Comments by "" (@RedXlV) on "Elizabeth Warren: Get Rid Of The Stupid Electoral College!" video.

  1.  @choleslaw9286  Leaving the electoral college in place is silencing the voices of the majority.
    3
  2.  @MaryseIsMyIdol  You don't have the slightest clue what "direct democracy" even is. Hint: popular vote to elect the president would be representative democracy, not direct democracy. And the electoral college is tyranny of the minority.
    3
  3. Tyranny of the minority is not a solution. But it is what we have now.
    3
  4. We never did need it. The electoral college was always a mistake, from the moment it was proposed in 1787.
    3
  5. It absolutely is the answer. The electoral college is tyranny of the minority.
    3
  6. @Name No, dipshit, it's conservatives who are the minority and shrinking.
    2
  7. There being a reason for it doesn't make it a good reason. The actual reason was to preserve a degree of aristocracy in the United States. And also slavery.
    2
  8.  @robertjenkins6132  Increasing the size of the House is also something that absolutely needs to be done, though. If you compare it to the other democracies in the world, our legislature is shockingly small relative to our population. The House has been at 435 seats since 1913, when the US population was 97 million. The population as of last year was 327 million. That leaves us with one Representative per 752,000 people. To bring the ratio of House seats to population back to the level that it was in 1913, we'd need nearly 1,500 Representatives. And that would still be a very small size relative to the total US population. By comparison, for example, Germany has 709 members of its Bundestag to represent a total population of 83 million. And the UK's House of Commons has 650 members to represent 66 million people. For the House of Representatives to have a similar ratio would require around 3,000 seats. While the electoral college is still an idiotic system, an enlarged House would largely nullify the biggest problem with it, the fact that somebody can easily lose the popular vote but still win the election. Those extra two electoral votes per state for the Senate seats would no longer skew things so much in favor of the small states, if even tiny Wyoming and Vermont would each get 5 House seats. Currently Wyoming has 3 electoral votes, or one per 192,500 people. With a 3,000 seat House, they'd have 7, or one per 82,500 people. Currently California has 55 electoral votes, or one per 719,200 people. With a 3,000 seat House, they'd have 365 electoral votes, or one per 108,400 people. That's still not actual "one person, one vote" for for a presidential election, but it's a hell of a lot closer than what we have now.
    2
  9. That's a blitheringly idiotic argument you're making, NOVA.
    2
  10. No, the purpose was to maintain some of the power of the aristocracy. And the counter-argument to the screechin about "tyranny of the majority" is to point out that the electoral college has created the tyranny of the minority.
    2
  11.  @Sloimer  The last thing a Republican would say is to expand democracy. They want voting to be as restricted as possible. At some point, Republicans are going to reach the level of actively calling for dictatorship.
    1
  12.  @alexpersonius3646  You don't have the first clue what direct democracy is, if you think the electoral college protects against it. Direct democracy means passing laws by referendum. Election of the President via the popular vote would simply be representative democracy. And as for "cities"...are you aware that 85% of Americans live in cities? Giving disproportionate voting power to the 15% who do not, is the definition of tyranny of the minority.
    1
  13.  @alexpersonius3646  Again, you're being deliberately dishonest. Direct democracy means laws are passed by referendum. Choosing the President via popular vote would not be an example of direct democracy. Electing government officials is representative democracy, not direct democracy.
    1
  14.  @alexpersonius3646  I don't need to read your mind to recognize that what you're saying is factually wrong.
    1
  15.  @alexpersonius3646  And yet, you claimed that popular election of the President would be direct democracy, when it clearly would actually be representative democracy.
    1
  16.  @alexpersonius3646  No, it's not accurate. Election by popular vote is representative democracy. Period. Are you going to claim that the House of Representatives and the Senate are "direct democracy", since the members are elected by popular vote?
    1
  17.  @alexpersonius3646  No, it is not an example of direct democracy. Electing the members of Congress is the very definition of representative democracy. You're the one trying to create your own definitions for these terms.
    1
  18. @Name The Republican Party is a smaller share of the electorate than it's been in over a century.
    1