(no message)
Link: What it Would (Really) Take to Abolish the Electoral College
The Electoral College is an integral part of being a Republic. Lefties want a tyranny of the majority- a majority where a significant portion of the electorate pay no Federal taxes and live via government handouts they don’t pay for.
At least with an electoral college there is a small chance that the will of people who don’t live in NYC, Boston, Philly, Chicago, Baltimore, San Francisco, Los Angeles etc. will have some say in what the government does to them.
“In a republic, the people are indeed sovereign and the majority have the democratic right to speak for the whole. But our Founders wisely limited the use of that democratic right with republican institutions in order to protect the people from “the tyranny of their own passions.” Precisely because of these limitations, the people are able to express their sovereignty in their most reasonable capacity.”
“Thus our republic is democratic in that it is controlled by public opinion, but our Constitution requires patience and persistence for the people to express that opinion through elections. By filtering the people’s judgment through elections over time, the Founders established a republic that would allow the people’s best beliefs about what is just—not their immediate impulses for what they want—to guide the government. Such a deliberative process is best described as republican, not “undemocratic.”
(no message)
(no message)
Prefer to promote a more lively discussion...by not giving the clearly correct answer before it begins...
God our Founding Fathers were so dumb. These people know so much more than they did.
That kind of bumper-sticker argument relieves us from the responsibility of thinking.
Senate not being apportioned based on population, and the EC for the presidency. Since 88, only one R prez candidate has won the popular vote.
The R’s are a minority base party right now with zero coalitions. RINO’s and such have decamped.
I’m not for changing the Senate or the EC, but gerrymandering should be eliminated. Let’s be honest though as to why the R’s want these things, and fidelity to the Constitution (can you say national emergency?) isn’t the reason.
Members of the House from major metropolitan areas tend to voted overwhelmingly for the Dems. In New York State, for example, the Democrat Congressmen from NYC tend to win in absolute landslides. Upstate, however, the elections are more hotly contested. I suppose that if you gerrymanded the state to spread the NYC votes into the more competitive districts then the Dems could have all the House seats from the state of New York. But isn't that what you oppose?
Why can't congressional districts just follow county lines and take the politics right out of the decision?
Nonetheless, it can still be done within sensible geographic boundaries rather than some of the torturec districts winding up, down, and all around. One in PA was about a mile wide at one point and ran through parts of several highly populated suburban Philly counties.
The former is more popular but you can whistle to the latter.
(no message)
We agree.
controlled by people in the big cities. The big cities get their benefits in terms of culture and social life while the people in the smaller cities lose their freedom because they have to take care of the people in the big cities.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Next will be bad golfers and Bruno Mars cover bands.
In other words, you're almost completely useless.
(no message)
Ya know, because humans require suffering.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
As if cities already don’t subsidize the countryside. And as if the countryside would be totally ignored if everyone was equal.
“One man, one vote” is not exactly a novel idea, nor is it a threat to order.
(no message)
Now, because you can't put through your radical agenda of socialist and atheistic transformation by the existing rules, you want to renege on that promise.
The lines of this division in this country are drawn between big urban areas and outlying areas. Look at the red and blue map. You pretend that these urban areas produce most of the economy, but in truth they create a greater burden than what they contribute. There is not a great deal that is special about their economic contributions that could not be set up elsewhere easily. Look at Amazon most recently.
I do not want to see any schism occur, but suggesting the option of radical consitutional change such as this is the most likely way to widen the one that is growing.
(no message)
There is a popular vote in each state. The delegates are determined from that. The electoral system lets "the poor and underpriviliged" states have an equal say. Equality for all, not just the rich power brokers in California and New York. That was exactly why the system was drawn out as it was, and the states never would have joined without it.
If you change this, then states shoulc have the option of stepping out of the union because of the reneging on the promise. I'd move to a separatist Texas before I'd go socialist.
They have every right to leave if you change a funadamental and promised condition upon which all states joined and agreed.
On balance, I am not in favor of the change. I was just pointing our that there are reasons for supporting the change other than the ones you stated in the body of the post I responded to.
You don't need to have a radical aetheist, socialist agenda to find a reason to abolish the EC.
I understand why we have it, but why is the popular vote discouraged nowadays? I can be persuaded either way. FYI keep it simple, I am drinking
Pros:
There is something fundamentally undemocratic about a person losing the popular vote by 3,000,000 votes, and but getting elected president. I guess it wouldn't bother me as much if we had a president that acknowledged that he was not popular, and attempted to accommodate the majority of the country that voted against his agenda.
The other pro is that under the current system, it seems that the only votes that matter are in swing states. Thus, candidates (should) spend more time catering to those few states than states where other than where most Americans live.
Cons:
I am always resistant to changing the status quo, without a compelling reason. Whatever it is that actually plagues this country will not be solved, in my opinion, by eliminating the EC. Systems, governments and populations evolved due to the complex ecosystem we have in place, including to some degree the EC. Arbitrarily changing one aspect seems foolish. It is similar to the reason that I dislike the SALT deduction cap. Governments, infrastructure, and life choices were made based on a long-standing system, and Trump arbitrarily changed it to punish people that didn't vote for him. Eliminating the EC smells of the same thing. The EC may have some perceived unfairness, but that is interwoven with 1000 other factors that might cut the other way. I note that despite the EC "unfairness", people overwhelming choose to live in states where the EC seems to hurt them.
Those voters who pay more in federal taxes, have a diminished vote because of the college. Blue states kick ass over red states in taxable income. The economic engines within each state vote blue.
However, the US Constitution was written to protect the little guy, to not simply favor the popular or economic majority. Hence, the EC forces a President to answer to all pockets of the nation - urban/rural and across the cultural divides.
So, it remains important for a candidate to win each State, and let the voters of each State decide who they want for President.
All of this requires a fair and accurate census. We know that Republicans want to rig that process as well in the same manner Republican state legislatures rig the gerrymandering and suppress votes. So, when Baron and Ned pontificate about fairness, feel free to barf.
(no message)
The electoral college benefits the GOP now, so they protect it as if it came from Jesus. The Democrats want it to be abolished, citing basic fairness.
The principles would change if the politics changed.
To me, it’s pretty undemocratic, but worth keeping. I’d take out the Senate from the electoral vote total, as I said below, and I’d also like to see the states split their electoral votes, so everyone’s vote would have the chance to count (this, by the way, would benefit the GOP).
(no message)
The electoral college is not the only thing protecting states's rights.
(no message)
The biggest drawback to eliminating the Electoral College is that it would destroy the Union.
The good news is that Chris94 is right that it will never happen. The only reason the Dems are talking about it is because they know that eliminating the EC would allow all future elections to be determined by urban populations. Elections would swing in winning the urban vote, and candidates would ignore flyover country.
Without the electoral college there would be no union!
What nonsense.
Again, I’m not in favor of getting rid of it. But “destroy the Union”? Please.
My reasons for the EC are the same as the reasons the Founding Fathers had. Do you think the Founding Fathers were just trying to protect the interests of the GOP?
You think flyover states would allow the city-states to dictate to them? They wouldn't. Ask yourself why you said it will never happen? The flyover states won't allow it...but why not?
If it happens, it won't be pretty, for the same reasons that they won't allow it in the first place...they will be dictated to by people who think they are a bunch of hillbillies...by people like you. If you think things won't get violent, then please explain why you think they will go quietly into the night.
I guess you don't think it will be an issue, because the urban parties will rule in a benevolent fashion. Maybe. But, maybe not. And "maybies" are not the bricks upon which a Union should be built.
I can see you at the Constitutional Congress: "C'mon Madison, Jefferson...Why are you guys worried about all these checks and balances? Just implement a pure democracy. It will all work out."
There wouldn't be any issues.
Making the USA more democratic (small D) would hardly destroy the country. Jesus.
You don’t think people in cities are as valuable as people in the country. I get it. (Maybe the city dweller could be 2/3 of a person?)
I happen to think they are equal. I guess them’s fightin words.
This is about State's rights, federalism and the tyranny of the majority. Comparing the value of a vote is silly.
The real question I have for you is: Why are the Dem candidates even talking about this? They have zero chance of changing it.
(no message)
It was there to entice the smaller states to join the Union. It was there to form a Union of equal States. That was the sole reason for the Senate as well. Senators were originally selected by the States, not the People. Those States would not have joined without the EC and the Senate.
Do you think that motivation has changed now? You like to belittle your opponent to diminish the effectiveness of their arguments, but you are arguing against conventional wisdom. This isn't about alarmism or apacolyptic thinking. We are talking about the structure of the Union. You are saying if we remove half the foundation, the house will still stand, and anyone who says otherwise is kooky because the house has stood for 200+ years. Obviously, your argument makes no sense, you have to convince your audience that those who disagree with you are crazy.
Progressives hate federalism, because it slows down their solutions. Democracy good; federal republic bad. I get it. That's why progressives eliminated the Senate as an advocate fofor the States against the National Government (17th amendment). The EC is pretty much the final support for federalism, and now you want to remove that for political motives. You acting now based on pure political motives, not motives for making a better system. You are putting the interests of your party before the interests of the Republic. The long term interests of the Republic militate for candidates that have broad support, not just urban support. You could convince the flyover rubes that your ideas are good, but you would rather just eliminate the EC so you don't have to bother doing that...just make it so their votes have less impact, and POTUS candidates only have to campaign in the cities.
Voting booth. It’s obvious he wants to disregard the foundations of the country.
Chris along with many presidential candidates simply want to tarnish the Beacon on the Hill.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
The system unfairly rewards certain states; those states will block any attempt at reform.
Getting rid of the electoral college is stupid, but reforming it is not. I think the Senate should be removed from its calculations. 435 votes, not 535, which would reduce the inherent unfairness a little. A vote in California would still be worth much less than one in Wyoming...but a little less so.
Under this scenario, Trump would still be president, by the way.
Why are all of the radical proposals to change our system coming from Democrats?
Don’t pretend the Democrats want to change the rules.
BTW, Merrick Garland was not changing the rules. That was the Biden Rule.
Love old Joe.
Now, if they can't achieve the rule changes, then they will resort to violent protests and somehow, someway play the race card. Liberals are so predictable.
(no message)
(no message)
and other Founders
We are so Blessed.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
And the one that promised fabulous health care for all. And the one that said he would wipe out the deficit in his Presidency.
And the one that said NK was no longer a nuclear threat.
THAT level of genious.
NK was a mess that Obama ignored, and Trump has done as much as he can as well as more than most thought possible,
and the deficit.......while it is the congress is to blame for only offering such a crap option....I agree that Trump folded on that (one of his only bad marks though again he got no support from the GOP). I guess you feel that he should shut the govt down again to get the budget balanced (but of course only for your political gain).
He would have had Obamacare completely repealed as promised if he actually had a GOP majority in the denate inthe first term. Butt here were a few pretenders like Flake, and there was a bitter and vindictive R senator who was bent on revenge for having his Tokyo Rose moment called to the forefront during the campaign. We now have an actual majority in the senate. in 2020, we'll take back the House now that people see what kind of kooks Occasio, Omar etc actually are.
(no message)
STILL waiting for the details.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)