Dems propose abolishing EC

[+joc]

Okay...new question...

Do you think every vote in the Senate should be a simple majority? 51 wins every vote no matter what the vote is...or do you prefer a super majority of 60%?

[Aquila King]

1 minute ago, joc said:

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.

Again, relevance? 

2 minutes ago, joc said:

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

It's stupid on purpose, and that makes it somehow 'genius'... 

Is basic logic a foreign concept to you?

2 minutes ago, joc said:

Okay...new question...

Do you think every vote in the Senate should be a simple majority? 51 wins every vote no matter what the vote is...or do you prefer a super majority of 60%?

Depends on what you're voting on IMO.

For instance, if it's a Constitutional Amendment or a declaration of war, then super majority. Basic laws, I'm fine with a simple majority.

[+joc]

16 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

24 minutes ago, joc said:

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.

Again, relevance? 

Well, you agreed that you would be in favor of Republican presidents for the rest of your life.  Just wondering if you support any Republican positions that would make Republican presidents palatable for you for the remainder of your life.

16 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

It's stupid on purpose, and that makes it somehow 'genius'... 

Is basic logic a foreign concept to you?

It is not about logic...it is about creating a system that thwarts the growth and eventual take over of Tyranny...a very big Logical question in the minds of the newbie X-King George-ers.  How do we keep our democracy democratic for everyone?  See, back then there was a threat of invasion just like there is today across our southern border...it would be the invasion of Englanders who supported King George.  If they had a simple voting system...simple majority...a huge influx of King George supporters would have thrown the election to a King George Supporter and then...wallah..King George back in power.

[+joc]

19 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

24 minutes ago, joc said:

Okay...new question...

Do you think every vote in the Senate should be a simple majority? 51 wins every vote no matter what the vote is...or do you prefer a super majority of 60%?

Depends on what you're voting on IMO.

For instance, if it's a Constitutional Amendment or a declaration of war, then super majority. Basic laws, I'm fine with a simple majority.

Please explain how it depends on what you are voting on?  Early you said this:

Quote

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.

 

[+joc]

Besides all that...you cannot change a Constitutional Amendment by a Senate Vote...it has to be ratified by a two-thirds majority of states.

Edited January 5, 2019 by joc

[Aquila King]

55 minutes ago, joc said:

Well, you agreed that you would be in favor of Republican presidents for the rest of your life.  Just wondering if you support any Republican positions that would make Republican presidents palatable for you for the remainder of your life.

I think this ^ perfectly encapsulates the core difference between Trump supporters and most other people.

See, I believe in something called principles. That means that if absolutely ANYONE or ANYTHING violates the tenet of said principle, then you reject it based on that sole merit alone. In other words, I support a democratic election system based solely on the popular vote on principle, meaning that even if that very system leads to me never having those I personally support elected to office, I stand by that system because it is the best and most fair system for ALL Americans.

The fact that you just naturally assume that my supporting of a fair popular vote election system, even if it elects a Republican candidate, somehow means that I support Republican policies, tells A LOT about your idea of democracy. It shows that you're essentially not interested in what system is most reasonable and fair, you're only interested in whatever system helps to get those whom you support elected the easiest. Whether that system is fair or just apparently doesn't matter.

Basically, the fact that you assume me to support an election system based solely on the merits of its ability to elect Democrats, causes me to question your motives for supporting the Electoral College. After reading the quote above, I think you only support the Electoral College because it helps Republicans get elected, not because you believe that system to be truly fair.

1 hour ago, joc said:

Please explain how it depends on what you are voting on?  Early you said this:

Good question. I think this has to do with a concept that many conservatives often raise in favor of the EC, which is a concept known as the 'tyranny of the majority'. Basically they argue that oppressive majorities often use their majority influence to inflict political oppression against innocent minority groups. This does happen, but the best way to defend against this kind of oppression is through Civil Rights laws outlined in a Constitution, rather than overriding elections with an EC.

The Constitution of the United States exists to defend Civil Liberties. A simple majority vote shouldn't override the Constitution, because then those Civil Liberties hold no more power over the 'tyranny of the majority', the very thing the Constitution is supposed to defend against. By demanding a supermajority to override the Constitution, it helps to offset the chance of an oppressive majority.

So to put it simply, a super majority should be demanded only in response to individual Civil Rights. 

I could also mention how this same concept could also apply towards declarations of war, as a means of preventing an oppressive military regime against other nations, but you should pretty much get the gist of what I'm saying by now, so I'll refrain.

1 hour ago, joc said:

Besides all that...you cannot change a Constitutional Amendment by a Senate Vote...it has to be ratified by a two-thirds majority of states.

I'm well aware. The same general concept applies though. By requiring a 2/3rds majority of states votes, you're upping the requirements and creating a super majority vote.

If you want to argue the specifics of all this, then that's a perfectly reasonable discussion. 

[acidhead]

In Canada our Federal system of voting is almost the same as the USA.

We vote for a riding in our areas.  If we only had a popular vote system the three largest cities, Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver would decide the election. 

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

As I understood it, the EC served to ensure that three or four enclaves didn’t conssitently dictate who the president was each and every time. While not overtly democractic it is a function of democracy to ensure everyone gets heard equally. If it didn’t exist, you could get elected president by pandered only to the enclaves and not the nation as a whole. Yuo would have three or four communities dictating to the nation, and that would lead only to discontent from the unrepresented. 

[Likely Guy]

One person one vote.

How heretical?

Edited January 6, 2019 by Likely Guy

[Buzz_Light_Year]

11 hours 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?

 

 

[+and-then]

11 hours ago, joc said:

Besides all that...you cannot change a Constitutional Amendment by a Senate Vote...it has to be ratified by a two-thirds majority of states.

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.  

[Tatetopa]

8 minutes 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.  

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

[+joc]

13 hours ago, Aquila King said:

After reading the quote above, I think you only support the Electoral College because it helps Republicans get elected

It is in the amendments of the Constitution.  That's why I support it.  You say you want a popular vote....The EC actually is a popular vote.  Please read below and click on the link if you want a thorough understanding of the EC.

LINK

In each presidential election year, a group of candidates for elector is nominated by political parties and other groupings in each state, usually at a state party convention, or by the party state committee. It is these elector-candidates, rather than the presidential and vice presidential nominees, for whom the people vote in the November election, which is held on Tuesday after the first Monday in November. In most states, voters cast a single vote for the slate of electors pledged to the party presidential and vice presidential candidates of their choice. The slate winning the most popular votes is elected; this is known as the winner-take-all, or general ticket, system.

 

So what happens is...California, for example...has so many representatives in the House and 2 Senators.  So they have that many electoral votes.  The number of representatives in the House depends on the population of a state.   It doesn't really matter then how many people vote for Candidate D or Candidate R.  The Majority of people voting in California for Candidate D = Candidate D wins. 

But the people, whether they know it or not, are not actually voting for the President...they are voting for the Electors who vote the voice of the majority of the people of that state.  It is a majority pure and simple.  How you get one Candidate with more votes overall and still loses is if say, California has a huge population...and not just a majority of that state but an overwhelming majority vote for Candidate D....the candidate still only gets the number of reps in the House plus 2 senators as the number of votes for that state.

It works...it isn't all that complicated and it is fair.  It is fair because we are not United America.  We are the United States of America. And the States have State rights.  If you go to a strictly popular vote...you are edging around the rights of states who have a small population...like Wyoming for instance.  

In a nutshell it is like this:   If the majority of the citizens in Texas vote for Trump...then Trump wins Texas....he doesn't win the number of votes of Texans....he wins Texas.  He did however win a majority of the votes in Texas.  If he loses California...it is because the majority of the people of California voted against him.  But he didn't win a particular number of votes in California...he won the state.

It usually comes down to Ohio or Florida because X amount of Electoral votes in each state could push the level of Electoral Votes into the win column.  But that is still a majority of the citizens of each state.  You gotta keep in mind we are STATES and not just one giant population of 300 million+.

Anyway...if a majority of the States decided to go with the Popular vote I would support that...but it isn't going to happen.

And the other thing is....I am not lumping you into a Stereotypical Democrat Box...I know you aren't...but...a lot of Democrats want to do away with the EC because they do know that it would guarantee victories for them.  I just want to do what the Constitution says...that's all.  If you want to change the Constitution...there is a way to go about it.  And it is a big deal, very big deal, to change an amendment to the Constitution.  

[Wickian]

The entire point of the EC is to give states with lower populations a voice in the union.  There's a reason we're called the United States of America rather than just America.  What reason do states(or even a small group of 'lesser' states) that have widely different values than the current Congress/President and are financially solvent have to stay united if they have effectively zero representation?

[+DieChecker]

22 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

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

I agree. It will be nearly impossible to pull off without some kind of Junta of the entire government.

20 hours ago, Aquila King said:

Good. It needs to be abolished.

Please..... Sigh....

18 hours ago, Aquila King said:

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

Fairness. For the same reasons that gays, blacks, woman, and Jews need to be protected from the respective majorities that otherwise would dominate them entirely.

Are you for the 35% of the population that is white males to determine law by themselves. Because.... democracy... majority rules... right?

[+DieChecker]

Just now, Wickian said:

The entire point of the EC is to give states with lower populations a voice in the union.  There's a reason we're called the United States of America rather than just America.  What reason do states(or even a small group of 'lesser' states) that have widely different values than the current Congress/President and are financially solvent have to stay united if they have effectively zero representation?

Perhaps people that want to get rid of the EC hate diversity, and tolerance?

[F3SS]

16 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Perhaps people that want to get rid of the EC hate diversity, and tolerance?

They just have no concept of the states and refuse to grasp it. The politicians proposing this are just playing with their emotions. 2016 was a most traumatic event for them. Meanwhile on the other side of the aisle we have adults like Ted Cruz proposing a really meaningful new amendment to set congressional term limits.

[aztek]

ok, lets say we abolish EC, we can't leave current voting rules the same,  in this case voting should not be a right but an earned privilege, prove that you are worthy of voting before you get a voting license,, like having a skin in the game,  like  at least few years of tax returns,  or property tax paid....

[Buzz_Light_Year]

9 minutes ago, aztek said:

ok, lets say we abolish EC, we can't leave current voting rules the same,  in this case voting should not be a right but an earned privilege, prove that you are worthy of voting before you get a voting license,, like having a skin in the game,  like  at least few years of tax returns,  or property tax paid....

Or like it was in the early years only land owners could vote.

[aztek]

yea pretty much, otherwise it will be millions of freeloaders voting so working people give them more and more of their money, we can't have that.  actually system of social score similar to Chinese, is very much what we would  need in case of going by popular vote

Edited January 6, 2019 by aztek

[+DieChecker]

21 minutes ago, aztek said:

ok, lets say we abolish EC, we can't leave current voting rules the same,  in this case voting should not be a right but an earned privilege, prove that you are worthy of voting before you get a voting license,, like having a skin in the game,  like  at least few years of tax returns,  or property tax paid....

Fools think changing long established law is fine, and then some populist gets into office and they'll be whining for some kind of "representative" system. Fools and idiots. 

[+DieChecker]

23 minutes ago, aztek said:

ok, lets say we abolish EC, we can't leave current voting rules the same,  in this case voting should not be a right but an earned privilege, prove that you are worthy of voting before you get a voting license,, like having a skin in the game,  like  at least few years of tax returns,  or property tax paid....

Hunger Games!!

Or maybe the route of Starship Troopers??

[aztek]

3 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Hunger Games!!

Or maybe the route of Starship Troopers??

not sure we have to go to such lengths but a person will absolutely have to prove  his voice is worth counting. if we do away with EC.

Edited January 6, 2019 by aztek

[Wickian]

36 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Hunger Games!!

Or maybe the route of Starship Troopers??

Needing to earn citizenship is interesting if the Constitution is going to be amended.

[RavenHawk]

22 hours 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 this is where you are wrong.  We are not a democracy.  It is true that in local elections we abide by democratic principles but in small groups it is more likely to be homogeneous.  At the national level, the President must win a wide appeal, not just more votes.  If we go strictly mob rule then Southern California would pick the President every time.  The last time I looked, LA does not reflect the desires or requirements of the entire nation.  The EC assures that the President-elect enjoys the broad support of the nation.  There are some 3142 counties or county equivalents in the country.  Whoever wins the majority of those in each state wins the EC.  That is what Trump did.  In elections past the Progs manipulated a hole and we found out that if you win just 15 of the 25 most populous counties, a win can also be achieved.  There was nothing wrong with that, but clearly an attempt to usurp the intentions of the Founding Fathers and Trump was still able to defeat that.  So whoever wins the EC has the will of the people.  The Progs (Socialists) would have to move into fly-over, Deplorable country but the Socialist mindset finds no fertile ground here.