Dems propose abolishing EC

[Aquila King]

"This is a Republic, not a Democracy!" - DEBUNKED

[+and-then]

16 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

 So true. I will take this as a brilliantly phrased middle of the road comment, because it applies equally to both extremes.

Care to cite conservatives who are calling for the destruction of the Electoral College?  I can wait.  Not Republicans, mind.  CONSERVATIVES.  Or FTM, any slightly educated individual who has a grasp of the Founder's intent where the EC was concerned.  If the politicians in DC can convince Americans in sufficient numbers to elect representatives that will remove the EC then let them.  Until then it's just noise.

[+and-then]

1 hour ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Do you really believe that people who live in LA have the same life goals and politics as someone who lives in WhoopWhoop Idaho?

I don't believe they give a good care about such things.  They simply act out of a hatred that is engendered from the media they consume.  

[+and-then]

22 hours ago, Likely Guy said:

One person one vote.

How heretical?

As heretical as any system of tyranny you care to name.  In a country with as many diverse agendas as America, any type of "pure democracy" would lead to civil war in a very short time.  Those in large urban areas are the LEAST qualified to rule over those who make a country strong and prosperous.  And down here, we know how to resist such tyranny.  Watch us when push comes to shove  

[+joc]

1 hour ago, Aquila King said:

When the Constitution was being hammered out, women black people (and other racial minorities), and even white men who don't own land weren't allowed to vote. Hell at one point alcohol was Constitutionally abolished for a time. The Constitution has had numerous Amendments, a.k.a. changes to adjust to modern times.

If you conservatives want to keep living in the horse and buggy days then might I suggest you join the Amish or something, because right now we live in the modern world where half this s**t doesn't apply anymore. 

I'm not saying that the Constitution is invalid, I'm saying that arguing from the position of 'back when it was first established' is often times irrelevant to whether or not any laws or political systems should exist today.

You are right...it has gone through various stages...the Amendments...because things do change...and like I said...If it goes through the ratification process and the States decide by 2/3 majority to disban the EC...I'm fine with that.  But it won't happen without ratification and I think it is a wet dream at best.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

50 minutes ago, F3SS said:

How does it work in Australia?

Two men enters, one man leaves

 

we vote for who we we want to represent us on a local level, enough votes for one party makes the government and the party decides on who the leader is and the leader decides on who the representative of the Crown is.

[Aquila King]

6 minutes ago, joc said:

You are right...it has gone through various stages...the Amendments...because things do change...and like I said...If it goes through the ratification process and the States decide by 2/3 majority to disban the EC...I'm fine with that.  But it won't happen without ratification and I think it is a wet dream at best.

Whether it will or won't happen is it's own discussion, to which I'd soberly be more inclined to agree (well, that is to say I think it's unlikely to happen any time soon, not impossible).

Right now the discussion is on whether or not it should exist, To which I'm arguing it shouldn't.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

42 minutes ago, acidhead said:

Imagine a global government, one person-one vote.......... How would that scenario look?

Also, what countries in the world currently elect their leader by popular vote?  

North Korea, Little Kim won AGAIN. Who’s have thunk it.

[+joc]

8 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

Whether it will or won't happen is it's own discussion, to which I'd soberly be more inclined to agree (well, that is to say I think it's unlikely to happen any time soon, not impossible).

Right now the discussion is on whether or not it should exist, To which I'm arguing it shouldn't.

And I am arguing that it should stay the way it is.  And the reasons are because I don't think it is fair that two large partisan population centers thwart the wishes of the rest of the Nation.  I understand where you are coming from...and there are a lot of people on the right who agree with you.  I just think it is a fairer way to go.  How does Hillary get more votes than Trump?  She was a worthless candidate...never campaigned anywhere near the level that Trump did.  To answer my own question...she gets more votes than Trump because of the two liberal population centers in 2 states.  That isn't fair...the rest of the union matters too.

[Big Jim]

2 hours ago, Aquila King said:

When the Constitution was being hammered out, women black people (and other racial minorities), and even white men who don't own land weren't allowed to vote. Hell at one point alcohol was Constitutionally abolished for a time. The Constitution has had numerous Amendments, a.k.a. changes to adjust to modern times.

If you conservatives want to keep living in the horse and buggy days then might I suggest you join the Amish or something, because right now we live in the modern world where half this s**t doesn't apply anymore. 

I'm not saying that the Constitution is invalid, I'm saying that arguing from the position of 'back when it was first established' is often times irrelevant to whether or not any laws or political systems should exist today.

I was referring to "back then" as a way of explaining why it is the way it is, since you didn't seem to understand why the Electoral College exists.  You seem to think that only conservatives value the Constitution, and you may be right, but since it is what makes America America I like to believe that it is still valued by people of both parties.  If you think it should be changed, the method to do that is spelled out in the document itself and you're free to start the crusade to change it.  Until then this is the reality.  The Founders wisely omitted whining as a way of effecting change.

[Aquila King]

29 minutes ago, joc said:

And I am arguing that it should stay the way it is. 

And I'm getting pretty tired of repeating myself, so I'll simply respond maybe 1 or 2 more times before calling it quits. I really don't have that much more to add that hasnt already been said, so...

31 minutes ago, joc said:

And the reasons are because I don't think it is fair that two large partisan population centers thwart the wishes of the rest of the Nation. 

They aren't. You're unnecessarily dividing America up between two major population centers that happen to be overwhelmingly Democrat, vs. the rest of America (or should I say, rural America that happens to be far more Republican). You're drawing a line in the sand where there is none.

Sigh... Let's try and break this down...

Let's just say that hypothetically speaking, what if everyone in the US were mixed together in a sort of 'blender' to where no matter where you go, be it New York or Texas, there was a near-perfect 50/50 split between Dems and Reps. We aren't adding or taking away any voters from what we have now, just relocating them so that California has no more a concentration of Democrats then Mississippi has Republicans. For the purpose of this exercise, all states are politically purple.

Now again, we haven't added or taken away any voters, merely relocated them, so in this exercise the popular vote would be exactly the same as it would be if done in the real world. So given this new alignment, would you still view the popular vote as 'thwarting the wishes of the rest of the nation'? 

See, you keep arguing that certain states or cities or areas of the country are somehow 'thwarting the wishes of the other', when in actuality it makes no difference where people are located, the entire nation IS the electorate, so if there happens to be more Democrats then Republicans overall, that's too bad. And that's not me saying that just so I can get more Democrats elected, because I've already expressed how that very same system I'm supporting almost guarantees Republican victories in my home State.

At the end of the day, you're only arguing in favor of this system because it helps to get more Republicans elected despite them losing the actual election. If it were the other way around, you'd likely be arguing my case.

56 minutes ago, joc said:

How does Hillary get more votes than Trump?  She was a worthless candidate...never campaigned anywhere near the level that Trump did.  To answer my own question...she gets more votes than Trump because of the two liberal population centers in 2 states.  That isn't fair...the rest of the union matters too.

She gets more votes than Trump because Trump himself was a weak candidate. By your own logic, that would mean it's outright impossible for a Republican to win the popular vote, when in reality George W. Bush won the popular vote back in '04. That's not that long ago. 

It's true that a Republican winning the popular vote is rare and difficult, but it isn't impossible. So don't go blaming a few majority liberal cities in 2 states for Hillary beating Trump in the popular vote. He lost because he isn't that popular.

[Tatetopa]

18 hours ago, and then said:

We're having the wisdom of supremely mature, well-educated individuals being mocked and dismissed by people who get all their education from a supremely biased set of sycophants.  If they get their way, America will fall.  The saddest aspect of it is that they cannot even grasp their jeopardy.  It is more important to gain an advantage over those who they oppose.  Even when they cannot articulate why they oppose them without talking points from a media member or a professor.

Sorry, does this mention the EC.  It is brilliant because it is so general and at the same time universal.

[Aquila King]

1 minute ago, Big Jim said:

I was referring to "back then" as a way of explaining why it is the way it is, since you didn't seem to understand why the Electoral College exists.

Let me say this again, I understand perfectly why the Electoral College was established, I simply disagree with the entire premise of it.

Just because I disagree with something does not mean I don't understand it. It is precisely because I understand it that causes me to disagree with it.

4 minutes ago, Big Jim said:

You seem to think that only conservatives value the Constitution, and you may be right, but since it is what makes America America I like to believe that it is still valued by people of both parties.

Are you kidding me? Where on earth did I say I don't value the Constitution? All I said was that it like all things isn't perfect, and when it was first written it was far less so then it is today.

I'm not saying conservatives value the Constitution more (in fact I'd argue that many don't value it at all, given that so many want to ignore the first amendment by trampling all over the free press and the religious right trying to legislate their religion and whatnot). I'm simply saying that constantly harkening back to when the Constitution was first written is often times a pointless endeavor, since the Constitution as it stands now is far superior to the one of yester year.

13 minutes ago, Big Jim said:

If you think it should be changed, the method to do that is spelled out in the document itself and you're free to start the crusade to change it.  Until then this is the reality.  The Founders wisely omitted whining as a way of effecting change.

Well, beyond this I would personally add a Constitutional Amendment that would get big money out of our political system and abolish lobbying. So yes, i would have a few adjustments, and i indeed support the efforts of my fellow lefties who fight for that change. 

As for 'whining', peaceful protest is an effective form of political change that motivates our politicians to take action in favor of the Wil of their constituents. Although you aren't talking about that by the term 'whining' are you? You're only saying that to shut me up. Sorry, but that won't work here.

[+joc]

36 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

Sigh... Let's try and break this down...

Let's just say that hypothetically speaking, what if everyone in the US were mixed together in a sort of 'blender' to where no matter where you go, be it New York or Texas, there was a near-perfect 50/50 split between Dems and Reps. We aren't adding or taking away any voters from what we have now, just relocating them so that California has no more a concentration of Democrats then Mississippi has Republicans. For the purpose of this exercise, all states are politically purple.

Heavy Sigh....not really...The fact is we are not mixed up blenderishly speaking.  But let's look at another extreme on the opposite side of that spectrum.  Consider that California had a new Gold Rush...I mean, people were flocking to California.  To the point that two thirds of the country was living in California.  200 million people in California...mostly voting Democrat...or...mostly voting Republican....doesn't matter...the outcome is the same.  Popular vote...California dictates who will be President.  Why should the other 49 states even bother voting?   We are a country of States.  One state cannot be allowed to pick the President.  It isn't about a popular majority of the country...we are a Representative Republic.  We elect representatives. 

never mind  I'm too sleepy.....

Edited January 7, 2019 by joc

[Aquila King]

3 minutes ago, joc said:

let's look at another extreme on the opposite side of that spectrum.  Consider that California had a new Gold Rush...I mean, people were flocking to California.  To the point that two thirds of the country was living in California.  200 million people in California...mostly voting Democrat...or...mostly voting Republican....doesn't matter...the outcome is the same.  Popular vote...California dictates who will be President.  Why should the other 49 states even bother voting? 

Again, because the other 49 States are still part of the whole. No matter where you put people in America, the office of the President is an office that represents Americans, not individual States.

10 minutes ago, joc said:

We are a country of States.  One state cannot be allowed to pick the President.  It isn't about a popular majority of the country...we are a Representative Republic.  We elect representatives.  

Indeed, we're a country of States. And the States elect politicians that represent the people of each State. But the President represents the people of the entire nation. Therefore, it doesn't matter what State people are from, because Americans are Americans. Period.

As for the whole 'This is a Republic' nonsense, Ill refer you to the link I previously posted:

2 hours ago, Aquila King said:

"This is a Republic, not a Democracy!" - DEBUNKED

 

14 minutes ago, joc said:

I'm kind of done here because i'm beating a dead horse.  

As am I... I'm really not saying anything new at this point, and neither are you...

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

That’s the ideal Aquila.

The reality is the presidential candidate would campaign ONLY in the places where the majority resides because they’re the ones that elect them. They’d then go on to pander to those enclaves because they want to be re-elected. 

So you have Idaho potato farmers getting no attention or ever having a chance of having their voices heard without the EC because the numbers are in LA. Now, in an ideal world, the President presides over all the nation and not just those that elected them. But we’re both old enough to see that thats’ not how they’ll act. 

[+joc]

5 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

22 minutes ago, joc said:

We are a country of States.  One state cannot be allowed to pick the President.  It isn't about a popular majority of the country...we are a Representative Republic.  We elect representatives.  

Indeed, we're a country of States. And the States elect politicians that represent the people of each State. But the President represents the people of the entire nation. Therefore, it doesn't matter what State people are from, because Americans are Americans. Period.

But Madison even said that the elections should be of a great mass of society, be it directly, or indirectly....

[aztek]

wow, he's even more cluless than i thought. presidents job is not to represent the people.  but oversee federal gvmnt,  and national security\economy.  it's state gvmnt job to represent its people. 

[+and-then]

5 minutes ago, aztek said:

wow, he's even more cluless than i thought. presidents job is not to represent the people.  but oversee federal gvmnt,  and national security\economy.  it's state gvmnt job to represent its people. 

The greatest irony, for me, in the attitudes of those that want pure democracy is that if they got it and the trend of the culture became something anathema to them, they'd be the first to want to flood the streets and "retake their country".  Most of those on the "Right" side of the spectrum don't expect to rule over anyone.  We just want reasonable compromise and a voice.  

[DingoLingo]

On 1/6/2019 at 3:47 AM, 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.

ok I kinda get what your saying here.. but this is what baffles me.. because only a select amount of people get off their asses to vote.. then its not really reflecting that.. 

lets say it was Don the Con that won the popular vote.. and Shillery the EC.. then the majorty of the people voted for trump not shillery.. yet if she wins the EC then that is not democratic.. sorry but it isnt.. because if people are to lazy to go out and vote.. they should not complain.. if they do not like who was voted in then they need to get off their lazy boy chairs.. and go cast their vote.. what you have is a Oligarch.. where a small group of people (your EC) choose who is going to lead masquerading as a Democracy  .. no matter what the popular vote says.. 

 

[RavenHawk]

4 hours ago, acidhead said:

Imagine a global government, one person-one vote.......... How would that scenario look?

China and India would be making decisions for us here in the US.

 

Also, what countries in the world currently elect their leader by popular vote?  

Many do.  For example, there is Iran.  The Supreme Leader decides on a pool of four or five that he puts out there to be President and then the people select one of those.  All of Europe does in some variation as does the US (at the Congress level) but there is a vital difference between the two and it has to deal with the Charters of Freedom. “In Europe, charters of liberty have been granted by power. America has set the example … of charters of power granted by liberty. This revolution in the practice of the world, may, with an honest praise, be pronounced the most triumphant epoch of its history, and the most consoling presage of its happiness.” – James Madison, Essays for the National Gazette, 1792.  The bottom line is that the act of voting is not an indication of how much freedom a nation enjoys.

[RavenHawk]

4 hours ago, Aquila King said:

Because we are. We are both a Republic, and a Democracy. And quite frankly I'm sick of hearing this same stupid ass drivel over and over again from conservatives...

Show me where in the Constitution it says we’re a Democracy?

[RavenHawk]

5 hours ago, Aquila King said:

"This is a Republic, not a Democracy!" - DEBUNKED

“We are just not a direct democracy—and I don’t know anyone who ever said that we are (and I’d be happy to join with anyone to argue we should not be).”

You keep saying that we are.  What do you think the popular vote is?  Yes, we are a Representative Democracy when it comes to electing Representatives and Senators, just not the Presidential ticket.  Congress represents their respective constituents in their home states.  The President represents all the people in all the states.  The EC prevents one demographic from controlling the vote.  The President must appeal to widest possible selection of the people, not just one or two special interest groups.  Again, that is what the EC does.

 

“It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans, and claim for their government the honorable title of republic.”

A favored class would be the Progs of New York or California in which a handful of tyrannical Progressives…  It just doesn’t work with Conservatives.

[CrimsonKing]

I don't think we should be a one person,one vote type of country and it has little to do with the EC...

Walk down Main Street anywhere in the USA and talk to 25 people,ANY 25 people in any city in our country...

What you will find is atleast half (most likely more than half) of our citizens are completely ignorant of the most basic facts of our government past to present!...

People should have to pass a test every 2-4 years for the ability to cast a vote...

[+joc]

6 hours ago, DingoLingo said:

what you have is a Oligarch.. where a small group of people (your EC) choose who is going to lead masquerading as a Democracy  .. no matter what the popular vote says.. 

A majority of American Citizens elect the President.  The popular vote elects the president.  But it isn't the popular vote of the entire country...and it is that way on purpose.  I live in Texas.  The popular vote of Texans went for Trump.  Trump wins Texas.The state of Texas has two senators in the United States Senate and 36 representatives in the United States House of Representatives.  Trump won Texas...therefore winning 38  votes in the electoral college.  Texas has a population of  28 million.  California went for Hillary.  California has 2 senators and 53 representatives in the House.  California has a population of 39.5 million.   Hillary won the popular vote of California.  Trump won the popular vote of Texas. 

The EC is not an Oligarchy .  They don't control anything.  The Electoral College is for all practical purposes...the sum total of all of the Representatives and Senators elected by the popular vote of each state.  The good people of Wyoming voted for Trump.  The popular vote of Wyoming went for Trump. The good people of New York voted for Hillary.  New York has 27 Representatives and 2 Senators. Wyoming has one Representative and 3 Senators.  But New York has a population of 20 million and Wyoming has a population of 600 thousand.   Collectively we have around 327 million people in The US.  Trump won the popular vote State by State...Hillary won the popular vote of the Collective population.  

Here is the most important thing.  We are a nation of elected representatives.  All of those representatives are elected by the popular vote of their state.   We are a country of States.  As a Collective Population we have one representative...the President.  But we are not a Collective.  We are a Republic.  Let's say hypothetically the race was split evenly.   There are 538 representatives in congress.  Divide that by 2 and you get 269.  That is why 270 wins.  Let's say Hillary wins 268 and Alaska and Wyoming are the deciding states..and they both go for Trump.  Trump wins.  But Hillary still has more collective population votes than Trump.  

It is up to the States to elect the President.  Not the collective population of the nation.  It is not an Oligarchy.  The popular vote of each state wins.

From this point on...if anyone wants to argue that point I will only respond with a link to this post.

Edited January 7, 2019 by joc