Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
F3SS

Dems propose abolishing EC

123 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

F3SS

Dems start 2019 off angrier than ever about losing an election 2 years ago. Here, they propose a constitutional amendment to abolish the electoral college. The EC is a most genius system and perhaps the fairest national election system ever invented. These people are insane and irrational as can be.

 

Quote

 

Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tennessee) introduced a pair of constitutional amendments; one aimed at outright abolishing the Electoral College, and one that would prevent presidents from pardoning “themselves, their families, their administration or campaign staff.”

https://www.rt.com/usa/448102-democrats-electoral-college-pardons/

 


 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

This is a constitutional amendment. It is just posturing and 'virtue signalling'. It has zero chance of passing. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Jim

Let them.  It's better to have them expend their energy on something harmless.  It will never achieve the required number of state endorsements even if it could get the approval of Congress.  The people proposing this should know better.  If they don't then let that be a wake up call to their constituents.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King

Good. It needs to be abolished.

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
1 hour ago, F3SS said:

Dems start 2019 off angrier than ever about losing an election 2 years ago. Here, they propose a constitutional amendment to abolish the electoral college. The EC is a most genius system and perhaps the fairest national election system ever invented. These people are insane and irrational as can be.

it sure seems that way, but when your goal is to destroy usa as we know it, this is what you want to do

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
4 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

Good. It needs to be abolished.

Why?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rashore

Not sure how I feel about the electoral college part just yet...

But I gotta agree with presidents not being able to pardon themselves- I don't think anyone with the powers of pardoning should be able to pardon themselves.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

i have a feeling this whole pardoning thing was designed as last favors,  mostly to other politicians,  just because 2 politicians want it removed, i do not think many others will support it.  but will see how it goes,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
2 hours ago, joc said:

Why?

Why do we need a system that's designed to override the will of the people?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
5 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

Why do we need a system that's designed to override the will of the people?

Please explain how the EC overrides the will of the people? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seanjo
7 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

Why do we need a system that's designed to override the will of the people?

I'm all for real democracy, so the way it would have to work is you abolish voting regions and take the count of every vote of every American (of voting age) as a whole.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seanjo

WHY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE

 

by Marc Schulman

The Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states.

The first reason that the founders created the Electoral College is hard to understand today. The founding fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency. They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power. Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers:

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.

(See All of the Federalist 68)

Hamilton and the other founders believed that the electors would be able to insure that only a qualified person becomes President. They believed that with the Electoral College no one would be able to manipulate the citizenry. It would act as check on an electorate that might be duped. Hamilton and the other founders did not trust the population to make the right choice. The founders also believed that the Electoral College had the advantage of being a group that met only once and thus could not be manipulated over time by foreign governments or others.

The electoral college is also part of compromises made at the convention to satisfy the small states. Under the system of the Electoral College each state had the same number of electoral votes as they have representative in Congress, thus no state could have less then 3. The result of this system is that in this election the state of Wyoming cast about 210,000 votes, and thus each elector represented 70,000 votes, while in California approximately 9,700,000 votes were cast for 54 votes, thus representing 179,000 votes per electorate. Obviously this creates an unfair advantage to voters in the small states whose votes actually count more then those people living in medium and large states.

One aspect of the electoral system that is not mandated in the constitution is the fact that the winner takes all the votes in the state. Therefore it makes no difference if you win a state by 50.1% or by 80% of the vote you receive the same number of electoral votes. This can be a recipe for one individual to win some states by large pluralities and lose others by small number of votes, and thus this is an easy scenario for one candidate winning the popular vote while another winning the electoral vote. This winner take all methods used in picking electors has been decided by the states themselves. This trend took place over the course of the 19th century.

While there are clear problems with the Electoral College and there are some advantages to it, changing it is very unlikely. It would take a constituitional amendment ratified by 3/4 of states to change the system. It is hard to imagine the smaller states agreeing. One way of modifying the system is to eliminate the winner take all part of it. The method that the states vote for the electoral college is not mandated by the consitution but is decided by the states. Two states do not use the winner take all system, Maine and Nebraska. It would be difficult but not impossible to get other states to change their systems, unfortunately the party that has the advantage in the state is unlikely to agree to a unilateral change. There are ongoing attempts to change the system but few expect them to be successful any time soon.

https://www.historycentral.com/elections/Electoralcollgewhy.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
1 minute ago, joc said:

Please explain how the EC overrides the will of the people? 

:huh: Listen, I genuinely don't mean this in any sort of tough-talk condescending way, but I seriously don't get why you don't understand this...

The entire point of any sort of voting system is to determine what the majority of people within a specific group support. Whether it's just a group of friends hiking who decide to vote which way to go on a hiking trail, or city counsel, or a group of executives running a private company, or our own congress, etc. They all go by the same rules: 1 person = 1 vote, and majority rule.

So when the majority of Americans vote for one president, yet you go with the other, that is going against the will of the people. It's like having a group of friends voting on what which two movies you wanna watch, only to go with the one the fewest people voted for. It's complete nonsense. And how you can't see that is again, simply beyond me.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
11 minutes ago, seanjo said:

I'm all for real democracy, so the way it would have to work is you abolish voting regions and take the count of every vote of every American (of voting age) as a whole.

a.k.a. - go solely with the popular vote. Exactly.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seanjo
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

:huh: Listen, I genuinely don't mean this in any sort of tough-talk condescending way, but I seriously don't get why you don't understand this...

The entire point of any sort of voting system is to determine what the majority of people within a specific group support. Whether it's just a group of friends hiking who decide to vote which way to go on a hiking trail, or city counsel, or a group of executives running a private company, or our own congress, etc. They all go by the same rules: 1 person = 1 vote, and majority rule.

So when the majority of Americans vote for one president, yet you go with the other, that is going against the will of the people. It's like having a group of friends voting on what which two movies you wanna watch, only to go with the one the fewest people voted for. It's complete nonsense. And how you can't see that is again, simply beyond me.

I agree! I was agreeing with you.

Edited by seanjo
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
3 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

:huh: Listen, I genuinely don't mean this in any sort of tough-talk condescending way, but I seriously don't get why you don't understand this...

The entire point of any sort of voting system is to determine what the majority of people within a specific group support. Whether it's just a group of friends hiking who decide to vote which way to go on a hiking trail, or city counsel, or a group of executives running a private company, or our own congress, etc. They all go by the same rules: 1 person = 1 vote, and majority rule.

So when the majority of Americans vote for one president, yet you go with the other, that is going against the will of the people. It's like having a group of friends voting on what which two movies you wanna watch, only to go with the one the fewest people voted for. It's complete nonsense. And how you can't see that is again, simply beyond me.

And I understand where you are coming from and how you come to that conclusion...but..it is a false conclusion and here is why.

There is a reason we have the EC. The reason is to exactly INSURE the will of the majority!  It isn't a simple majority thought. It works like this...take for instance the fact that California and New York now are Democrat majorities.   So Hillary had actually more voters who voted for her than Trump did.  Same with AlGore and Bush.  But the reason the Dems had more is because they had more voters from two very heavily populated regions...namely Cali and New York.  That's not the majority of Americans.  The people in Arizona and Texas and Oklahoma and Minnesota all have a vote as well.  So the only really fair way to assure a 'real' majority is the system we have now.  You vote in your district.  All those districts are added together and the candidate either wins or loses that county...the majority of counties wins the state.  

The EC is set up the way it is to keep two large partisan population sectors from clinching every win every time.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King

Also for the record, I was against the electoral college long before Trump ever got elected, so it has nothing to do with that. In fact I remember being opposed to it when I first learned about it back in high school freshman civics class, so basically since the very beginning.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc

In other words...it is a majority of American voters across the fruited plain...not a majority of Californians and New Yorkers.  Two states should not be able to trump the other 48

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
1 minute ago, joc said:

And I understand where you are coming from and how you come to that conclusion...but..it is a false conclusion and here is why.

There is a reason we have the EC. The reason is to exactly INSURE the will of the majority!  It isn't a simple majority thought. It works like this...take for instance the fact that California and New York now are Democrat majorities.   So Hillary had actually more voters who voted for her than Trump did.  Same with AlGore and Bush.  But the reason the Dems had more is because they had more voters from two very heavily populated regions...namely Cali and New York.  That's not the majority of Americans.  The people in Arizona and Texas and Oklahoma and Minnesota all have a vote as well.  So the only really fair way to assure a 'real' majority is the system we have now.  You vote in your district.  All those districts are added together and the candidate either wins or loses that county...the majority of counties wins the state.  

The EC is set up the way it is to keep two large partisan population sectors from clinching every win every time.

Sorry man, but that just doesn't make any sense. :blink:

The popular vote IS the majority, period. You're right that the people in Arizona and Texas and Oklahoma and Minnesota all have a vote as well, and their votes are calculated into the cumulative whole. If the Dems have more votes due to some heavily populated areas, then so be it, they simply have more. To mess with that system is to override the will of the people, plain and simple.

And listen, this is coming from a guy who lives in Kentucky, a deep red state. Practically all state votes are majority Republican, and while I undoubtedly disagree with the state's decision, I still stand by a popular vote system even though in my state that means less Democratic control.

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
4 minutes ago, joc said:

In other words...it is a majority of American voters across the fruited plain...not a majority of Californians and New Yorkers.  Two states should not be able to trump the other 48

Oh the irony of those words... Because under the EC, basically two states are able to trump all the rest, namely Florida and Ohio.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
1 minute ago, Aquila King said:

Sorry man, but that just doesn't make any sense. :blink:

The popular vote IS the majority, period. You're right that the people in Arizona and Texas and Oklahoma and Minnesota all have a vote as well, and their votes are calculated into the cumulative whole. If the Dems have more votes due to some heavily populated areas, then so be it, they simply have more. To mess with that system is to override the will of the people, plain and simple.

And listen, this is coming from a guy who lives in Kentucky, a deep red state. Practically all state votes are majority Republican, and while I undoubtedly disagree with the state's decision, I still stand by a popular vote system even though in my state that means less Democratic control.

Okay, but reverse it a different way...what if California and New York  were heavily Republican sectors?  Virtually guaranteeing a Republican President every time.  Are you good with that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
Just now, joc said:

Okay, but reverse it a different way...what if California and New York  were heavily Republican sectors?  Virtually guaranteeing a Republican President every time.  Are you good with that?

 

e05b5badff5b39f08b77da6be0869657.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
1 minute ago, Aquila King said:

Oh the irony of those words... Because under the EC, basically two states are able to trump all the rest, namely Florida and Ohio.

No they don't trump the rest of the states at all.  Man, you just got to learn how the system is set up.  It is complicated but for a reason.  It comes down to Two States often because of the EC no doubt....but there is a difference.  Ohio for instance...a Republican or Democrat could win...it really depends on turnout...and turnout is influenced by how much a candidate frequents that state....Hillary lost really because she thought she had it in the bag and didn't go out and campaign the way Trump did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
1 minute ago, Aquila King said:

 

e05b5badff5b39f08b77da6be0869657.jpg

Then why are you anti-Trump?  He won.  Why don't you support him?

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
1 minute ago, joc said:

No they don't trump the rest of the states at all.  Man, you just got to learn how the system is set up.  It is complicated but for a reason.  It comes down to Two States often because of the EC no doubt....but there is a difference.  Ohio for instance...a Republican or Democrat could win...it really depends on turnout...and turnout is influenced by how much a candidate frequents that state....Hillary lost really because she thought she had it in the bag and didn't go out and campaign the way Trump did.

Ever hear of Occam's Razor? :huh: I know it may seem like I'm oversimplifying this, but in reality the system you're advocating for overcomplicates things. Democracy is a very simple and easy-to-understand system. 

You seem to be doing a bunch of mental gymnastics in order to justify an election system that simply overrides the will of the majority of the American people.

4 minutes ago, joc said:

Then why are you anti-Trump?  He won.  Why don't you support him?

...uh, what?... I don't follow your logic here at all... :blink:

Generally speaking, I don't support Trump because I disagree with his policy positions. What does our election system have to do with supporting Trump?

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.