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 -
Sign in to follow this  
spartan max2

Should the electoral college be abolished?

95 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

RoofGardener
8 minutes ago, Doug1029 said:

By rejecting the appeal, the Supreme Court effectively overturned the law.

 

Umm.. could you clarify that ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Doug1029
11 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Umm.. could you clarify that ? 

The law was on the books, passed, signed and in effect.  But it was challenged in court with the lower court finding that it was unconstitutional.  The case was appealed and the Supreme Court refused to hear it, meaning that the lower court's overturning of the law stands.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
3 minutes ago, Doug1029 said:

The law was on the books, passed, signed and in effect.  But it was challenged in court with the lower court finding that it was unconstitutional.  The case was appealed and the Supreme Court refused to hear it, meaning that the lower court's overturning of the law stands.

Doug

I can't find a reference to that.. can you help ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
20 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

I can't find a reference to that.. can you help ? 

Try Wikipedia.  It's under cannabis in Oklahoma.  History.  Third paragraph.  It talks about the state's foot-dragging over a law already passed.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_in_Oklahoma

Here's a Washington Post article on anti-abortion laws that get declared unconstitutional:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/extreme-antiabortion-laws-are-unconstitutional-that-doesnt-make-them-less-dangerous/2019/05/17/2c7ece80-78d9-11e9-bd25-c989555e7766_story.html

Here's another:  https://www.bartleby.com/essay/Abortion-Unconstitutional-State-and-Federal-Laws-FKSFV85P24HQ

There are lots of laws, especially, anti-abortion ones that are passed with the knowledge that they will fail in the courts.  This costs taxpayers millions of dollars that should be spent on needed programs, rather than harassing people.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cookie Monster
On 12/18/2019 at 2:26 PM, Doug1029 said:

Slaves used to count as 3/5 person for representational purposes in the House.  Yet slaves were not allowed to vote.  How is California's system any worse than that?

Doug

Why is that a relevant point of debate in the 21st century?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
2 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

Why is that a relevant point of debate in the 21st century?

That's my point.  It is not relevant.  It was one of the reasons for creating the EC and it no longer exists; thus, there is one less reason to keep the EC around.

An I being too complicated for you?

Doug

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
On 12/22/2019 at 10:46 AM, Doug1029 said:

Doesn't California require that EC delegates be apportioned as closely as possible to the popular vote?  Some states already do this, but I don't remember if California is one of them.

Doug

To my knowledge, only Maine and Nebraska apportion these votes.  I was unaware even of that until you asked the question.  I thought all the states were winner take all.  The electoral college system is the only way to stop rule by the mob, IMO.  The huge populations in the urban areas will always give an unbeatable advantage to one party and will essentially make us a one-party government.  That wouldn't end well.  The founders NEVER envisioned pure democracy for America because they knew its weaknesses.  

I'll give you one example to ponder.  Virginia just became a Democrat controlled state.  Totally unified government with their house, senate and governor's office all Democrat.  They immediately set to work to create gun control laws that have caused quite a backlash in the state.  So much so that 100 sheriffs and other local officials have declared their intention to IGNORE the law.  When the people in an urban area decide they want something that most of the rest of the state are appalled by, there will be such issues.  This decision to nullify state law is an outgrowth of the states that chose to nullify Federal Immigration law.  

Nullification is destructive to our country, so much so that we fought a Civil War to stop it in the 1860s.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
9 minutes ago, Doug1029 said:

Try Wikipedia.  It's under cannabis in Oklahoma.  History.  Third paragraph.  It talks about the state's foot-dragging over a law already passed.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_in_Oklahoma

Here's a Washington Post article on anti-abortion laws that get declared unconstitutional:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/extreme-antiabortion-laws-are-unconstitutional-that-doesnt-make-them-less-dangerous/2019/05/17/2c7ece80-78d9-11e9-bd25-c989555e7766_story.html

Here's another:  https://www.bartleby.com/essay/Abortion-Unconstitutional-State-and-Federal-Laws-FKSFV85P24HQ

There are lots of laws, especially, anti-abortion ones that are passed with the knowledge that they will fail in the courts.  This costs taxpayers millions of dollars that should be spent on needed programs, rather than harassing people.

Doug

Hmm.. the Wikipedia article doesn't discuss the Republicans passing a bill that they knew would be struck down by the courts. Indeed, it doesn't make ANY refference to a bill being struck down. 

Sadly, I can't access the Washington Impeachment article as it is behind a paywall. A - indeed - is the Bartleby article. 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
26 minutes ago, and then said:

To my knowledge, only Maine and Nebraska apportion these votes.  I was unaware even of that until you asked the question.  I thought all the states were winner take all.  The electoral college system is the only way to stop rule by the mob, IMO.  The huge populations in the urban areas will always give an unbeatable advantage to one party and will essentially make us a one-party government.  That wouldn't end well.  The founders NEVER envisioned pure democracy for America because they knew its weaknesses.  

I'll give you one example to ponder.  Virginia just became a Democrat controlled state.  Totally unified government with their house, senate and governor's office all Democrat.  They immediately set to work to create gun control laws that have caused quite a backlash in the state.  So much so that 100 sheriffs and other local officials have declared their intention to IGNORE the law.  When the people in an urban area decide they want something that most of the rest of the state are appalled by, there will be such issues.  This decision to nullify state law is an outgrowth of the states that chose to nullify Federal Immigration law.  

Nullification is destructive to our country, so much so that we fought a Civil War to stop it in the 1860s.  

One of the reasons for the EC is to stop mob rule.  But that part doesn't seem to work very well - Trump is the evidence.  It stopped Gore and Hilary, but not Trump - a mixed bag.

We have multiple checks and balances for a reason.  Virginia came up with a method of gun control that was unpopular and probably wouldn't work the way it is supposed to.  The Sheriffs refusing to enforce the law is one of those checks.

So where did the Civil War leave state's rights?  As far as I can tell, there aren't any of those any more.

The Supreme Court established the principle of One Man - One Vote.  By allowing rural areas to over-rule the majority we deny that.

We can be a two-party system any time we want to be.  All the minority party has to do is come up with programs that result in it getting elected.  Argue your case on its merits, not on forcing your political will on others.

Doug

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
38 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Hmm.. the Wikipedia article doesn't discuss the Republicans passing a bill that they knew would be struck down by the courts. Indeed, it doesn't make ANY refference to a bill being struck down. 

Sadly, I can't access the Washington Impeachment article as it is behind a paywall. A - indeed - is the Bartleby article. 

 

We had to file multiple lawsuits against various state agencies to get them to administer the law in good faith.  The law, itself, wasn't struck down - it was the bad-faith regulations created by those opposed to legalization that were struck down.  Sorry if I'm not being very clear.

Just google "unconstitutional abortion laws."

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
On 12/21/2019 at 10:43 AM, Doug1029 said:

As it stands right now, I get no vote in Presidential elections.  Oklahoma is a winner-take-all state.  The minority party's votes are simply thrown out.  It doesn't matter whether nobody at all voted for the candidate, or whether that candidate lost by only one vote - the result is the same.  The minority is disenfranchised.  And Oklahoma isn't the only state with this problem - in some states it is Republicans who are disenfranchised.

Doug

 

Elections have consequences.  Even if you go with a popular vote, the minority party’s votes are still simply thrown out (as you say).  Here in New Mexico, it is the opposite.  That’s not the problem.  But I don’t see it the same way that you do.  I still get my vote even if my candidate doesn’t win.  As I continue to vote the way I see it, one can begin to see the pendulum swing back into the right direction.  NM has a chance to flip for Trump in 2020.  That is kind of wishful thinking, but there are indications.  But the one thing you are missing is that, yes indeed, if a candidate gets no votes or loses by one mischaracterizes the EC.  The EC is basically based in demographics, not numbers.  The winner is the one getting the broadest appeal.  The US is not homogeneous.  Does that concept not register with you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029

The law Trump broke is the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act of 1974, ironically, signed by President Nixon less than a month before he resigned.  It provides that money appropriated by Congress must be spent the way Congress intended and cannot be withheld or used for other purposes.  Trump impounded money designated for Ukraine - he sent the order by email 91 minutes after his conversation with the Ukainian President.   Trump also used money meant for military base construction to his border wall project, a misdeed for which he has not been impeached.

There is no penalty in the law for violating it - no fines, no jail time.  The penalty is the Constitutional one of impeachment and removal from office.  That is what the Dems are trying to do.  It's a good-faith effort to force the President to obey the law.

Trump will not learn from a near miss.  If wins this one, he will go on to other violations of US law.  He has done this before.  The only way to stop him is to remove him from office.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Doug1029
10 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

Elections have consequences.  Even if you go with a popular vote, the minority party’s votes are still simply thrown out (as you say).  Here in New Mexico, it is the opposite.  That’s not the problem.  But I don’t see it the same way that you do.  I still get my vote even if my candidate doesn’t win.  As I continue to vote the way I see it, one can begin to see the pendulum swing back into the right direction.  NM has a chance to flip for Trump in 2020.  That is kind of wishful thinking, but there are indications.  But the one thing you are missing is that, yes indeed, if a candidate gets no votes or loses by one mischaracterizes the EC.  The EC is basically based in demographics, not numbers.  The winner is the one getting the broadest appeal.  The US is not homogeneous.  Does that concept not register with you?

The idea of voting is to give each PERSON an equal chance at affecting the outcome.  It is not about giving each county, state or voting district an equal chance.  Why does that not register with you?

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
14 minutes ago, Doug1029 said:

The idea of voting is to give each PERSON an equal chance at affecting the outcome.

And in an EC or a popular vote, the individual has that chance either way.  However, …

 

It is not about giving each county, state or voting district an equal chance. 

We are part of a community, county, voting district, etc.  People collect into communities of like mind.  The farmer in Illinois has different sensibilities than the rancher in New Mexico.  The voter in Los Angeles does not speak for the voter in Broken Bow.  And without the EC, you would soon have that.  It tabulates the broadest support between the communities.  Each individual vote makes up the community.  Our whole history is based on it.  Now if we were all cogs like Socialists would like us to be, then sure, we get one mindless vote in a tyranny of Democracy.  That’s how dictators come to power.  That’s not how this nation was established.

 

Why does that not register with you?

Oh, it registers with me.  I simply reject it for what it is and I give you the reasons.  But I suspect that those reasons do not register with you.  Our Founding Fathers did everything they could to prevent exactly what you want.  You need to reflect on that.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
26 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

And in an EC or a popular vote, the individual has that chance either way.

The EC was deliberately set up so that individual voters DID NOT have an equal chance.

 

But if one wants to maintain state's rights, there is a way to organize it that would make it fairer:  each state gets two electoral votes at large.  The remaining votes are divided so as to approximate that state's popular vote.  That gives states with smaller populations a disproportionate chance of affecting the outcome without the grossly-distorted results we now have.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
On 12/21/2019 at 11:12 AM, Doug1029 said:

That shoe fits equally well on the other foot.

Yes, it could, but the Republicans had the counter and that was to use the EC in the manner it was intended to be used.  The DNC having such narrow appeal can only focus on the heaviest populated counties where Trump is everywhere.

 

The problem is gerrimandering. 

No, it is not.  Elections have consequences.  Redistricting occurs every 10 years with the Census.  The party in power gets to draw the lines.  Gerrymandering is not as ominous as you make it out to be.  The EC tempers it.  The changing demographics are fluid.

 

We need to keep voting districts as equally balanced by party within each state as it is possible to be. 

Of course, just as long as it is more equal for the Left.  That just doesn’t work in the majority of counties in this country as most are ‘Red’.  Core American values do not change.  And red counties are the bastions of American values.  When the inner city has completely collapsed, those deep blue counties will turn red.  The heavy Black areas may just do that.  Start to see red in the center of blue areas.  That would be something to see.  But likewise, people start to flee the blue areas and that tends to turn red areas purple until those from blue areas begin to acclimate to their community.  It is usually their children that become Conservative and purple turns back to red.

 

An independent commission could do this better than any other entity. 

Independent?  Like the Mueller team?  It’s still better to let the people decide who they want as their leaders and let the leaders determine districts.  In time, the people will prove one ideology over another.  Hopefully, it won’t take blood to wash the evil of Socialism from this nation because of poor leadership just as what occurred the first time.  Too many years slipped by and no one wanted to address it until it couldn’t be ignored any longer.

 

A few rules would help, too, such as a maximum ratio of perimeter to area (3.14 is the minimum value possible, but flagpole districts may have many times this number.).

Things like that tend to lean toward the Left.  It usually ends up splitting up regions of like community.  That defeats the purpose of representative government when you take a purely human function and automate it.  Socialist reprogramming of human nature.  It just doesn’t work.  Just look at the inner city.

 

Had the US attempted to abolish slavery in the Constitution, the slave-holding states would not have ratified it. 

Partially correct.  But to compromise did not give the slave-holding states an advantage as you claim.  Although your comment does show that that’s what Socialism thinks of compromise.  That’s why the Left cannot compromise.  That’s why the Right always gets screwed over. 

 

We would have become a bunch of banana-republics. 

I doubt that they would devolve into banana-republics.  They would have broken up into individual country-states and maybe in time, seek to join back with England.  The Northern states would have.

 

Some compromise was needed to get past this first hurdle. 

Compromise is the name of the game.  Socialism destroys any true compromise.  It’s the old story of the Right buying into promises by the Left, “if you vote for us now, then down the road, we’ll talk about what you want.”  When later comes, there’s no talk.

 

That's part of the reason for the Electoral College.

That’s not part of the reason for the EC.  The purpose was to prevent the masses from falling into a mob.  It was a way to keep the large population centers form dominating politics.  If we go to a popular vote, then Southern California would determine the election every time.  The big city would overrule the rural areas.  The candidates wouldn’t need to campaign anywhere else but Southern California.  That’s not a President of the United States.  That’s a President of one party only.  All Americans get to ride the bus, not just sit in the back.  Socialists would see to it that the Deplorables would stay in the back.

 

As for slavery being evil - that was the case since the days of John Woolman 1755 (?) who refused on the basis of conscience to fill out a bill of sale for a slave. 

That doesn’t mean anything.  That just shows that the idea was there in the public consciousness and nothing more. 

 

At the time of the Revolution there was already a strong abolitionist movement in New England.

Correct but until Jefferson uttered those words, it was still just an afterthought.  When people began to read the document, the idea became concrete, it had meaning.  An idea was coming to life!  That idea being “America”.

 

In England, just prior to the Civil War, Karl Marx wrote a rant about the hypocrisy of the Duchess of Southerland opposing American slavery, yet selling her own clansmen into slavery a generation earlier. 

And?  That just shows how fickle some people can be.

 

In Russia, the Czar beat us to it and abolished serfdom in 1862.

The Czar was a man of the Enlightenment.  He had read the likes of Locke and Jefferson.  He was influenced by them.

 

Yes.  Economics would probably have ended slavery eventually, but in 1789 that was well over the horizon.

It wasn’t going to happen overnight.  Slavery was an institution thousands of years in the making.

 

P.S.:  slavery still exists.  Right here in America, among other places.  Here it's illegal, but that doesn't keep people from doing it.

Yes it does.  From the Coyotes that run slave houses to the Progs that maintain the Plantation mentality in the inner city and are desperate to expand it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
11 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

Yes it does.  From the Coyotes that run slave houses to the Progs that maintain the Plantation mentality in the inner city and are desperate to expand it.

About 25 years ago I was a forester in Longmont, Colorado.  There was a stone quarry about 15 miles away run by the Purdue family at the old town site of Nolan.  They kept a crew of Mexican illegals there.  They kept them locked in barns at night and made them quarry stone by day under armed guard.  One night one of the slaves got very sick and a friend of his helped him break out and they hitch-hiked to Longmont.  A local cop spotted them and took them to the hospital where the story came out.

They arrived at the hospital about 3:00 a.m.  The FBI, Immigration and the local SWAT team were called and they raided the quarry at 6:00 a.m.  Considering the mistreatment , the judge ordered that the illegals be issued green cards, allowed them to call home and ordered them to remain within the county until the outcome of the trial.  The Purdues (5 of them) got prison time and lost their quarry and ranch, the proceeds of which went to pay back wages and court costs.

This was NOT inner city.  At the time the land was rural.  The old town site of Nolan is now a subdivision.  The the Purdues were about as "conservative" as it is possible to be.  They have now completed their prison terms.  Another family which was complicit in the operation sold out and moved to Wyoming.

Slavery DOES exist within the US, illegal though it may be.  As far as I can tell, the ones who perpetrate this type of slavery are people with money, nearly all of whom are political conservatives who steadfastly champion individual rights for themselves while denying them to others.  American slavery these days involves mostly illegal aliens who are afraid to go to the police for help.

There is another type of slavery - the sex trade.  The people who run it mostly have no political ideology.  They are folks you would not want to meet in a dark alley.

In both cases, greed is the motivating factor.

Doug

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Jim
4 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

It wasn’t going to happen overnight.  Slavery was an institution thousands of years in the making.

Compared to how long slavery had been an entrenched part of most societies, ending it in roughly 75 years is overnight.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
3 hours ago, Doug1029 said:

The EC was deliberately set up so that individual voters DID NOT have an equal chance.

No it is not.  All voters have an equal chance.  That’s even the wrong word to use.  All voters can cast their vote if they so desire.  If one participates in voting then they can’t be disenfranchised.  If you didn’t vote for the winner, your vote still counts.  I can’t help but laughing.  I just saw the new Star Wars movie (Great movie BTW) but I noticed very heavy Conservative thought running throughout the film. Zorri (an old love interest of Poe’s) said “They win by making you think you’re alone”.  That is what the Left does.  That’s what the Mueller report was.  That’s what this fake impeachment is.  They are trying to make us feel alone.  And likewise, by saying things like voters don’t have an equal chance under the EC is yet another attempt trying to make us feel alone.  To continue with the Star Wars theme, Poe said “We’re not alone. Good people will fight if we lead them.”  The good people stood up to be heard and elected Trump.  That’s what Trump is doing, leading the good people to fight the evil in our political system.  The force is strong with this one.  At different places and in various ways, Lando, Finn, and Zorri have stated “There’s more of us than there are of them.”

 

But if one wants to maintain state's rights, there is a way to organize it that would make it fairer:  each state gets two electoral votes at large.  The remaining votes are divided so as to approximate that state's popular vote.  That gives states with smaller populations a disproportionate chance of affecting the outcome without the grossly-distorted results we now have.

Well HELLO!  Yes, we must maintain states’ rights.  It would be unconstitutional otherwise.  I’ve toyed with the idea of each state getting 2 votes but I don’t think it would work.  You would have to divide each state into a rural bloc and an urban bloc.  But that’s what we have now anyway.  For instance, Illinois, the entire state is red (county wise) except Chicago.  But that turns the state blue overall.  Going with only 2 would cancel each other out, then you’d be left with DC deciding the outcome (I don’t think so).  The current EC is really the best.  Whoever becomes President must win the most votes between the two halves.  In essence, Trump won more of the urban vote than Hilary won of the rural vote.  That gives Trump the most mass appeal.  And that is the main reason for the EC.  It assures that the larger states do not dominate the system.  It gives each state an equal chance.  They are not grossly-distorted results.  I thought you were concerned about equality?  The EC gives equality and fairness.  The defect in the EC is the 17th Amendment.  It should be repealed and give a power back to the states that was stolen during a Socialist Administration.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
On 12/26/2019 at 2:06 PM, RavenHawk said:

It would be unconstitutional otherwise.

Progress toward making it constitutional now stands at 15 states plus the District of Columbia having signed the National Popular Vote Compact for a total of 176 electoral votes.  When that total reaches 270 a referendum of the fifty states will be presented with an amendment to consider.  Ratification by two-thirds of them will amend the constitution to provide for the popular election of the president.  It may be closer than you think.

Doug

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.