Lincoln. 

He only won 40% of the popular vote. Not surprisingly, he didn't win one single Southern state. The Democrats had 3 candidates, which was stupid of them because it divided up their electoral votes in 3 different ways. However, it would not have mattered. Lincoln still won the electoral even if you combined the 3 candidates. Lincoln - 180 and the democrats combined was 123. 

Only receiving 40% of the popular vote is a pretty bad loss. Not even close. Yet, the trajectory of the country then, and the nation today, would be so much different. I often wonder how the Western expansion would have worked out had Lincoln lost. It wouldn't be the United States of America like we know it today.

I would be in favor of abolishing the electoral college......take the total number of counties in the US and the candidate who wins the most, is elected.

Vegas » 06 Aug 2025, 10:47 am » wrote: ↑

06 Aug 2025, 10:47 am

What does the electoral college have to do with moral values and getting rid of people?

Who actually executes the protocols of that system?
Who actually is "against" that 200+ year old system?
People.
I rest my case.

DeezerShoove » 06 Aug 2025, 10:52 am » wrote: ↑

06 Aug 2025, 10:52 am

Who actually executes the protocols of that system?
Who actually is "against" that 200+ year old system?
People.
I rest my case.

It's just a weird case you are making. Yes, it's people. No ****. So? 

Vegas » 06 Aug 2025, 10:23 am » wrote: ↑

06 Aug 2025, 10:23 am

Well?
 

 

I have no problem with it.  It helps ensure the people on the coasts are not continuously choosing the President. Which is what would happen if we went to a majority.

RebelGator » 06 Aug 2025, 10:52 am » wrote: ↑

06 Aug 2025, 10:52 am

I would be in favor of abolishing the electoral college......take the total number of counties in the US and the candidate who wins the most, is elected.

Ehhhhhh....I don't know about that. Counties are not people. Some counties have millions of people, such as Los Angeles County. Others have just a few thousand or hundreds. Under this proposal, a small rural county would have the same power as a massive urban one. That’s even less democratic than the Electoral College and drastically reduces the influence of voters in densely populated areas.
 

*Huey » 06 Aug 2025, 10:57 am » wrote: ↑

06 Aug 2025, 10:57 am

I have no problem with it.  It helps ensure the people on the coasts are not continuously choosing the President. Which is what would happen if we went to a majority.

I agree. I don't believe we can compare a popular vote method with other countries. We have so much diversity and division here, that it would be impossible for the popular vote to account for it. One party would always win election after election. 

Vegas » 06 Aug 2025, 9:25 am » wrote: ↑

06 Aug 2025, 9:25 am

Many argue that we should ban the electoral college and simply use the popular vote. Most countries do that. Some argue that the electoral college is needed to prevent tyranny of the majority in underrepresented areas. Both sides have presented valid arguments. There have been several times in history where presidents lost the popular votes but won the electoral. That is not an enigma. 

One of those times, that should stick out in history, was Abraham Lincoln. 

He only won 40% of the popular vote. Not surprisingly, he didn't win one single Southern state. The Democrats had 3 candidates, which was stupid of them because it divided up their electoral votes in 3 different ways. However, it would not have mattered. Lincoln still won the electoral even if you combined the 3 candidates. Lincoln - 180 and the democrats combined was 123. 

Only receiving 40% of the popular vote is a pretty bad loss. Not even close. Yet, the trajectory of the country then, and the nation today, would be so much different. I often wonder how the Western expansion would have worked out had Lincoln lost. It wouldn't be the United States of America like we know it today. 

How many on either side understand what it it was created to prevent from happening in every democracy established before America became a the USA?

It is all about the fractions of 3/5ths and 5/3rds to 8 hemispheres of one atmosphere divided by 2 solstices and 2 equinoxes a planetary revolution around the star.

Vegas » 06 Aug 2025, 11:00 am » wrote: ↑

06 Aug 2025, 11:00 am

*Huey » 06 Aug 2025, 10:57 am » wrote: ↑

06 Aug 2025, 10:57 am

I have no problem with it.  It helps ensure the people on the coasts are not continuously choosing the President. Which is what would happen if we went to a majority.

I agree. I don't believe we can compare a popular vote method with other countries. We have so much diversity and division here, that it would be impossible for the popular vote to account for it. One party would always win election after election. 

 

I forgot to mention the Major Urban areas as well.

Vegas » 06 Aug 2025, 10:55 am » wrote: ↑

06 Aug 2025, 10:55 am

It's just a weird case you are making. Yes, it's people. No ****. So?

Weird... how so?
Voters saw a huge controversy in Florida over court decisions to decide for Bush or Gore go back and forth. The electoral college became fair game.
The job of Katherine Harris (Florida's secretary of state) was questioned. Her ethics and alliances, past history, etc.
Florida is to this day mocked as The Stupid State.
The entire country got caught up in a ridiculous pissing contest and the Supreme Court was said to be on Bush's side.
Gore, ever the opportunist, conceded then un-conceded only adding to the fray.

When Nixon resigned, for participation in a coverup, not the actual crime, as much as a boogeyman as he was, his decision was "for the good of the country". Ethical maybe?

There is some version of ethics that is generally lacking today.
That seems to me to have an impact how people view an Electoral College of which they don't quite understand its purpose... yet they are swayed by our **** trendsetters and opportunists (those moral and ethical pillars of society).

Something like that.

Deezer » wrote:

01 Feb 1970, 11:27 pm

Vegas » 06 Aug 2025, 10:55 am » wrote: ↑

06 Aug 2025, 10:55 am

It's just a weird case you are making. Yes, it's people. No ****. So?

Weird... how so?
Voters saw a huge controversy in Florida over court decisions to decide for Bush or Gore go back and forth. The electoral college became fair game.
The job of Katherine Harris (Florida's secretary of state) was questioned. Her ethics and alliances, past history, etc.
Florida is to this day mocked as The Stupid State.
The entire country got caught up in a ridiculous pissing contest and the Supreme Court was said to be on Bush's side.
Gore, ever the opportunist, conceded then un-conceded only adding to the fray.

When Nixon resigned, for participation in a coverup, not the actual crime, as much as a boogeyman as he was, his decision was "for the good of the country". Ethical maybe?

There is some version of ethics that is generally lacking today.
That seems to me to have an impact how people view an Electoral College of which they don't quite understand its purpose... yet they are swayed by our **** trendsetters and opportunists (those moral and ethical pillars of society).

Something like that.

 

I, of course, remember the Florida debacle.  It made me question whether or not my overseas absentee ballots in the 80s and 90s got counted or not.  

DeezerShoove » 06 Aug 2025, 11:17 am » wrote: ↑

06 Aug 2025, 11:17 am

Weird... how so?
Voters saw a huge controversy in Florida over court decisions to decide for Bush or Gore go back and forth. The electoral college became fair game.
The job of Katherine Harris (Florida's secretary of state) was questioned. Her ethics and alliances, past history, etc.
Florida is to this day mocked as The Stupid State.
The entire country got caught up in a ridiculous pissing contest and the Supreme Court was said to be on Bush's side.
Gore, ever the opportunist, conceded then un-conceded only adding to the fray.

When Nixon resigned, for participation in a coverup, not the actual crime, as much as a boogeyman as he was, his decision was "for the good of the country". Ethical maybe?

There is some version of ethics that is generally lacking today.
That seems to me to have an impact how people view an Electoral College of which they don't quite understand its purpose... yet they are swayed by our **** trendsetters and opportunists (those moral and ethical pillars of society).

Something like that.

Oh ok. I misinterpreted what you were saying. My bad.

RebelGator » 06 Aug 2025, 10:52 am » wrote: ↑

06 Aug 2025, 10:52 am

I would be in favor of abolishing the electoral college......take the total number of counties in the US and the candidate who wins the most, is elected.

That's a diluted version of popular mixed with electoral college.
A hunchback with a peg leg...

DeezerShoove » 06 Aug 2025, 11:58 am » wrote: ↑

06 Aug 2025, 11:58 am

A hunchback with a peg leg...

That reminds me of the only type of women that BV can get.

Vegas » 06 Aug 2025, 12:08 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Aug 2025, 12:08 pm

DeezerShoove » 06 Aug 2025, 11:58 am » wrote: ↑

06 Aug 2025, 11:58 am

A hunchback with a peg leg...

That reminds me of the only type of women that BV can get.

 

He couldn't even get that. This is his speed:

*Huey » 06 Aug 2025, 12:12 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Aug 2025, 12:12 pm

He couldn't even get that. This is his speed:

    At least this one isn't a live person. No woman deserves to be stalked and creeped out. 

DeezerShoove » 06 Aug 2025, 10:41 am » wrote: ↑

06 Aug 2025, 10:41 am

There isn't anything wrong with it.
Get rid of people that have no ethical or moral values.
Lots of stuff would run better if that feature of human nature were toned down.

Progs like that reasoning: "It just doesn't have to be this way."

Imbeciles like you put a rapist felon in the WH.