The Founders Genius Endures: The Electoral System is Awesome

[Weatherman2020]

Unlike governors, whose state governments have total sovereignty within their borders, the presidency governs over states with their own sovereignty under the Constitution. The role of the presidency is at least somewhat limited to foreign policy and questions that are at least loosely connected to interstate issues and enforcement of other provisions of the Constitution. For that reason, the framers of the Constitution wanted to ensure that the president would have the greatest consensus among the sovereign states themselves, while still including representation based on population.

That is why each state gets the same number of electors as they have seats in the House and the Senate. It reduces the advantage that larger states have, but hardly eliminates it entirely; California has 55 electors while Wyoming has only three, to use the Times’ comparison. Rather than being an “antiquated system,” as they write, it’s an elegant system that helps balance power between sovereign states with national popular intent, and it forces presidential contenders to appeal to a broader range of populations.

The Electoral College is actually awesome

Why should a state with a small population get an unfair advantage?

UNITED States of America

That's no answer. What if the five boroughs of NY City decided to divide into 5 states? All would Democratic, 10 new Democratic Senators most likely,

Fair?

What if the five boroughs of NY City decided to divide into 5 states?

What if a meteor hit San Francisco and now California is conservative? What if? What if?

 

[NYcarbineer]

National Popular Vote

I do hope you leftists do take the next few decades of your time and money trying to get 2/3 of Congress, 2/3 of Senate and 3/4 of States to make the change.

After Trump's 4 or less years, it may be more likely than you think.

Like anyone believes Hillary would be a good President.

Your party has Super Delegates, go pound sand.

Parties are parties, not government institutions.

 

[Weatherman2020]

National Popular Vote

I do hope you leftists do take the next few decades of your time and money trying to get 2/3 of Congress, 2/3 of Senate and 3/4 of States to make the change.

Of course the states getting unfair advantage won't give it up. It's a fucked up system that the fucked up Founders fucked us over with and we're stuck with it.

Poor baby needs to move to Venezuela.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Unlike governors, whose state governments have total sovereignty within their borders, the presidency governs over states with their own sovereignty under the Constitution. The role of the presidency is at least somewhat limited to foreign policy and questions that are at least loosely connected to interstate issues and enforcement of other provisions of the Constitution. For that reason, the framers of the Constitution wanted to ensure that the president would have the greatest consensus among the sovereign states themselves, while still including representation based on population.

That is why each state gets the same number of electors as they have seats in the House and the Senate. It reduces the advantage that larger states have, but hardly eliminates it entirely; California has 55 electors while Wyoming has only three, to use the Times’ comparison. Rather than being an “antiquated system,” as they write, it’s an elegant system that helps balance power between sovereign states with national popular intent, and it forces presidential contenders to appeal to a broader range of populations.

The Electoral College is actually awesome

Why should a state with a small population get an unfair advantage?

Why should people's voices be unheard?

Funny how you leftists had no problem with the EC on Nov 7.

Yep. On that day they were cheering because Clinton was going to have 400 EC votes.
They are disingenuous hacks. Nothing more.

Need I repost my arguments against the EC from 2011?

 

[NYcarbineer]

National Popular Vote

I do hope you leftists do take the next few decades of your time and money trying to get 2/3 of Congress, 2/3 of Senate and 3/4 of States to make the change.

Of course the states getting unfair advantage won't give it up. It's a fucked up system that the fucked up Founders fucked us over with and we're stuck with it.

Poor baby needs to move to Venezuela.

This is how you know the EC is indefensible. Posts like the above.

 

[Weatherman2020]

National Popular Vote

I do hope you leftists do take the next few decades of your time and money trying to get 2/3 of Congress, 2/3 of Senate and 3/4 of States to make the change.

After Trump's 4 or less years, it may be more likely than you think.

Like anyone believes Hillary would be a good President.

Your party has Super Delegates, go pound sand.

Parties are parties, not government institutions.

You lefties have always hated the Constitution.

It's why you are irrelevant in politics today.

 

[kwc57]

Unlike governors, whose state governments have total sovereignty within their borders, the presidency governs over states with their own sovereignty under the Constitution. The role of the presidency is at least somewhat limited to foreign policy and questions that are at least loosely connected to interstate issues and enforcement of other provisions of the Constitution. For that reason, the framers of the Constitution wanted to ensure that the president would have the greatest consensus among the sovereign states themselves, while still including representation based on population.

That is why each state gets the same number of electors as they have seats in the House and the Senate. It reduces the advantage that larger states have, but hardly eliminates it entirely; California has 55 electors while Wyoming has only three, to use the Times’ comparison. Rather than being an “antiquated system,” as they write, it’s an elegant system that helps balance power between sovereign states with national popular intent, and it forces presidential contenders to appeal to a broader range of populations.

The Electoral College is actually awesome

Why should a state with a small population get an unfair advantage?

I've asked this question of a number of liberals and never get a response. Did you have an issue with the minority being protected on civil rights, gay marriage or abortion? States have taken votes on some of these items and won the popular vote only to have them reversed by the courts. So think of the electoral college as providing the same protections to minority states as the SCOTUS did to gay marriage. It's constitutional and it prevents mob rule. Now you know.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Unlike governors, whose state governments have total sovereignty within their borders, the presidency governs over states with their own sovereignty under the Constitution. The role of the presidency is at least somewhat limited to foreign policy and questions that are at least loosely connected to interstate issues and enforcement of other provisions of the Constitution. For that reason, the framers of the Constitution wanted to ensure that the president would have the greatest consensus among the sovereign states themselves, while still including representation based on population.

That is why each state gets the same number of electors as they have seats in the House and the Senate. It reduces the advantage that larger states have, but hardly eliminates it entirely; California has 55 electors while Wyoming has only three, to use the Times’ comparison. Rather than being an “antiquated system,” as they write, it’s an elegant system that helps balance power between sovereign states with national popular intent, and it forces presidential contenders to appeal to a broader range of populations.

The Electoral College is actually awesome

State sovereignty, to the extent it exists, is protected in the Constitution, as you admit.

That therefore negates the principle behind giving states unfair advantages in electing the chief executive of the nation, the FEDERAL government.

 

[gipper]

Unlike governors, whose state governments have total sovereignty within their borders, the presidency governs over states with their own sovereignty under the Constitution. The role of the presidency is at least somewhat limited to foreign policy and questions that are at least loosely connected to interstate issues and enforcement of other provisions of the Constitution. For that reason, the framers of the Constitution wanted to ensure that the president would have the greatest consensus among the sovereign states themselves, while still including representation based on population.

That is why each state gets the same number of electors as they have seats in the House and the Senate. It reduces the advantage that larger states have, but hardly eliminates it entirely; California has 55 electors while Wyoming has only three, to use the Times’ comparison. Rather than being an “antiquated system,” as they write, it’s an elegant system that helps balance power between sovereign states with national popular intent, and it forces presidential contenders to appeal to a broader range of populations.

The Electoral College is actually awesome

Why should a state with a small population get an unfair advantage?

They don't.

 

[NYcarbineer]

National Popular Vote

I do hope you leftists do take the next few decades of your time and money trying to get 2/3 of Congress, 2/3 of Senate and 3/4 of States to make the change.

After Trump's 4 or less years, it may be more likely than you think.

Like anyone believes Hillary would be a good President.

Your party has Super Delegates, go pound sand.

Parties are parties, not government institutions.

You lefties have always hated the Constitution.

It's why you are irrelevant in politics today.

See what I mean? These people can't defend the EC with substance.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Unlike governors, whose state governments have total sovereignty within their borders, the presidency governs over states with their own sovereignty under the Constitution. The role of the presidency is at least somewhat limited to foreign policy and questions that are at least loosely connected to interstate issues and enforcement of other provisions of the Constitution. For that reason, the framers of the Constitution wanted to ensure that the president would have the greatest consensus among the sovereign states themselves, while still including representation based on population.

That is why each state gets the same number of electors as they have seats in the House and the Senate. It reduces the advantage that larger states have, but hardly eliminates it entirely; California has 55 electors while Wyoming has only three, to use the Times’ comparison. Rather than being an “antiquated system,” as they write, it’s an elegant system that helps balance power between sovereign states with national popular intent, and it forces presidential contenders to appeal to a broader range of populations.

The Electoral College is actually awesome

Why should a state with a small population get an unfair advantage?

They don't.

So they get no advantage? Then let's get rid of the EC.

 

[Russ Alllah Gehry]

National Popular Vote

I do hope you leftists do take the next few decades of your time and money trying to get 2/3 of Congress, 2/3 of Senate and 3/4 of States to make the change.

Right wingers have called for a national vote too. Grow up.

The electoral college guards against the tyranny of the majority. It's a liberal concept. The fact that those who lose elections whine about it, or that populists in academia and media push a national vote idea, doesn't make it into your whiny, partisan screech

 

[gipper]

Unlike governors, whose state governments have total sovereignty within their borders, the presidency governs over states with their own sovereignty under the Constitution. The role of the presidency is at least somewhat limited to foreign policy and questions that are at least loosely connected to interstate issues and enforcement of other provisions of the Constitution. For that reason, the framers of the Constitution wanted to ensure that the president would have the greatest consensus among the sovereign states themselves, while still including representation based on population.

That is why each state gets the same number of electors as they have seats in the House and the Senate. It reduces the advantage that larger states have, but hardly eliminates it entirely; California has 55 electors while Wyoming has only three, to use the Times’ comparison. Rather than being an “antiquated system,” as they write, it’s an elegant system that helps balance power between sovereign states with national popular intent, and it forces presidential contenders to appeal to a broader range of populations.

The Electoral College is actually awesome

Why should a state with a small population get an unfair advantage?

They don't.

So they get no advantage? Then let's get rid of the EC.

CA has 55 EC votes and nearly all the other western states have less than 10, how is it that these other states have an advantage?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Setting the issue of gerrymandering aside, the most directly representative governing body we have is the House of Representatives.

Republicans control that. No 'EC' type distortions needed (setting gerrymandering aside).

Shouldn't 3 'big' states dominate the House?

 

[Russ Alllah Gehry]

defend the EC with substance.

The founding generation laid out the arguments. The burden of showing why we should scrap one of the safeguards against a tyranny of the majority, falls onto the shoulders of those who propose scrapping it

 

[Auld Phart]

Unlike governors, whose state governments have total sovereignty within their borders, the presidency governs over states with their own sovereignty under the Constitution. The role of the presidency is at least somewhat limited to foreign policy and questions that are at least loosely connected to interstate issues and enforcement of other provisions of the Constitution. For that reason, the framers of the Constitution wanted to ensure that the president would have the greatest consensus among the sovereign states themselves, while still including representation based on population.

That is why each state gets the same number of electors as they have seats in the House and the Senate. It reduces the advantage that larger states have, but hardly eliminates it entirely; California has 55 electors while Wyoming has only three, to use the Times’ comparison. Rather than being an “antiquated system,” as they write, it’s an elegant system that helps balance power between sovereign states with national popular intent, and it forces presidential contenders to appeal to a broader range of populations.

The Electoral College is actually awesome

Why should a state with a small population get an unfair advantage?

They don't.

So they get no advantage? Then let's get rid of the EC.

CA has 55 EC votes and nearly all the other western states have less than 10, how is it that these other states have an advantage?

all those nasty red states can combine and take away their electoral advantage.

But they have a harder time doing that with the popular vote.

 

[NYcarbineer]

National Popular Vote

I do hope you leftists do take the next few decades of your time and money trying to get 2/3 of Congress, 2/3 of Senate and 3/4 of States to make the change.

Right wingers have called for a national vote too. Grow up.

The electoral college guards against the tyranny of the majority. It's a liberal concept. The fact that those who lose elections whine about it, or that populists in academia and media push a national vote idea, doesn't make it into your whiny, partisan screech

The Supreme Court guards against so-called 'tyranny of the majority' and conservatives declare it to be tyrannical every time it makes a decision they don't like.

 

[Russ Alllah Gehry]

Setting the issue of gerrymandering aside, the most directly representative governing body we have is the House of Representatives.

Republicans control that. No 'EC' type distortions needed (setting gerrymandering aside).

Shouldn't 3 'big' states dominate the House?

In our bicameral legislative body, the Congress ... the House does not exist to represent states. That would be the US Senate

 

[jc456]

National Popular Vote

I do hope you leftists do take the next few decades of your time and money trying to get 2/3 of Congress, 2/3 of Senate and 3/4 of States to make the change.

Of course the states getting unfair advantage won't give it up. It's a fucked up system that the fucked up Founders fucked us over with and we're stuck with it.

Yep they had you in mind to fk you

 

[NYcarbineer]

defend the EC with substance.

The founding generation laid out the arguments. The burden of showing why we should scrap one of the safeguards against a tyranny of the majority, falls onto the shoulders of those who propose scrapping it

There's no such thing as tyranny of the majority. It was the majority that created the Constitution in the first place.