The Founders Genius Endures: The Electoral System is Awesome

[peach174]

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?

You should be asking yourself why the Dems want campaigning in New York and California and is pushing for an unfair advantage for their own party.
To heck with the independents and conservatives representation.

 

[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?

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

And the small states are given a HUGE advantage via the Senate. That's more than enough unfair advantage given to a state with less than a million PEOPLE.

 

[jc456]

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?

Sure!

 

[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?

You should be asking yourself why the Dems want campaigning in New York and California and is pushing for an unfair advantage for their own party.
To heck with the independents and conservatives representation.

You should speak English.

 

[Russ Alllah Gehry]

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

A Minority created it.

A majority in a representative system, ,as with the electoral college process, voted to put the document to the people for a debate and then a vote. There were a majority of representatives that people in each state put forth, that voted on the enactment of the US Constitution.

NYcarbineer

 

[peach174]

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?

You should be asking yourself why the Dems want campaigning in New York and California and is pushing for an unfair advantage for their own party.
To heck with the independents and conservatives representation.

You should speak English.

You can't read.

 

[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.

Are you aware there are only 50 states, not 57 as your Messiah believes?

Of those 50 states, only 4 states have EC votes greater than 20 and 38 states have EC votes of 10 or less. That is 38 out of 50 (not 57)...so 76% of the states have 10 or less....76% is a significant majority...out of 100%. Right?

One could argue that the four biggest states have an unfair advantage...no?

 

[jc456]

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.

Why does it need defending? What was unfair?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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?

You should be asking yourself why the Dems want campaigning in New York and California and is pushing for an unfair advantage for their own party.
To heck with the independents and conservatives representation.

You should speak English.

You should learn to comprehend English, then you be able to recognize English as such and not have to question the language and its usage.

 

[jc456]

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.

How do you get there?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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.

Why does it need defending? What was unfair?

We lost... "no fair!!!"

 

[aris2chat]

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

I wonder if it would still be awesome if they didn't vote for Trump?

Damn right. The EC is the best thing about our voting process.
Its nice for small states to actually have a voice, ey? You know, instead of being run by 3 states?

What do you have against the People?

Then get rid of states altogether if you don't like EC

Sent from my YD206 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[jc456]

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.

You do know the US is the only country that had slaves to abolish it right? You know that?

 

[jc456]

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.

Why does it need defending? What was unfair?

We lost... "no fair!!!"

How many cities do you think would reflect what they found in Detroit with the number of votes higher than the ballots handed out? My guess is more than 50 if not more

 

[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.

How do you get there?

He doesn't know. He is just throwing shit at the wall, hoping something sticks.

 

[Russ Alllah Gehry]

And the small states are given a HUGE advantage via the Senate. That's more than enough unfair advantage given to a state with less than a million PEOPLE.

Only of you group them as a unit. Huge states as a unit balance out any advantage

But you are mixing arguments on state representation in a legislative body, with rules on a national electoral process for electing an executive.

 

[Weatherman2020]

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.

There's no such thing as tyranny of the majority.

OK, then let's put abortion, homosexual marriage, immigration issues, Islam issues, etc all up for a vote.

 

[jc456]

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

I wonder if it would still be awesome if they didn't vote for Trump?

Damn right. The EC is the best thing about our voting process.
Its nice for small states to actually have a voice, ey? You know, instead of being run by 3 states?

What do you have against the People?

Then get rid of states altogether if you don't like EC

Sent from my YD206 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

They still don't understand the US

 

[Russ Alllah Gehry]

the US is the only country that had slaves to abolish it right? You know that?

what?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Just out of curiosity, which small states were 'protected' by the election of Trump over Clinton despite his losing the popular vote?