Should they get rid of the electoral college so third parties could become President?Rigged?

[Leroy Jenkins]

If there was ever to be a third party candidate that did very well and on par with the republican/democrats, neither of them would reach the electoral college.

Lets say the third party candidate won the popular vote and won more districts and has slightly higher electoral college than the republicans/democrats.

Then it will go to the house of reps, where only democrats and republicans dominate. This will lead to problem which is that democrats/republicans would vote for their own....thus the third party guy would be fucked.

If ever someone mounts a third–party campaign that prevents an electoral college victory by one of the major parties, a little-known set of constitutional, statutory, and parliamentary rules governing the choice of a president and vice president would kick in: The newly sworn-in members of the House of Representatives, with one vote per state delegation, would choose the president from among the top three vote-getters in the electoral college. Support of at least 26 state delegations is required for a president to be selected. Simultaneously, the newly sworn-in members of the Senate would vote individually for vice president, choosing among the top two vote-getters in the electoral college, with 51 votes required for victory.

So they will need 26 state delegation votes....No way in hell a third party candidate would get 26.

Of course it could go to a deadlock chamber and everybody would be fucked but I doubt that, either a republican or democrat would be chosen.


Is this system rigged? Seems like they made all the rules to specifically be against third parties....Seems impossible for a third party candidate to be president.

 

[Madmick]

In other words, the electoral college actually offers a third party candidate's best chance of "stealing" an election; because that is what that would be.

Look, you can't generate hypothetical scenarios where the third party candidate is clearly coming in dead last in the popular vote and then bemoan anti-populist contrivance inherent to the electoral college. The anti-populist risk inherent to the electoral college was realized in 2000 when Gore won the popular vote but lost the election. That's the genuine grievance.

 

[Leroy Jenkins]

In other words, the electoral college actually offers a third party candidate's best chance of "stealing" an election; because that is what that would be.

Look, you can't generate hypothetical scenarios where the third party candidate is clearly coming in dead last in the popular vote and then bemoan anti-populist contrivance inherent to the electoral college. The anti-populist risk inherent to the electoral college was realized in 2000 when Gore won the popular vote but lost the election. That's the genuine grievance.

Stealing the election from either a republican/democrat to the opposite party.....but they could never win, I just don't see it.

 

[Deleted member 196663]

First they need to figure out how to even get into the debates.

 

[VulcanNervPinch]

That may be A hurdle, but there's a lot more significant and problematic barriers to a 3rd party candidate winning than that.

 

[ultramanhyata]

If there was ever to be a third party candidate that did very well and on par with the republican/democrats, neither of them would reach the electoral college.

Lets say the third party candidate won the popular vote and won more districts and has slightly higher electoral college than the republicans/democrats.

Are you putting forward a scenario where the TP wins more votes than both the R's and D's combined? Or one where the TP wins more than either the R's or D's individually?

I am one who believes it's time to retire the electoral college system.

But, on the other hand, I think we need to ask ourselves if, for example, 35% of a general election's voters should be able to determine the person who will be president of the entire nation.

 

[Leroy Jenkins]

Are you putting forward a scenario where the TP wins more votes than both the R's and D's combined? Or one where the TP wins more than either the R's or D's individually?

I am one who believes it's time to retire the electoral college system.

But, on the other hand, I think we need to ask ourselves if, for example, 35% of a general election's voters should be able to determine the person who will be president of the entire nation.

My scenerio is the TP gets more boths either R's/D's individually.....neither of the 3 candidates would reach the electoral college limit.


On your last point, should the house who is Democrat/Republican, decide who is the president, even though most people want the third party candidate?

 

[VivaRevolution]

If there was ever to be a third party candidate that did very well and on par with the republican/democrats, neither of them would reach the electoral college.

Lets say the third party candidate won the popular vote and won more districts and has slightly higher electoral college than the republicans/democrats.

Then it will go to the house of reps, where only democrats and republicans dominate. This will lead to problem which is that democrats/republicans would vote for their own....thus the third party guy would be fucked.




So they will need 26 state delegation votes....No way in hell a third party candidate would get 26.

Of course it could go to a deadlock chamber and everybody would be fucked but I doubt that, either a republican or democrat would be chosen.


Is this system rigged? Seems like they made all the rules to specifically be against third parties....Seems impossible for a third party candidate to be president.

I think we should have a Constitutional Convention, and rebuild the whole system. Start from scratch.

I don't think reform is possible. We need to tear the whole corrupt system down.

 

[ultramanhyata]

On your last point, should the house who is Democrat/Republican, decide who is the president, even though most people want the third party candidate?

Obviously not.

But multiple parties, all with sizable support, do pose a sort of paradoxical problem within a democracy. Because you open a door to the possibility that a minority of the overall electorate could be deciding a future president.

 

[Leroy Jenkins]

I think we should have a Constitutional Convention, and rebuild the whole system. Start from scratch.

I don't think reform is possible. We need to tear the whole corrupt system down.

it would be the greatest shitstorm of our time. Can you imagine the hostility.


On one hand we have the hardcore constitutional people...then we have agendas on both the right/left...It would be insane.

 

[VivaRevolution]

it would be the greatest shitstorm of our time. Can you imagine the hostility.


On one hand we have the hardcore constitutional people...then we have agendas on both the right/left...It would be insane.

Depends on if we actually got our best and brightest into the room, that weren't working to ulterior agendas.

Our problems are pretty obvious, and the solutions are as well.

Great thing about a constitutional convention is that it then has to be ratified by 13 state houses.

So you could have 22 conventions, with 22 different platforms before one caught traction, and was amendended.

 

[Fawlty]

I think we should have a Constitutional Convention, and rebuild the whole system. Start from scratch.

I don't think reform is possible. We need to tear the whole corrupt system down.

I've shared that sentiment at times, but what about the power vacuum? Talk about inviting corruption. We probably have the best constitution in the world as is, and I don't think ripping it up and starting over is going to make government a less corruptible institution. Do you have any specific ideas on what should be removed or added to the constitution? What would you like to see in the electoral process?

 

[7437]

I think we should have a Constitutional Convention, and rebuild the whole system. Start from scratch.

I don't think reform is possible. We need to tear the whole corrupt system down.

Have you ever been outside the USA? Our system works pretty great.

 

[7437]

Depends on if we actually got our best and brightest into the room, that weren't working to ulterior motives

Whaflt makes you think that this is even in the realm of possibility? Everyone has some sort of motive, i doubt you would like them. People with influence would use it.

 

[VivaRevolution]

I've shared that sentiment at times, but what about the power vacuum? Talk about inviting corruption. We probably have the best constitution in the world as is, and I don't think ripping it up and starting over is going to make government a less corruptible institution. Do you have any specific ideas on what should be removed or added to the constitution? What would you like to see in the electoral process?

Added not taken away, lobbying, campaign finance, gerrymandering, term limits

What I want to do to campaign finance would destroy the two party system.

Hold a general primary with zero rules. If you get 5% of the vote you qualify for public funding, which alot's equal shares of media exposure, and organizational funding.

Literally pull a number out of a hat, that would represent a year in the past that we would reset district and county lines to, to erase the gerrymandering, and make the practice illegal.

All offices are held for one, 6 year term, with a easier process for recall elections.

All lobbying is forced onto the public record under threat of a felony.

Presidential race, I agree with the TS, get rid of the electoral college, decide it by popular vote so that the people running have to appeal to all of us and not just 3 states.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Have you ever been outside the USA? Our system works pretty great.

I hate this line of thought so much.

I will not look at someone getting raped by 6 dicks, and say I am glad I am only taking 1 in the ass.

My preferred amount of dicks in my ass raping me is zero.

 

[Fawlty]

Added not taken away, lobbying, campaign finance.

What I want to do to campaign finance would destroy the two party system.

Hold a general primary with zero rules. If you get 5% of the vote you qualify for public funding, which alot's equal shares of media exposure, and organizational funding.

It's hard to be convinced that campaign finance is really a big problem. We have a populist presidential election where money is far secondary, and we have extreme politics locally due to gerrymandering. Money isn't actually affecting things much as far as elections go.

A general primary is interesting, though I feel like it's just reshuffling the deck and playing a different hand of the same game. Without fundamentally changing how seats are apportioned and increasing the number of reps by something like a factor of 3 (or some other method of delivering seats to third/fourth parties), we're headed directly back to the two party system. And even if you could have third and fourth parties in government by making new seats, how to keep congress working efficiently?

 

[VivaRevolution]

Whaflt makes you think that this is even in the realm of possibility? Everyone has some sort of motive, i doubt you would like them. People with influence would use it.

Use people without power or influence. Intelligent average joe's.

 

[VivaRevolution]

It's hard to be convinced that campaign finance is really a big problem. We have a populist presidential election where money is far secondary, and we have extreme politics locally due to gerrymandering. Money isn't actually affecting things much as far as elections go.

A general primary is interesting, though I feel like it's just reshuffling the deck and playing a different hand of the same game. Without fundamentally changing how seats are apportioned and increasing the number of reps by something like a factor of 3 (or some other method of delivering seats to third/fourth parties), we're headed directly back to the two party system. And even if you could have third and fourth parties in government by making new seats, how to keep congress working efficiently?

I don't know how people can play down money in politics, when every politician out there states that they spend most of their time fundraising.

Having more money doesn't guarantee election. Not having enough money does guarantee a loss.

I think this is the idea many have a problem really grasping.

Between the party funding and the corporate donors, our politicians are puppets.

 

[Fawlty]

I don't know how people can play down money in politics, when every politician out there states that they spend most of their time fundraising.

Having more money doesn't guarantee election. Not having enough money does guarantee a loss.

I think this is the idea many have a problem really grasping.

Between the party funding and the corporate donors, our politicians are puppets.

Capital will always be key to government and politics. It's just reality, and it's not necessarily a bad thing. As an element of politics, yes, not having it would guarantee a loss. It's our instrument of trade- so how do you propose trading in support? By what method will support translate to airtime and campaign staff? I don't mind reasonable rules on that, or addressing the "money buys access" problems with day-to-day government in some way, but campaign finance being let mostly off the leash hasn't actually produced any harm that I can see. Technology will dictate some changes in this anyway. Let's see what happens now that the generation that doesn't understand the internet is dying.