The electoral college is a disaster for democracy

[peach174]

If you fully understood the Electoral College then you would realize why it will never be outdated.
If it weren't for the E.C. the P.C. Dem crowd would have never been able to be elected in the 70's and rise to power(Obama).
Through that processes minorities with different political ideologies are are able to come to power ,so that large population cities can't rule by sheer masses.
Back in the 70's larger cities were mostly conservative.
It also stops tyrrants and dictators.

 

[Staidhup]

The electoral college is one of the only barriers remaining to insure against tyranny. Face the fact, why should three or four major populated areas have oppressive powers over the rest of the country? Each state has the very same problem you claim is just, the major cities have dictatorial power over the rest of the state, hows that working out? Is that fair, and if so then why bother having the United States, lets break it up and be done with it. I propose the NE should be one country, SE another, Mid West and Mountain states another, Southwest another, the Northwest another, and California its own state. Then lets see how that works out. The SE, Mid West/ Mountain region, and Southwest would be the only economically solvent countries. California, already broke, NW dam close, and the NE flat broke. One fact remains if one looks at where the liberal strongholds are they will find it in large metropolitan area's with the greatest amount of poverty.

 

[Pogo]

If you fully understood the Electoral College then you would realize why it will never be outdated.
If it weren't for the E.C. the P.C. Dem crowd would have never been able to be elected in the 70's and rise to power(Obama).

Nope. O'bama won the popular vote, both times.

If you're thinking of four years ago when Donald Rump tweeted the title of this thread (and concurrently called for "revolution in the streets" if the PV winner was not the winner), that's because at the time he sent those tweets he thought Romney had won the PV. Erroneously.

--- which makes for a delicious irony now that he himself is losing the PV by the population of Montana and Wyoming combined.

IThrough that processes minorities with different political ideologies are are able to come to power ,so that large population cities can't rule by sheer masses.
Back in the 70's larger cities were mostly conservative.
It also stops tyrrants and dictators.

It actually can stop tyrants and dictators from taking office, regardless of the popular vote:

>> He [Alexander Hamilton] worries that corrupted individuals could, particularly those who are either more directly associated with a foreign state, or individuals who do not have the capacity to run the country. The former is covered by Article II, Section 1, v of the United States Constitution, while the latter is covered by Hamilton in Federalist 68, where he notes that the person who will become president will have to be a person who possesses the faculties necessary to be a president, stating that,

"Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States" << Wiki - Federalist No. 68​

--- And that's food for thought in current events considering the references to "associated with a foreign state" (e.g. Russia) and "do not have the capacity to run the country" (e.g. Narcissistic Personality Disorder).

Just sayin' -- motive, means and opportunity. All on the table.

"Larger cities" --- or smaller ones --- are irrelevant to any of this anyway.

 

[Pogo]

Face the fact, why should three or four major populated areas have oppressive powers over the rest of the country?

Y'all can keep chanting that mantra all day and night --- what you can't do is make it work. Because "one" still equals "one". That's exactly the same number whether that "one" is in the middle of Manhattan New York, or thirty miles outside of Manhattan Kansas. Neither of those Ones is "more" or "less" a citizen.

The fact that you may not like how some significant portion of voters vote, well tough. Takes a little more than whining "waaah -- they have all those votes" to make an argument.

 

[bendog]

Face the fact, why should three or four major populated areas have oppressive powers over the rest of the country?

Y'all can keep chanting that mantra all day and night --- what you can't do is make it work. Because "one" still equals "one". That's exactly the same number whether that "one" is in the middle of Manhattan New York, or thirty miles outside of Manhattan Kansas. Neither of those Ones is "more" or "less" a citizen.

The fact that you may not like how some significant portion of voters vote, well tough. Takes a little more than whining "waaah -- they have all those votes" to make an argument.

His argument is nonsensical. The EC never had anything to do with population density disparity between different states, nor did the vote in this election. Electors are apportioned to states upon population density. Whether votes are counted popularly or by electors is not affected by the EC.

Peach at least got the purpose of the EC correct, although the rest on her analysis is factually wrong and simply partisan. The EC exists to overcome the will of the voters if the elites fear a person is elected who will not abide by the constitutional provisions for transferring power, i.e. a KING or emperor. The Founders feared that the masses would not be able to resist giving up their voting franchise for temporary material well being.

The EC was an historical oddity that may have had some anachronistic appeal. But, it has become dangerous to democracy. What happened was Hillary won some large states by larger margins than Trump won some others. Thus votes in Mich PA and Wisc counted more than other votes.

 

[Pogo]

Face the fact, why should three or four major populated areas have oppressive powers over the rest of the country?

Y'all can keep chanting that mantra all day and night --- what you can't do is make it work. Because "one" still equals "one". That's exactly the same number whether that "one" is in the middle of Manhattan New York, or thirty miles outside of Manhattan Kansas. Neither of those Ones is "more" or "less" a citizen.

The fact that you may not like how some significant portion of voters vote, well tough. Takes a little more than whining "waaah -- they have all those votes" to make an argument.

His argument is nonsensical. The EC never had anything to do with population density disparity between different states, nor did the vote in this election. Electors are apportioned to states upon population density. Whether votes are counted popularly or by electors is not affected by the EC.

Peach at least got the purpose of the EC correct, although the rest on her analysis is factually wrong and simply partisan. The EC exists to overcome the will of the voters if the elites fear a person is elected who will not abide by the constitutional provisions for transferring power, i.e. a KING or emperor. The Founders feared that the masses would not be able to resist giving up their voting franchise for temporary material well being.

The EC was an historical oddity that may have had some anachronistic appeal. But, it has become dangerous to democracy. What happened was Hillary won some large states by larger margins than Trump won some others. Thus votes in Mich PA and Wisc counted more than other votes.

Zackly, and the other side of that same coin is that voters in those "locked" states that were going to go blue or red regardless, had much less incentive to vote at all (because what's the point), while voters in so-called "battleground" states like mine were forced to vote for one of the Duopoly because it was in effect the only choice offered. So in a single stroke the effect of the EC is to discourage voting in one place, and perpetuate the Duopoly in the other. Part of what I've been pointing out for months here.

 

[bendog]

I have to back up. The EV has something to do with state size because each state has two senators. So the Founders did consider population density, so there is an effect in EC.

However, Trump won 3 of the 6 largest states.

And electors were intended to only override the will of the popular vote if that was necessary to preserve republican govt.

 

[bendog]

Face the fact, why should three or four major populated areas have oppressive powers over the rest of the country?

Y'all can keep chanting that mantra all day and night --- what you can't do is make it work. Because "one" still equals "one". That's exactly the same number whether that "one" is in the middle of Manhattan New York, or thirty miles outside of Manhattan Kansas. Neither of those Ones is "more" or "less" a citizen.

The fact that you may not like how some significant portion of voters vote, well tough. Takes a little more than whining "waaah -- they have all those votes" to make an argument.

His argument is nonsensical. The EC never had anything to do with population density disparity between different states, nor did the vote in this election. Electors are apportioned to states upon population density. Whether votes are counted popularly or by electors is not affected by the EC.

Peach at least got the purpose of the EC correct, although the rest on her analysis is factually wrong and simply partisan. The EC exists to overcome the will of the voters if the elites fear a person is elected who will not abide by the constitutional provisions for transferring power, i.e. a KING or emperor. The Founders feared that the masses would not be able to resist giving up their voting franchise for temporary material well being.

The EC was an historical oddity that may have had some anachronistic appeal. But, it has become dangerous to democracy. What happened was Hillary won some large states by larger margins than Trump won some others. Thus votes in Mich PA and Wisc counted more than other votes.

Zackly, and the other side of that same coin is that voters in those "locked" states that were going to go blue or red regardless, had much less incentive to vote at all (because what's the point), while voters in so-called "battleground" states like mine were forced to vote for one of the Duopoly because it was in effect the only choice offered. So in a single stroke the effect of the EC is to discourage voting in one place, and perpetuate the Duopoly in the other. Part of what I've been pointing out for months here.

Well, yeah. The effect of this election was that if you lived in PA or Wisc or even Fla, your vote counted more than in CA or NY .. or Tex for that matter. The SIZE of the state is irrelevant.

And the real protection for voter disenfranchisement in in the PRIMARY process. If you live in ND or Wyo, and are a dem, or in WA and are a goper, you have NO real vote in the general ... unless it's a watershed election like 64 or 80. But candidates from your party have to campaign in your state.

 

[Pogo]

Face the fact, why should three or four major populated areas have oppressive powers over the rest of the country?

Y'all can keep chanting that mantra all day and night --- what you can't do is make it work. Because "one" still equals "one". That's exactly the same number whether that "one" is in the middle of Manhattan New York, or thirty miles outside of Manhattan Kansas. Neither of those Ones is "more" or "less" a citizen.

The fact that you may not like how some significant portion of voters vote, well tough. Takes a little more than whining "waaah -- they have all those votes" to make an argument.

His argument is nonsensical. The EC never had anything to do with population density disparity between different states, nor did the vote in this election. Electors are apportioned to states upon population density. Whether votes are counted popularly or by electors is not affected by the EC.

Peach at least got the purpose of the EC correct, although the rest on her analysis is factually wrong and simply partisan. The EC exists to overcome the will of the voters if the elites fear a person is elected who will not abide by the constitutional provisions for transferring power, i.e. a KING or emperor. The Founders feared that the masses would not be able to resist giving up their voting franchise for temporary material well being.

The EC was an historical oddity that may have had some anachronistic appeal. But, it has become dangerous to democracy. What happened was Hillary won some large states by larger margins than Trump won some others. Thus votes in Mich PA and Wisc counted more than other votes.

Zackly, and the other side of that same coin is that voters in those "locked" states that were going to go blue or red regardless, had much less incentive to vote at all (because what's the point), while voters in so-called "battleground" states like mine were forced to vote for one of the Duopoly because it was in effect the only choice offered. So in a single stroke the effect of the EC is to discourage voting in one place, and perpetuate the Duopoly in the other. Part of what I've been pointing out for months here.

Well, yeah. The effect of this election was that if you lived in PA or Wisc or even Fla, your vote counted more than in CA or NY .. or Tex for that matter. The SIZE of the state is irrelevant.

And the real protection for voter disenfranchisement in in the PRIMARY process. If you live in ND or Wyo, and are a dem, or in WA and are a goper, you have NO real vote in the general ... unless it's a watershed election like 64 or 80. But candidates from your party have to campaign in your state.

Been pointing that out all year--- I had a vote, being in Carolina, but my friends and relatives in Mississippi and Washington and Louisiana and California did not. On the other hand they had the latitude to go lodge a protest vote against Duopoly by voting for a third party, and I did not. That's a lose-lose.

 

[TooTall]

We are a constitutional republic that elects representatives. An extent of that republicanism is that our EC elects the presidents. An amendment would have to change the process, and neither party wants such, despite what certain members of those parties may say.

Neither party wants it so far. We lost the election in 2000 because of the EC. The Democrats need to push for abolition of the EC. I predict Trump will be a one term president and that in 2020 the presidency, the House and the Congress will go to the Democrats, and then we can get rid of the EC, as we should have done 40 or more years ago.

If you had a Democrat majority in both houses and a Democrat President, it would still take 3/4ths of the states to ratify a constitutional amendment to abolish the EC. That is not going to happen EVER!

 

[Pogo]

We are a constitutional republic that elects representatives. An extent of that republicanism is that our EC elects the presidents. An amendment would have to change the process, and neither party wants such, despite what certain members of those parties may say.

Neither party wants it so far. We lost the election in 2000 because of the EC. The Democrats need to push for abolition of the EC. I predict Trump will be a one term president and that in 2020 the presidency, the House and the Congress will go to the Democrats, and then we can get rid of the EC, as we should have done 40 or more years ago.

If you had a Democrat majority in both houses and a Democrat President, it would still take 3/4ths of the states to ratify a constitutional amendment to abolish the EC. That is not going to happen EVER!

It already has happened seventeen times since the Bill of Rights Gomer. Whenever an issue develops to a point where it can't be ignored.

 

[kaz]

We are a constitutional republic that elects representatives. An extent of that republicanism is that our EC elects the presidents. An amendment would have to change the process, and neither party wants such, despite what certain members of those parties may say.

Neither party wants it so far. We lost the election in 2000 because of the EC. The Democrats need to push for abolition of the EC. I predict Trump will be a one term president and that in 2020 the presidency, the House and the Congress will go to the Democrats, and then we can get rid of the EC, as we should have done 40 or more years ago.

If you had a Democrat majority in both houses and a Democrat President, it would still take 3/4ths of the states to ratify a constitutional amendment to abolish the EC. That is not going to happen EVER!

It already has happened seventeen times since the Bill of Rights Gomer. Whenever an issue develops to a point where it can't be ignored.

You didn't read what he said accurately

 

[Pogo]

We are a constitutional republic that elects representatives. An extent of that republicanism is that our EC elects the presidents. An amendment would have to change the process, and neither party wants such, despite what certain members of those parties may say.

Neither party wants it so far. We lost the election in 2000 because of the EC. The Democrats need to push for abolition of the EC. I predict Trump will be a one term president and that in 2020 the presidency, the House and the Congress will go to the Democrats, and then we can get rid of the EC, as we should have done 40 or more years ago.

If you had a Democrat majority in both houses and a Democrat President, it would still take 3/4ths of the states to ratify a constitutional amendment to abolish the EC. That is not going to happen EVER!

It already has happened seventeen times since the Bill of Rights Gomer. Whenever an issue develops to a point where it can't be ignored.

You didn't read what he said accurately

Well that happens sometimes. Kinda like looking at the Liberty Bell and the phrase "Independence Hall" and seeing "North Carolina".

Let's try phrasing it differently:
It was "never going to happen ever" that women and slaves were going to get the right to vote. It was "never going to happen ever" that alcohol would be banned, and when it was it was "never going to happen ever" that it would be unbanned.

Whelp --- you'll find all of those under "Amendments", cross-reference with "famous last absolute words".

 

[kaz]

We are a constitutional republic that elects representatives. An extent of that republicanism is that our EC elects the presidents. An amendment would have to change the process, and neither party wants such, despite what certain members of those parties may say.

Neither party wants it so far. We lost the election in 2000 because of the EC. The Democrats need to push for abolition of the EC. I predict Trump will be a one term president and that in 2020 the presidency, the House and the Congress will go to the Democrats, and then we can get rid of the EC, as we should have done 40 or more years ago.

If you had a Democrat majority in both houses and a Democrat President, it would still take 3/4ths of the states to ratify a constitutional amendment to abolish the EC. That is not going to happen EVER!

It already has happened seventeen times since the Bill of Rights Gomer. Whenever an issue develops to a point where it can't be ignored.

You didn't read what he said accurately

Well that happens sometimes. Kinda like looking at the Liberty Bell and the phrase "Independence Hall" and seeing "North Carolina".

That one got away from you, didn't it?

Let's try phrasing it differently:
It was "never going to happen ever" that women and slaves were going to get the right to vote. It was "never going to happen ever" that alcohol would be banned, and when it was it was "never going to happen ever" that it would be unbanned.

Whelp --- you'll find all of those under "Amendments", cross-reference with "famous last absolute words".

In this case, you need three quarters of the States to take away their own influence and concentrate Presidential elections in about five States. Look at a map of the US and all the States in the middle and ask yourself how you get to three quarters of the States (38). That means at least 33 of them would be agreeing to have no say in Presidential elections. Explain why they would do that

 

[bendog]

We are a constitutional republic that elects representatives. An extent of that republicanism is that our EC elects the presidents. An amendment would have to change the process, and neither party wants such, despite what certain members of those parties may say.

Neither party wants it so far. We lost the election in 2000 because of the EC. The Democrats need to push for abolition of the EC. I predict Trump will be a one term president and that in 2020 the presidency, the House and the Congress will go to the Democrats, and then we can get rid of the EC, as we should have done 40 or more years ago.

If you had a Democrat majority in both houses and a Democrat President, it would still take 3/4ths of the states to ratify a constitutional amendment to abolish the EC. That is not going to happen EVER!

It already has happened seventeen times since the Bill of Rights Gomer. Whenever an issue develops to a point where it can't be ignored.

You didn't read what he said accurately

I don't think we'll ever amend the const to do something like reverse Roe or Citizens United or Equal Rts for Women. But I don't think the EC is so sacrosanct. You already have Maine and Neb allocating ... because it's the right thing to do. Everyone's vote should count. We aren't going to elect someone who will refuse to leave office, and if someone tried that, it wouldn't go well. The only reason for states not to allocate are partisan, and here in Miss that breaks on racial lines. You have to be a pretty small person to deny voting. If ten or so states would allocate the EVs, we might see some change.

 

[TooTall]

We are a constitutional republic that elects representatives. An extent of that republicanism is that our EC elects the presidents. An amendment would have to change the process, and neither party wants such, despite what certain members of those parties may say.

Neither party wants it so far. We lost the election in 2000 because of the EC. The Democrats need to push for abolition of the EC. I predict Trump will be a one term president and that in 2020 the presidency, the House and the Congress will go to the Democrats, and then we can get rid of the EC, as we should have done 40 or more years ago.

If you had a Democrat majority in both houses and a Democrat President, it would still take 3/4ths of the states to ratify a constitutional amendment to abolish the EC. That is not going to happen EVER!

It already has happened seventeen times since the Bill of Rights Gomer. Whenever an issue develops to a point where it can't be ignored.

OK, tell me what states you think would vote to abolish the EC. I will give you a head start. New York and California. Only 35 more for you to name.

 

[Pogo]

We are a constitutional republic that elects representatives. An extent of that republicanism is that our EC elects the presidents. An amendment would have to change the process, and neither party wants such, despite what certain members of those parties may say.

Neither party wants it so far. We lost the election in 2000 because of the EC. The Democrats need to push for abolition of the EC. I predict Trump will be a one term president and that in 2020 the presidency, the House and the Congress will go to the Democrats, and then we can get rid of the EC, as we should have done 40 or more years ago.

If you had a Democrat majority in both houses and a Democrat President, it would still take 3/4ths of the states to ratify a constitutional amendment to abolish the EC. That is not going to happen EVER!

It already has happened seventeen times since the Bill of Rights Gomer. Whenever an issue develops to a point where it can't be ignored.

You didn't read what he said accurately

I don't think we'll ever amend the const to do something like reverse Roe or Citizens United or Equal Rts for Women. But I don't think the EC is so sacrosanct. You already have Maine and Neb allocating ... because it's the right thing to do. Everyone's vote should count. We aren't going to elect someone who will refuse to leave office, and if someone tried that, it wouldn't go well. The only reason for states not to allocate are partisan, and here in Miss that breaks on racial lines. You have to be a pretty small person to deny voting. If ten or so states would allocate the EVs, we might see some change.

Zackly -- Maine and Nebraska split their votes according to Congressional districts, simply because they choose to, nor are they limited to that alternative in doing so. All the Constitution says is that the several states will send however many electors they're allocated. How each state picks those electors and how they vote is still up to each state.

In my case if Carolina chose proportional electors it would be sending 8 votes for Rump and 7 for Clinton. The idea that everybody in North Cackalackee voted unanimously for the same candidate is insane. Somebody way back jest didn't think that one through.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Don't worry kids... a (D) will once again be POTUS at some point and then the EC will be just fine.

 

[kaz]

Neither party wants it so far. We lost the election in 2000 because of the EC. The Democrats need to push for abolition of the EC. I predict Trump will be a one term president and that in 2020 the presidency, the House and the Congress will go to the Democrats, and then we can get rid of the EC, as we should have done 40 or more years ago.

If you had a Democrat majority in both houses and a Democrat President, it would still take 3/4ths of the states to ratify a constitutional amendment to abolish the EC. That is not going to happen EVER!

It already has happened seventeen times since the Bill of Rights Gomer. Whenever an issue develops to a point where it can't be ignored.

You didn't read what he said accurately

I don't think we'll ever amend the const to do something like reverse Roe or Citizens United or Equal Rts for Women. But I don't think the EC is so sacrosanct. You already have Maine and Neb allocating ... because it's the right thing to do. Everyone's vote should count. We aren't going to elect someone who will refuse to leave office, and if someone tried that, it wouldn't go well. The only reason for states not to allocate are partisan, and here in Miss that breaks on racial lines. You have to be a pretty small person to deny voting. If ten or so states would allocate the EVs, we might see some change.

Zackly -- Maine and Nebraska split their votes according to Congressional districts, simply because they choose to, nor are they limited to that alternative in doing so. All the Constitution says is that the several states will send however many electors they're allocated. How each state picks those electors and how they vote is still up to each state.

In my case if Carolina chose proportional electors it would be sending 8 votes for Rump and 7 for Clinton. The idea that everybody in North Cackalackee voted unanimously for the same candidate is insane. Somebody way back jest didn't think that one through.

Actually we did, everyone in North Carolina did vote for Trump

 

[TooTall]

Neither party wants it so far. We lost the election in 2000 because of the EC. The Democrats need to push for abolition of the EC. I predict Trump will be a one term president and that in 2020 the presidency, the House and the Congress will go to the Democrats, and then we can get rid of the EC, as we should have done 40 or more years ago.

If you had a Democrat majority in both houses and a Democrat President, it would still take 3/4ths of the states to ratify a constitutional amendment to abolish the EC. That is not going to happen EVER!

It already has happened seventeen times since the Bill of Rights Gomer. Whenever an issue develops to a point where it can't be ignored.

You didn't read what he said accurately

I don't think we'll ever amend the const to do something like reverse Roe or Citizens United or Equal Rts for Women. But I don't think the EC is so sacrosanct. You already have Maine and Neb allocating ... because it's the right thing to do. Everyone's vote should count. We aren't going to elect someone who will refuse to leave office, and if someone tried that, it wouldn't go well. The only reason for states not to allocate are partisan, and here in Miss that breaks on racial lines. You have to be a pretty small person to deny voting. If ten or so states would allocate the EVs, we might see some change.

Zackly -- Maine and Nebraska split their votes according to Congressional districts, simply because they choose to, nor are they limited to that alternative in doing so. All the Constitution says is that the several states will send however many electors they're allocated. How each state picks those electors and how they vote is still up to each state.

In my case if Carolina chose proportional electors it would be sending 8 votes for Rump and 7 for Clinton. The idea that everybody in North Cackalackee voted unanimously for the same candidate is insane. Somebody way back jest didn't think that one through.

You did the math for NC if they had chosen proportional electors. I believe California and New York are winner take all states. Tell me how many electoral votes Hillary would have LOST if those two states were proportional.