add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube

Why does the far-left consider the electoral college racist?

Memo1010
  • 18 months ago

Many people on the far-left want to abolish the electoral college system on the grounds that it's racist, which to me sounds like probably the dumbest line of reasoning ever, since it literally has nothing to do with race. I am a rather conservative, and general support Republicans and I don't think I've ever supported a democrat (though occasionally I'll agree with a point they bring up), so I guess I'm probably pretty biased.

So why does the far left consider it racist? It is my tendency to think that they are just sore losers who can't stand that Trump is president, but maybe there is actually some logic behind it?

Comments

  • 18 months ago
  • 14 points

Why do nazi's hate jews and people of color? Why does ISIS go around acting like barbarians? Why does the far-left consider the electoral college racist? You aren't going to get a logical answer from a extremist.

  • 18 months ago
  • 5 points

Many people on the far-left

??? I live deep in the Silicon Valley and to the best of my knowledge, nobody wants to remove the electoral college for being racist. They might want to remove it for underrepresenting interests or other reasons, but nobody outright calls it racists as it requires too many jumps in logic to reach that conclusion.

which to me sounds like probably the dumbest line of reasoning ever

Of course it does, because nearly nobody except extremists who make themselves heard or trolls think that.

So why does the far left consider it racist?

You tell me, I've never heard this argument before. Also, your vision of the far left seems quite skewed.

It is my tendency to think that they are just sore losers who can't stand that Trump is president, but maybe there is actually some logic behind it?

I really dislike this viewpoint. The presidency isn't some championship match. Just because you won the election doesn't mean you are automatically the best person for the job who makes all the right moves and can't be criticized. They aren't sore losers, they just want to make America into the best place it can be, the same as you. Although, they may have different views on how to achieve this goal.

  • 18 months ago
  • 2 points

They might want to remove it for underrepresenting interests or other reasons, but nobody outright calls it racists as it requires too many jumps in logic to reach that conclusion.

DING DING DING DING DING

  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

^^^^^^^

  • 18 months ago
  • 1 point

I think "far-left" in this case means the SJW's and overly PC people.

  • 18 months ago
  • 1 point

Have you actually met an SJW before? And where are your limits on political correctness?

  • 18 months ago
  • 1 point

I'm more right leaning, but I do have some liberal views as well. I can't say I've met many SJWs but the ones I have met are few and far between. I think that political correctness should really be done away with to an extent. I mean, just chill out. (not directed at you)

  • 18 months ago
  • 1 point

I feel political correctness is essentially making standards for something that should have been intrinsic to common courtesy. However, I do agree that some people may take it too far. Although, I've never had anybody get mad at me for calling them a He or a She when they prefer something else or anything else in that regard.

  • 18 months ago
  • 1 point

Have you actually met an SJW before?

I have. And, while they are definitely in the vast minority, they yell the loudest.

  • 18 months ago
  • 1 point

What attributes did he/she advocate for that made them far left?

  • 18 months ago
  • 1 point

Well, one point they liked to make was that using words with negative connotations is tantamount to physical violence against people. And, I'm talking physical violence along the lines of stoning (reference she made directly), drawing and quartering, tarring and feathering. Don't get me wrong, words have power. But, not that power.

Having said that, I was exposed to the opposite spectrum in college too. I accidentally signed up for the wrong side of an abortion debate, but felt like sticking true to the side I was on. So, even though I didn't agree with my side, I tried to logically defend it. That REALLY pissed off a conservative that knew I was only on "the other side" of the debate against her because I ****** up. And it REALLY pissed her off when I tore her arguments apart (arguments I actually supported, but would like to think would have done a lot better job defending).

  • 18 months ago
  • 1 point

I know that Micheal Moore has, and iirc so has Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

  • 18 months ago
  • 3 points

I can't find anything on Michael Moore, but Ms. Ocasio-Cortez has advocated for the abolishment of the electoral college for reasons other than what your post is about. She states it undermines democracy, which is true to an extent. The United States will never be a true democracy, as we still have state elected officials to represent us in key issues. This makes sense as the average voter won't have the time or ability to understand a great deal of the key issues that representatives vote on.

However, we can be more democratic in our voting process for major roles (presidency, etc.) if each person's vote is counted irrespective of their state. This process would motivate more individuals to vote as they would feel they would have better representation. Republican voters in California may not cast a ballot as they know their voice won't be heard as California's take all system won't reflect them. Similarly, Democratic voters in the South and Midwest won't vote as often for a similar reason.

[comment deleted]
  • 18 months ago
  • 4 points

Okay, one thing that stands out as silly that was said by Lemon on that article:

"In the Constitution, you can protest whenever and wherever you want. It doesn't tell you that you can't do it at a restaurant. It doesn't tell you that you can't do it on a football field. It doesn't tell you that you can't do it on a cable news show. You can do it wherever you want. And to call people mobs because they are exercising their constitutional right is just beyond the pale."

I have never seen a part of the Constitution that stated you can protest wherever and whenever you want. You have a right to protest, yes. But, private landowners have a right to privacy and can determine who is allowed on their property and when. Your rights end when they begin to infringe upon anothers. You can't just exercise your right by protesting in a private restaurant without limit because the owner has a right to tell you to leave.

  • 18 months ago
  • 2 points

Yeah this is an annoying misunderstanding people have. The Constitution is protecting your freedom of assembly and speech, etc, from government suppression. It has nothing to do with private entities.

I cannot count the number of idiots who declare "it's free speech" on a private internet forum, as though they're protected from being kicked or muted.

[comment deleted]
  • 17 months ago
  • 2 points

1 month ago

Why do people keep resurrecting the dead ;P

You're right though in the sense that it was a first amendment case. Sadly in this case it was used to treat a homosexual as a second class citizen, but you're not wrong.

[comment deleted]
  • 17 months ago
  • 2 points

You say 15 years later like it isn't a long time from the perspective of a human life, lol.

  • 18 months ago
  • 1 point

I would agree with you on that. To be clear I'm not endorsing the article, but it is a good source of evidence for the statement that 'some members of the far-left consider the electoral college system to be racist'

  • 18 months ago
  • 1 point

I can respect that.

  • 18 months ago
  • 2 points

Stick around long enough and you'll see the far right complaining about the same thing.

More often then not the winner of the race lost the popular election but took the key states needed to ensure a win.

  • 18 months ago
  • 2 points

More often then not the winner of the race lost the popular election but took the key states needed to ensure a win

That's actually only happened 5 times out of 45 presidents, and 58 presidential elections.

  • 18 months ago
  • 1 point

Poorly worded but they always follow one another.

  • 18 months ago
  • 2 points

I mean it isn't poorly worded, it's just factually wrong.

  • 18 months ago
  • 1 point

Not at all look back at each of those five cases and after each you will find the party that lost complaining that the electoral college is biased against them.

  • 18 months ago
  • 1 point

Oh, I understand what you are trying to say, ok yes just poorly worded lol. Well you'll probably find the losing party more vocal about it whether they won the popular vote or not. Obama won the popular vote in 2012, but one of my cited Trump quotes was him complaining about the EC over the 2012 election anyways.

He also complained about the EC following his own victory, so I commend that consistency there.

EDIT also a fun fact, the Republican party is the only modern party to ever win the EC while losing the popular vote, they did it in 4 out of 5 instances of this phenomenon occurring. So assuming what you asserted is true, it's always been Democrats pointing out how the electoral college is ********, after being the popular winner. lol. In the 5th instance, the candidates were of the same party, so it is unlikely they claimed the EC was biased against their party like you were saying.

[comment deleted]
  • 18 months ago
  • 2 points

A lot of people think the electoral college is crap (it is!). In fact its one of the few positions that Trump has been remarkably consistent on, and that I agree with him on.

Idk anyone who thinks it is racist though.

  • 18 months ago
  • 2 points

Whichever party loses the Electoral College vote hates it and calls for it to be abolished. But it is needed so that areas that are less densely populated receive a fair representation. Without it California and New York would elect our presidents and that would not be a good thing. It has nothing to do with race. Its not a perfect system but a perfect system is a myth. Our fore fathers were some smart MFrs. Respect!!

  • 18 months ago
  • 3 points

Problem is that the EC enforces unfair representation. California and New York are still key EC states, the EC didn't fix that, though it softened the impact slightly. The population of California is around 39.54 million. The population of the USA is around 325.7 million. That makes California around 12% of the population, so they'd have a theoretical 12% potential if we had a popular vote (this is of course total pop, not measuring by voting age, but for back-of-the-envelope math we can roll with it). With the EC, California has 55 votes and the total is 538 electors. Which comes to... a little over 10% of the voting power. So the EC is shaving off ~2% of California's potential influence, but at what cost?

The EC makes it so that millions of votes across the country are worthless efforts. There are millions of Republicans in California who may as well be burning their ballots. This is the cost of the EC's 2% dampening; it turns everyone in California into a de facto Blue-vote, when in reality that isn't their wish. Likewise, Democrats in Texas or Alabama may as well stay home because they'll never sway the vote; their votes are made worthless by the EC.

Further, due to the population disparities you cited, voters in states like Wyoming, with a population of around 0.6 million, have a disproportionate power over voters in say, New York with a population of 8.5 million. Sure, NY gets 29 electors and Wyoming only gets 3, but if you do the math you find that the voters of Wyoming have way more power-per-vote (nearly 50% more). If you are voting in Wyoming your vote essentially gets counted 1.5x versus a voter in New York, which is about as blatantly unfair as something can get.

The EC robs people of participation... unless you live in a swing state. This is the next problem with the EC; it makes the entire presidential election revolve around a few key states, and the act of voting itself is largely symbolic in the majority of states. Why the hell would you ever campaign in MISSISSIPPI? It's a guaranteed-lock for the Republicans. Which means you don't need to even think about those citizens. Same with Oregon. The Dems got it locked up, don't even bother.

  • 18 months ago
  • 3 points

Tomtom has corrected me: I accidentally used the population of New York City above. The actual NY state population is 19.85 million. Which means that a Wyoming voter's ballot is worth over 3x as much as a New Yorker's. Thanks for the correction.

  • 18 months ago
  • 3 points

Brb moving to Wyoming from NY

  • 18 months ago
  • 2 points

So long as you are happy being forced by your State and the EC to endorse a Republican every election season, go for it! They've got some beautiful landmarks.

  • 18 months ago
  • 2 points

They do, but those plateau winds can be a real *****. Also, man that would suck to be forced R all the time. As a conservative that's voted D more than R I am pretty ardently against the EC.

  • 18 months ago
  • 2 points

****, I might as well just move to Canada at that rate, they’re nearby lol

  • 18 months ago
  • 2 points

But it is needed so that areas that are less densely populated receive a fair representation.

A fair election would go off total numbers of votes, not arbitrary importance given to certain votes over others. That's basically the definition of unfair.

Without it California and New York would elect our presidents and that would not be a good thing.

As a conservative I can say this is too broad of a statement. Elections should be by the people not by very few people hidden in the woodwork.

Our fore fathers were some smart MFrs. Respect!

Yes they were. That's why they made a system that can flex and change with the times as needed. When created, the electoral college served a solid function due to slow information distillation across the country. Now that information distills instantly they no longer serve that initial main function (ie, should be scrapped).

  • 18 months ago
  • 1 point

solid function due to slow information distillation

This was not the initial function.

Originally, it was proposed that Congress would select the president. The very nature of Congress itself, however, was still in flux. The Connecticut Compromise is what determined the current bicameral design of the legislature in an effort to recognize both the rights of the sovereign states, and the rights of the people. It was also determined that the apportionment of representatives in Congress, including both houses, would determine the States' number of votes for President, and that electors would be selected from among the people in an effort to prevent impropriety and maintain the independence of the executive branch from the legislative.

The reason the vote is done this way is in order to maintain the balance of power between states, but also to respect the power of the people. I'd suggest reading Federalist Papers: No. 39.

Whether or not this methodology needs amending is another debate, and in my opinion many changes have been made that really mess with this original vision. People do need to understand though that the United States is not a direct democracy; the founders called it a republican form of democracy. To make significant alterations to this formula would have far reaching consequences beyond just how an election is documented.

(Copied from myself in response to someone else with the same misconception.)

  • 18 months ago
  • 1 point

I can't really get behind the main purpose of the EC to be putting the states and feds on more equal playing ground. There were many motivations that were discussed in Federalists 39 as well as the discord that took place between some of the founders private correspondence. One was to put the south on a more equal playing field as the north. As it stood during formation times, the south had a smaller population of white men that would vote. This meant if going completely off the popular vote their political power would be greatly diminished. This was partially alleviated by the use of the EC, and more so when the compromise came into effect which counted slaves as 3/5 of a person, bolstering the south's presidential elector count putting it closer to even footing with the north. This was one of, and a more important, reasons why they chose to compromise on an EC system.

Madison personally had many quips with the EC, but also saw some advantages in it. One of which was the chance that voters would pick a poor candidate, the elector could overrule that vote. He also spoke towards voters likely being able to better vote for local candidates where info was attainable about those candidates rather than national candidates which voters may not know much about or that may take a long time for new info to trickle in.

Personally, I see benefits and detriments in a system like this. But, most of the benefits I see in it were more benefits towards the past than now.

  • 18 months ago
  • 1 point

While the voters of the southern states wanted to retain their power, this also brought in a key reason for the EC: the protection of the interests of smaller states. If simple majority is all that is required, there is incentive for candidates, in their policies, to prioritize the interests of major population centers over smaller, more rural states. In essence it is the fundamental problem of utilitarianism.

Personally, I'd like to see states apportion their electors in ratio of the popular vote of the State. The individual states would no longer call their elections in favour of a single candidate, which does limit some of the influence of the State, but increases the value of minority votes within each state. On the other hand, it retains some of the balance of power between states in order to make sure the election is not being determined by the major population centers.

Of course, this is probably the most difficult course of action, since each individual state would need to pass their own resolutions and amendments, but I think it is the most sensible compromise.

Also would give independents a greater chance of getting presidential electoral votes, and thus more exposure and coverage- even more so than getting a percentage of the popular vote. Gary Johnson received 3% of the popular vote, with around 10% in some states. Evan McMullin took over 20% of Utah. Neither had any electoral votes, and despite breaking records, barely received press coverage.

  • 18 months ago
  • 2 points

Nothing to do with racism here, but I do believe the electoral college should be abolished. It was originally made in order to decrease the time it took to determine election winners back in the days before technology. Today we can tell in an instant who an entire state of people voted for. Would make sense to turn it to popular vote so every single person's vote is independently counted. Right now if you voted for the loser within a state your vote becomes basically useless.

Just my opinion. Really don't care about it much at all, but just something I noticed. Personally I agree with vagabond, some people's minds are already made up and it is just talking to a wall at times.

  • 18 months ago
  • 1 point

It was originally made in order to decrease the time it took to determine election winners back in the days before technology.

Incorrect.

Originally, it was proposed that Congress would select the president. The very nature of Congress itself, however, was still in flux. The Connecticut Compromise is what determined the current bicameral design of the legislature in an effort to recognize both the rights of the sovereign states, and the rights of the people. It was also determined that the apportionment of representatives in Congress, including both houses, would determine the States' number of votes for President, and that electors would be selected from among the people in an effort to prevent impropriety and maintain the independence of the executive branch from the legislative.

The reason the vote is done this way is in order to maintain the balance of power between states, but also to respect the power of the people. I'd suggest reading Federalist Papers: No. 39.

Whether or not this methodology needs amending is another debate, and in my opinion many changes have been made that really mess with this original vision. People do need to understand though that the United States is not a direct democracy; the founders called it a republican form of democracy. To make significant alterations to this formula would have far reaching consequences beyond just how an election is documented.

  • 18 months ago
  • 2 points

That is such an off base racist thing to consider. That is like saying traffic lights are racist, or power lines are racist.

  • 17 months ago
  • 2 points

The far-left is many things and one of them is being unreasonable.

  • 18 months ago
  • 1 point

Interesting. I've heard the electoral college described as unfair, but not racist.

I do agree that the electoral college isn't necessarily the best system to use. I think the problem lies with the "winner takes all" idea in a case where the vote would be very close. For example, let's say a 'key state' like Texas ends up with a 49%/51% split. All the electoral votes would then go to the 51% party, and it wouldn't be a good representation of the population.

As for a direct answer to your question, I'd guess the electoral college could be considered racist because of state voter suppression tactics.

TL;DR: I don't think the electoral college is inherently racist. Just flawed.

  • 18 months ago
  • 1 point

Political thread.

Written by a Conservative

Everyone in the bomb shelter.

  • 18 months ago
  • 5 points

Political thread.

Written by a Conservative

Everyone in the bomb shelter.

Counterpoint: At least OP is being logical and open to ideas different from theirs, rather than instantly devolving into "lib snowflakes lul"

  • 18 months ago
  • 3 points

Agreed, cheers to OP and other commenters for allowing for productive debate and conversation. This is how America becomes more unified.

  • 18 months ago
  • 1 point

Politicaly thread.

Written by a liberal.

Everyone redistribute the wealth.

Sounds silly, huh? Probably because I was assumptive. Let's not make assumptions before we have some more info to go off of than the group they are politically predisposed to.

  • 18 months ago
  • 1 point

I read the thread before I posted tho comment. I was just poking fun at the facts that this site seems to be more left-leaning.

  • 18 months ago
  • 2 points

Really? Compared to a lot of the other computer and technology related forums I use, PCPP seems to have a larger Republican community than I'm used to.

  • 18 months ago
  • 1 point

Let's not conflate Republican with right and Democrat with left. I'm a conservative that's voted D more than R.

  • 18 months ago
  • 3 points

Have you considered switching to an Independent if you vote both sides a lot?

  • 18 months ago
  • 2 points

You are correct, I should have said conservative.

  • 18 months ago
  • 1 point

Seems that a lot of people haven't heard of this before, here is where I read it

https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/lefts-new-talking-point-the-electoral-college-is-racist

Fox is not perfect but they are a well respected news source

  • 18 months ago
  • 4 points

Fox is not perfect but they are a well respected news source

Respected by whom? Certainly not people that appreciate unbiased information.

  • 18 months ago
  • 1 point

Wow Tucker Carlson is just consistently terrible. Yeah calling Fox well respected is definitely a stretch.

Here is the relevant blurb for anyone who doesn't wanna read this crap like I am:

CARLSON: Well there's a new talking point on the Left. We specialize in keeping track of those. Maybe you have heard it. Instead of calling people racist for voting for Trump or supporting Brett Kavanaugh, that's still happening, of course, but you're starting to hear people describe the entire Electoral College, the one prescribed by the Constitution, as itself racist somehow.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who's a leading indicator of Democratic talking points, recently called the Electoral College "A shadow of slavery's power."

It was the Electoral College, of course, that got Abraham Lincoln elected. He didn't win the majority of the popular vote but became president because of the Electoral College then he ended slavery. So that didn't really make sense but you're hearing it anyway again and again. Why exactly? What's the point of this?

Dana Perino pays very close attention in between hosting The Daily Briefing and appearing on The Five every day and she joins us tonight. Dana, what is this - this seems to come out of nowhere. All of a sudden, everybody's against the Electoral College. Tell us why.

DANA PERINO, FOX NEWS: Well it comes in cycles. And I think the last time I really remember hearing a lot about it was after the election of 2000 with Democrats very bitter. Look, in some ways understandably right that--

CARLSON: Yes, I agree.

PERINO: --comes down to the recount, the Supreme Court that makes that decision and you started to hear this drumbeat of you know what, this is not fair, this Democrats saying, this is not fair to us. We win the popular vote. Therefore, we should win the presidency. Doesn't that just make sense? That's the way--

CARLSON: But--

PERINO: --it should be. And--

CARLSON: --but wait a second. I didn't - I mean I'm not that old. But I covered both of Bill Clinton's campaigns and he never won the popular vote, became president thanks to the Electoral College twice

PERINO: Well I guess that you could sort of blame maybe Ross Perot for that if you were, you know, on the--

CARLSON: For sure. No. And that's exact--

PERINO: --Republican side--

CARLSON: --that no but that's true. That's absolutely what happened, of course, Ross Perot, third party candidate. But still you had a guy who didn't win the majority of the popular vote who was considered by most people, certainly me, as a legitimate president. Why did that change?

PERINO: Well I think what you're seeing is that President Trump won the Electoral College. He did not win the popular vote. Hillary Clinton repeats over and over again but - but she won the popular vote but right, that's not the contest. That's actually not the game.

CARLSON: Right.

PERINO: You have to win the Electoral College. And President Trump went to states like Wisconsin, Michigan, Wisconsin being the biggest one. Had Hillary Clinton played the game a different way, if she had maybe tried for to win the Electoral College than the popular vote - see the thing is, the Founders really wanted our country to be a federalist system. They wanted the states to be diverse.

CARLSON: Right.

For starters, Carlson is being intentionally deceptive here. He's relying on the difference between "majority" and "plurality". When it comes to counting votes, if you win more than anyone else, but not actually above 50%, you don't have a "majority" of the vote. You have a "plurality" of the vote. Colloquially, we would call this winning the majority because you won the most, but it would technically be incorrect. So he's trying to claim that the EC is the only reason Lincoln and Clinton won, but in reality they still had the most votes and in a popular election would have been elected. AKA he is lying to his millions of viewers.

Further, get off Lincoln's ****, your party doesn't even vaguely resemble Lincoln's party anymore.

But let's get to the real part: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is not a "leading indicator" of Democratic anything. He makes a false claim that you're hearing this "again and again". These are lies. She tweeted it one time, and Fox news is milking that and lying to you. Nobody really gives that big of a **** about her after her initial win in the primary. People hope she wins because she'll bring some diversity to the House, but that is about it, she's not The Glorious Leader, nobody is rallying around her, etc. He's blowing smoke. I'm pretty engaged politically and this is the first I've heard of this ****. I just did canvassing, and I can assure you, nowhere in any of the materials did we talk about the Electoral College being racist, lol. Nor did we mention it at all, actually.

Fox News is often skewed but I never suspected this one segment would be so rife with ********. And I didn't even touch on the part where he claimed CNN was telling you things you saw never happened(they didn't, they just quibbled over words), and failed to mention the time Trump literally did say this exact thing.

  • 18 months ago
  • 2 points

Further, get off Lincoln's ****, your party doesn't even vaguely resemble Lincoln's party anymore.

But...but...but.... it is named Republican.

[comment deleted]
  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

The default far-left/ultra-progressive response for anything they don't like is that it is racist/sexist/misogynistic/homophobic/xenophobic/transphobic/islamophobic/bigoted/whatever. The same thing happens with any mindless extremist movement (far-right, religious, etc) where they resort to using meaningless buzzwords to try and get people on their side.

Also, the news media likes to inflate and generalize things to make it look like that more people believe something than there actually are.

I don't like the electoral collage either (I also don't live in the US), but the electoral college is not racist in any way.

  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

Well said. I have mixed feelings about the system. I like it, but I live in a small state, and can only wonder how I would feel if I lived in a bigger one

  • 17 months ago
  • 2 points

My main concern with the EC (and FPTP/WTA systems in general) is how all the points are given to whoever got the most votes, effectively discarding all the other votes in that state.

  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

Yeah. I'm thinking it could be something like whatever percentage of the vote you get in a state is the percentage of the EC you get from there (and when there are decimal amounts the person with the most votes in that state gets the leftovers), or do it by congressional districts rather then states, but that would be rather complex at points.

  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

Never heard of people calling the electoral college racist. The electoral college does give some states more power than others, so stateist?

  • 17 months ago
  • 1 point

to sum this whole thing up. is the whole system has been jerry mander from all sides and is now corrupted beyond fixing

  • 17 months ago
  • 0 points

The far left considers everything racist... Or sexist... Or anti gay... Or anything else they can make a nonsense argument about.

[comment deleted]
[comment deleted]

Sort

add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube