The electoral college is a disaster for democracy

[Dubya Da Last Repug Prez]

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.

I beg to differ. Since the Democrats have now lost two recent elections due to the idiotic EC, they will definitely want to get rid of it now.

 

[Rustic]

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.

I beg to differ. Since the Democrats have now lost two recent elections due to the idiotic EC, they will definitely want to get rid of it now.

The EC is going nowhere...

 

[Dubya Da Last Repug Prez]

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.

I beg to differ. Since the Democrats have now lost two recent elections due to the idiotic EC, they will definitely want to get rid of it now.

The EC is going nowhere...

It's not going anywhere, but it should go somewhere. The EC is responsible for Bush, who was a disastrous President. And now we may have an even bigger disaster on our hands in Trump.

And not only that, certain states like California are not fairly represented. California contains 30% of this country's population, but is only worth 55 electoral votes. It should be worth a lot more than that, so that's bullshit also. This kind of ridiculous horseshit is the only way Republicans can win presidential elections anymore.

 

[Lewdog]

Hahahahahahaha

 

[Rustic]

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.

I beg to differ. Since the Democrats have now lost two recent elections due to the idiotic EC, they will definitely want to get rid of it now.

The EC is going nowhere...

It's not going anywhere, but it should go somewhere. The EC is responsible for Bush, who was a disastrous President. And now we may have an even bigger disaster on our hands in Trump.

And not only that, certain states like California are not fairly represented. California contains 30% of this country's population, but is only worth 55 electoral votes. It should be worth a lot more than that, so that's bullshit also. This kind of ridiculous horseshit is the only way Republicans can win presidential elections anymore.

Without the EC the northern plains should not even vote, it's a waste of time money and resources.

 

[OKTexas]

There are no national elections, therefore there is no national popular vote. Also only people who reside in a city can vote on city issues, only people who live in a county can vote on county issues, only people who live in a congressional district can vote for the rep of that district, only people who live in a State can vote for their Senators or Governors. CA or NY can't dictate who TX wants for president. Got it?

Zacly. And if you're voting for, say, a governator, the whole state votes --- it ain't "Austin gets 20 state EVs and East Jipip gets four". It's one voter, one vote. PERIOD.

That "mob rule"?



Echobots. Such cat toys.

Depends, people in Austin can't vote on my State reps, just like they can't vote on my US house rep, it's called a republican form of government, maybe you should read up on it.

Actually I have read up on it. So much so that I actually know why the Electoral College exists.
It was set up to protect slavery. Which is the same time they negotiated the worth of a slave to be three-fifths of a person.

That is, three-fifths for the purpose of counting population that would then be used as a benchmark to allot Electoral Votes. But of course those slaves had no representation, they couldn't vote, and their white masters and electoral voters voted on their behalf, without any input from them.

Which is in effect the same thing it still does -- your state is red in Presidential elections. That means there's no point in your going out to vote --- not for President anyway. That's already decided. You can vote for the red team, the blue team, some third party, or stay home and ignore it --- they all have exactly the same effect. Your vote means absolutely NOTHING. Those who live in locked-blue states --- same thing.

Howzit feel to have no vote?

The EC perpetuates the Duopoly that gave us pathetic choices like the one we just did. It has no reason to exist. It discourages voting.

Of course--- we don't have slavery any more and nobody is counted as three-fifths of a person any more. That changed with the 14th Amendment ............... which entitled those former slaves to citizenship but at the same time restricted protection of voting rights to "the male inhabitants of such State" --- while counting non-male residents for its proportional representation.

In other words it did the same thing to women -- counted them as the new three-fifths persons (except this time counting them whole) yet still not granting them the right to vote for their own interests.

Now if a PV system had been in place, any state could have doubled its voting power by enfranchising women. But with the EC system there was no incentive to do that --- you could just count the women and take the Electoral Votes their numbers provided, and vote, again, on their behalf with no input from them.

This thing just keeps hitting it outta the park, donut?

Well that's what you get for reading regressive bullshit. The 3/5ths compromise was to reduce representation in slave holding areas to eventually make it easier to abolish slavery. Beside that the founders foresaw the westward expansion as inevitable and didn't want the new States to have no voice in how the country was ran. That would have happened then and would today if it weren't for the EC.

Oh fucking bullshit. Counting three-fifths of the slaves you have who can't vote as part of your representation base doesn't REDUCE jack shit --- it ADDS to that number. Which in turn gives that state *MORE* representation -- not less.

It's called a 'compromise' because the slaveholding South wanted to count ALL the slaves while enfranchising none of them. They got to count 60% of them, which is WAY more than the 0% who could actually vote.

And when it was women, states got to count all of them while enfranchising, again, 0%.

Hitting the bottle already are we?

Wrong again, non slave holders didn't want to count slave at all because they were considered property and not citizens. The slave holding States rebelled and was going to pull out of the convention and the Constitution wouldn't have been ratified and the union would never have been.

We can play these semantics games all night and it won't change what is. You don't like the Constitution as written, see Article 5 and see if you can get flyover country to abdicate their power to the more populous coasts.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

I beg to differ. Since the Democrats have now lost two recent elections due to the idiotic EC, they will definitely want to get rid of it now.

The EC is going nowhere...

It's not going anywhere, but it should go somewhere. The EC is responsible for Bush, who was a disastrous President. And now we may have an even bigger disaster on our hands in Trump.

And not only that, certain states like California are not fairly represented. California contains 30% of this country's population, but is only worth 55 electoral votes. It should be worth a lot more than that, so that's bullshit also. This kind of ridiculous horseshit is the only way Republicans can win presidential elections anymore.

If citizens were counted per the 14th Amendment they'd have less than that and should.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The PV is only part of how a federal constitutional republic. That means geography counts not only demography. Iowa and its uniqueness has every right to representation as does Delaware, California as New York, Montana as Mississippi.

The EC rules, and it always will.

 

[Pogo]

The PV is only part of how a federal constitutional republic. That means geography counts not only demography. Iowa and its uniqueness has every right to representation as does Delaware, California as New York, Montana as Mississippi.

The EC rules, and it always will.

It's not a part of any other.

Representation is already set in Congress via the balance of the House and Senate. That's a given.
But that's representation, not voting.

The EC effectively nullifies votes. There's simply no getting around that. And that discourages voting, and there's no getting around that either. It will "rule" only so long as we the people don't bother to take a look at what it is and what it does. At some point one has to stop and think, '"wait-- why are we doing this again?"

If these murky pretzel-logic ideas about balancing big and little states actually held water, we'd be electing state governors via state EVs to balance big and little counties. Nobody does that, nor should they.

We don't have "Slave Power" any more. They should have been put out to pasture together.

 

[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.

I beg to differ. Since the Democrats have now lost two recent elections due to the idiotic EC, they will definitely want to get rid of it now.

The EC is going nowhere...

It's not going anywhere, but it should go somewhere. The EC is responsible for Bush, who was a disastrous President. And now we may have an even bigger disaster on our hands in Trump.

And not only that, certain states like California are not fairly represented. California contains 30% of this country's population, but is only worth 55 electoral votes. It should be worth a lot more than that, so that's bullshit also. This kind of ridiculous horseshit is the only way Republicans can win presidential elections anymore.

It effectively removes the vote from the People and hands it to the States. That in itself is polarizing, pitting "red" states against "blue" states. We see that manifest on this forum literally every day. There should be no such thing as a "red" or "blue" states. We are not a nation of States but a nation of citizens.

My biggest problem with it though is how it renders up to 49.9% of a given states' votes meaningless. That simply should not happen ever, period.

 

[Rustic]

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.

I beg to differ. Since the Democrats have now lost two recent elections due to the idiotic EC, they will definitely want to get rid of it now.

The EC is going nowhere...

It's not going anywhere, but it should go somewhere. The EC is responsible for Bush, who was a disastrous President. And now we may have an even bigger disaster on our hands in Trump.

And not only that, certain states like California are not fairly represented. California contains 30% of this country's population, but is only worth 55 electoral votes. It should be worth a lot more than that, so that's bullshit also. This kind of ridiculous horseshit is the only way Republicans can win presidential elections anymore.

It effectively removes the vote from the People and hands it to the States. That in itself is polarizing, pitting "red" states against "blue" states. We see that manifest on this forum literally every day. There should be no such thing as a "red" or "blue" states. We are not a nation of States but a nation of citizens.

My biggest problem with it though is how it renders up to 49.9% of a given states' votes meaningless. That simply should not happen ever, period.

This is a republic, not a shit eating democracy. You can't always get what you want as the song goes. The EC is there for a reason it gives small states some say In who is the president of the United States. A popular vote would never do that, with the popular vote the large population areas are all that matter.… Fact

 

[Norman]

How about this... complain about the rules BEFORE the election, not after it, when your candidate lost. Only then might you have any credibility.

 

[Pogo]

How about this... complain about the rules BEFORE the election, not after it, when your candidate lost. Only then might you have any credibility.

This discussion takes place every four years, Nimrod. That's because the EC only HAPPENS every four years, fucking DUH. And if you get up off your worthless hiny and go search the site you'll find all these arguments being made *BEFORE* the election too.

Wanna see, whiny hiny?

I'll just continue to put this out there ----

1912.

• Big well-known egomaniac from New York runs for presidency, wins most of the Republican primaries, wins 'em big.
• Party convention ignores him and his primary wins, nominates the Establishment guy from Ohio as its candidate.
• Big well-known egomaniac from New York leaves in a huff, takes his supporters, runs as a third party. Ends up taking enough votes to come in second place, which pushes Establishment Republican candidate to third place.
• Democrat gets less than 42% of the popular vote, but comes in first and wins Electoral College vote by a landslide.

Just sayin'.

That is a rather unrealistic assessment of 2016 Presidential Politics. A vote for anyone other than Drumpf of Clinton is wasted in our system. If you wish to discuss better ways to elect the President, I'm all ears but in the current framework, a vote for Mr. Johnson is wasted in the final analysis. It may satisfy some internal desire to not lend support to either major party candidate and that is all well and good but our system is what it is; Sorry.

I disagree, for the same reason that our system is what it is. Meaning, due to the Electoral College system, if your state is a lock for a red vote or a lock for a blue vote, then your contribution to (or against) that red or blue state vote, has no meaning at all, because it has no effect whatsoever. But by voting 3P you can at least make the 'NOTA' statement that the binary system is not acceptable.

I've certainly done that, though I would not have if the EC system did not exist.

And beyond that Duopoly construction there's the problem of the Electoral College, meaning that anyone who lives in a lock-red or lock-blue state cannot cast a vote for anything but a third party that has any meaning at all. That red or blue candy is getting your state vote regardless whether you vote for him, against him, or just stay home. It makes not a whit of difference.

So you can go cast a vote for Johnson or Nader or Perot as a protest but as long as the sheep rule, the sheep rule and it generates no more effect than "oh isn't that cute, somebody voted for Nader, now let's return to the big screen where Tweedle Dee is closing ground on Tweedle Dum, isn't that exciting, kids?".

Which brings us to the Media that plays a vital role in perpetuating Same Old Thing..... which is why it's absurd to call the MSM "liberal media" --- perpetuating the SOT is as conservative as it gets.

I did that in 2000.
Of course, I had the luxury of doing that as I was living in a locked-red state, which meant my vote for either of the Duopoly flavors would mean nothing. So I made it mean something.

Anybody who's in a locked-red or locked-blue state should do the same. It's the patriotic thing to do. With the electoral college bullshit, your red or blue vote, whether it's for or against the trend, means absolutely nothing anyway. Make it count for something.

That little sample is going back THREE TO SIX MONTHS. So fuck you and your strawman horseshit.

This ain't a new topic, it's simply revitalized. That's what happens to things when they're current news, Dumbass.

Moreover, the title of this thread was composed by Donald Rump himself. And he was right. And that was --- all together now ---- four years ago.

 

[Redfish]

How about this... complain about the rules BEFORE the election, not after it, when your candidate lost. Only then might you have any credibility.

This discussion takes place every four years, Nimrod. That's because the EC only HAPPENS every four years, fucking DUH. And if you get up off your worthless hiny and go search the site you'll find all these arguments being made *BEFORE* the election too. This ain't new, it's simply revitalized. That's what happens to things when they're current news, Dumbass.

Moreover, the title of this thread was composed by Donald Rump himself. And he was right. And that was --- all together now ---- four years ago.

without the EC, 4 of our largest metropolitan areas could select our presidents-----------the tiny blue spots on the voting map that has been posted many times.

The founders understood that that would be a disaster.

 

[Pogo]

How about this... complain about the rules BEFORE the election, not after it, when your candidate lost. Only then might you have any credibility.

This discussion takes place every four years, Nimrod. That's because the EC only HAPPENS every four years, fucking DUH. And if you get up off your worthless hiny and go search the site you'll find all these arguments being made *BEFORE* the election too. This ain't new, it's simply revitalized. That's what happens to things when they're current news, Dumbass.

Moreover, the title of this thread was composed by Donald Rump himself. And he was right. And that was --- all together now ---- four years ago.

without the EC, 4 of our largest metropolitan areas could select our presidents-----------the tiny blue spots on the voting map that has been posted many times.

The founders understood that that would be a disaster.

Bullshit.
You can't make that argument work. Cannot be done. Go ahead and give it a shot.

A PV in no way takes any votes away from outside of metro areas.
An EC on the other hand nullifies literally millions on the spot.

And again, this system wasn't set up by "the Founders" but by the Twelfth Amendment.... which also counted slaves for three-fifths of a person for the purpose of counting EVs (but not for the purpose of voting).

That of course was revised with the Fourteenth when slavery was abolished ---- which also counted women for the purpose of counting EVs but not for the purpose of voting.

That part wasn't fixed until the Nineteenth.

Notice that this Yugo is always in the shop?

 

[Rustic]

How about this... complain about the rules BEFORE the election, not after it, when your candidate lost. Only then might you have any credibility.

This discussion takes place every four years, Nimrod. That's because the EC only HAPPENS every four years, fucking DUH. And if you get up off your worthless hiny and go search the site you'll find all these arguments being made *BEFORE* the election too.

Wanna see, whiny hiny?

I'll just continue to put this out there ----

1912.

• Big well-known egomaniac from New York runs for presidency, wins most of the Republican primaries, wins 'em big.
• Party convention ignores him and his primary wins, nominates the Establishment guy from Ohio as its candidate.
• Big well-known egomaniac from New York leaves in a huff, takes his supporters, runs as a third party. Ends up taking enough votes to come in second place, which pushes Establishment Republican candidate to third place.
• Democrat gets less than 42% of the popular vote, but comes in first and wins Electoral College vote by a landslide.

Just sayin'.

Do not know him. He's a non-factor. You decide in one of the four boxes in our 2 party system.

Vote against the DEM by voting for the GOP
Vote against the GOP by voting for the DEM
Vote for the DEM
Vote for the GOP

I have no qualms voting for Ms. Clinton. I just haven't decided in what state to cast my ballot. j/k

That's a rather binary way of looking at what is clearly not a binary set of choices.

• The Binary Fallacy | EconLog | Library of Economics and Liberty
  
• False Dilemma

That is a rather unrealistic assessment of 2016 Presidential Politics. A vote for anyone other than Drumpf of Clinton is wasted in our system. If you wish to discuss better ways to elect the President, I'm all ears but in the current framework, a vote for Mr. Johnson is wasted in the final analysis. It may satisfy some internal desire to not lend support to either major party candidate and that is all well and good but our system is what it is; Sorry.

I disagree, for the same reason that our system is what it is. Meaning, due to the Electoral College system, if your state is a lock for a red vote or a lock for a blue vote, then your contribution to (or against) that red or blue state vote, has no meaning at all, because it has no effect whatsoever. But by voting 3P you can at least make the 'NOTA' statement that the binary system is not acceptable.

I've certainly done that, though I would not have if the EC system did not exist.

The establishment has the system too rigged for a 3rd party to ever be viable.

Exactly but what we may be looking at is a modern version of the Political Crisises of the 1850s and 1890s. Who knows what will happen.

At the heart of the morass is this ----- the Perpetuation of the Same Old Thing absolutely depends on the People throwing up their collective hands and going "oh well, there's nothing I/we can do so I'll continue to drone on and play the game".

The Same Old Thing absolutely requires that kind of complicity. Without it, it never gets to BE the Same Old Thing.

I agree 100% but at least we occasionally have political "revolutions" when a large portion of the body politic finally becomes fed up with the status quo. Not that they always succeed or last once they occur and in this instance it's yet to be seen whether this "revolution" will cause any changes or not. I'm not holding out much hope as both parties are so heavily entrenched (with the majority of the voting public's approval) and one of their most strident mantras is "don't throw away your vote!"

And beyond that Duopoly construction there's the problem of the Electoral College, meaning that anyone who lives in a lock-red or lock-blue state cannot cast a vote for anything but a third party that has any meaning at all. That red or blue candy is getting your state vote regardless whether you vote for him, against him, or just stay home. It makes not a whit of difference.

So you can go cast a vote for Johnson or Nader or Perot as a protest but as long as the sheep rule, the sheep rule and it generates no more effect than "oh isn't that cute, somebody voted for Nader, now let's return to the big screen where Tweedle Dee is closing ground on Tweedle Dum, isn't that exciting, kids?".

Which brings us to the Media that plays a vital role in perpetuating Same Old Thing..... which is why it's absurd to call the MSM "liberal media" --- perpetuating the SOT is as conservative as it gets.

Young Voters Favoring Gary Johnson - The Libertarian Republic

I encourage young liberals in red states to vote green party. Pull our country to the left. Give a more liberal party more money power and influence!!!

I did that in 2000.
Of course, I had the luxury of doing that as I was living in a locked-red state, which meant my vote for either of the Duopoly flavors would mean nothing. So I made it mean something.

Anybody who's in a locked-red or locked-blue state should do the same. It's the patriotic thing to do. With the electoral college bullshit, your red or blue vote, whether it's for or against the trend, means absolutely nothing anyway. Make it count for something.

That little sample is going back THREE TO SIX MONTHS. So fuck you and your strawman horseshit.

This ain't a new topic, it's simply revitalized. That's what happens to things when they're current news, Dumbass.

Moreover, the title of this thread was composed by Donald Rump himself. And he was right. And that was --- all together now ---- four years ago.

Sour grapes?

 

[2aguy]

Said Donald Trump in 2012.

I betcha he wishes he could take that one back.

Why?....he won......he now knows why it was created....so zombies, led by their masters in the democrat party couldn't take elections over based on emotional appeals........and concetrations of the uneducated......

 

[bripat9643]

It's insane to think that smaller states would abide with the erosion of their rights.

And exactly what "rights" would those be then?

To hold slaves? And count 3/5 of them as part of their representation?

Let's face it --- you have no argument.

Yeah, because everyone who believes in states rights wants to bring back slaver.

What a fucking douche bag.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Sorry the tyranny of mob rule will not be tolerated in this country.

There's nothing about "mob rule" in this topic.

You can jump up out of your seat and yell "RHUBARB" during a Star Trek movie all you like, but that doesn't turn it into a flick about farmers.

Pure majority rule is mob rule, which is what you favor. You attack anyone who supports states rights, which was designed as an obstacle to mob rule.

 

[Rustic]

How about this... complain about the rules BEFORE the election, not after it, when your candidate lost. Only then might you have any credibility.

This discussion takes place every four years, Nimrod. That's because the EC only HAPPENS every four years, fucking DUH. And if you get up off your worthless hiny and go search the site you'll find all these arguments being made *BEFORE* the election too. This ain't new, it's simply revitalized. That's what happens to things when they're current news, Dumbass.

Moreover, the title of this thread was composed by Donald Rump himself. And he was right. And that was --- all together now ---- four years ago.

without the EC, 4 of our largest metropolitan areas could select our presidents-----------the tiny blue spots on the voting map that has been posted many times.

The founders understood that that would be a disaster.

Bullshit.
You can't make that argument work. Cannot be done. Go ahead and give it a shot.

A PV in no way takes any votes away from outside of metro areas.
An EC on the other hand nullifies literally millions on the spot.

And again, this system wasn't set up by "the Founders" but by the Twelfth Amendment.... which also counted slaves for three-fifths of a person for the purpose of counting EVs (but not for the purpose of voting).

That of course was revised with the Fourteenth when slavery was abolished ---- which also counted women for the purpose of counting EVs but not for the purpose of voting.

That part wasn't fixed until the Nineteenth.

Notice that this Yugo is always in the shop?

No, The small states might as will not even vote if we had just a pure popular vote… Fact
The EC is there for a reason, for instance like in the World Series over the whole World Series if they scored the same amount of points but the cubs got there first it's the same way with electoral college the first to 270. And more people in more states voted for Donald Trump. This is the Republic you should be able to understand that. LOL