Dems propose abolishing EC

[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/

 

 

[RoofGardener]

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

[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.

[Aquila King]

Good. It needs to be abolished.

[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

[+joc]

4 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

Good. It needs to be abolished.

Why?

[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.

[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,

[Aquila King]

2 hours ago, joc said:

Why?

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

[+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? 

[Aquila King]

1 minute ago, joc said:

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

 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.

[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.

[+joc]

3 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

 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.

[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.

[+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

[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. 

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.

[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.

[+joc]

1 minute ago, Aquila King said:

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

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?

[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?

 

[+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.

[+joc]

1 minute ago, Aquila King said:

 

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

[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?  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... 

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?

[F3SS]

The EC ensures a fair representation of the states. Believe me, if NY and CA were red states and Mexican immigrants were thought to vote red over blue the Democrats would veer so hard, from their soft you can't survive without me racism right back into the hoods and robes they came from, so fast it would break their necks. There'd be a 50' wall with moats and automatic turrets lining the border over night. 

Edited January 5, 2019 by F3SS

[+joc]

52 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

Ever hear of Occam's Razor?  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.

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

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?

Did you support the policy positions of Reagan?  Too long ago...okay...Bush Senior?  Still too long ago?  Bush the W?  What Republican policies do you support would be a better question.

[+joc]

And...it is overcomplicated...on purpose...the Genius of the founding fathers.  Easy isn't always best.