Politics Electoral College

[theprunetang]

With the recent talk of the National Popular Vote Initiative, I thought it would be interesting to monitor what politicians and former politicians are saying about it, to get an idea of where different ideological groups might sit. Here is one I just caught today:

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019...?utm_campaign=nym&utm_source=fb&utm_medium=s1

Wow.

 

[BonesJones]

With the recent talk of the National Popular Vote Initiative, I thought it would be interesting to monitor what politicians and former politicians are saying about it, to get an idea of where different ideological groups might sit. Here is one I just caught today:

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019...?utm_campaign=nym&utm_source=fb&utm_medium=s1

Wow.

Scary that we have such stupid people im positions of power.

 

[Natebishop3]

On the one hand, I understand why people want to do away with the electoral college, but on the other hand, the framers put it in place so as not to marginalize a less populated state.

The way people bitch about how Portland runs the entire state of Oregon would be expanded to a national level.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Basically if it hurts your agenda, you'll be against it. People only freaked about this whole electoral college thing because Trump won the EC. He campaigned strategically in the states he needed to win, while Clinton dropped the ball.

I'm fine with it, personally. Electoral college seems lame. Fuck the farmers!

But basically the Presidential campaigns will then only be concerned with the biggest cities, like LA, NY, etc. Big mega cities will be the absolute focus on the country, smaller cities, states, rural areas, will be ignored for the most part as far as campaign promises go.

Most dems think that it will be their savior to win elections over and over again, but it will probably backfire in their face and they'll want to change it back again if it doesn't suit their agenda.

 

[MARIS61]

With the recent talk of the National Popular Vote Initiative, I thought it would be interesting to monitor what politicians and former politicians are saying about it, to get an idea of where different ideological groups might sit. Here is one I just caught today:

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019...?utm_campaign=nym&utm_source=fb&utm_medium=s1

Wow.

Rather than starting the thread with an inflammatory, race-baiting opinion piece about a washed up racist whose knowledge of the topic appears skewed, how about views from people in office or Constitutional Historians or even the 1%er Deep State billionaires pushing for the “popular vote” to replace it.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Rather than starting the thread with an inflammatory, race-baiting opinion piece

God dammit, who hacked @MARIS61 account?!?

 

[PtldPlatypus]

God dammit, who hacked @MARIS61 account?!?

I bet it was @SlypokerMaris69. Again.

 

[MARIS61]

Keep in mind that the end result of the absence of the EC would be the end of the USA as a 50 State country, and possibly another civil war before that.

 

[barfo]

Keep in mind that the end result of the absence of the EC would be the end of the USA as a 50 State country, and possibly another civil war before that.

The end of a 50 state country would be fine. We don't need states anymore, huge waste of money. Civil war probably not a good idea though.

barfo

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Keep in mind that the end result of the absence of the EC would be the end of the USA as a 50 State country, and possibly another civil war before that.

Punching Nazis is bad, killing Americans is good.

 

[barfo]

On the one hand, I understand why people want to do away with the electoral college, but on the other hand, the framers put it in place so as not to marginalize a less populated state.

The way people bitch about how Portland runs the entire state of Oregon would be expanded to a national level.

Which would be fine. Having the minority bitch about what the majority decides is better than having the majority bitch about what the minority decides.

barfo

 

[Natebishop3]

Which would be fine. Having the minority bitch about what the majority decides is better than having the majority bitch about what the minority decides.

barfo

As much as some people would like to think this is one country where everyone is the same, we're not. It's a massive country comprised of different cultures and beliefs. Allowing parts of the country to govern the entire country completely, without giving them a fair say in those decisions, will most likely lead to war. I say this because it has already happened twice in our history. We fought the Revolutionary War because of "taxation without representation" and we fought the Civil War because the south felt that the north was trying to tell them what to do. We already have huge tensions in this country, and marginalizing the less populated states would only exacerbate that issue.

 

[theprunetang]

Rather than starting the thread with an inflammatory, race-baiting opinion piece about a washed up racist whose knowledge of the topic appears skewed, how about views from people in office or Constitutional Historians or even the 1%er Deep State billionaires pushing for the “popular vote” to replace it.

I started this because I had just read that particular article. This is not about sides. This is a thread for others to share opinions on the EC in general whether that is their own ideas or opinions of others.

It seemed relevant to the thread. Feel free to share other things here. Personally, I am torn on the EC subject, and do not have an opinion that is set in stone about it.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

This is why I should be King!

 

[andalusian]

and marginalizing the less populated states would only exacerbate that issue.

... as would marginalizing the majority (which is what is happening now).

At the end of the day it comes down to what we think is more important - people being equal or arbitrary lines on a map being equal.

The Electoral College is a relic of times when it took weeks to see the news from one side of the country to another, just like the end of slavery and women rights - it is an out of date idea that benefits the few while hurts the many.

 

[MarAzul]

Punching Nazis is bad, killing Americans is good.

This is why I should be King!

Perhaps but the first quote will prohibit the possibility of the fulfilling the second.

 

[Natebishop3]

This is why I should be King!

You're already king of this forum and look how THAT turned out?

 

[MarAzul]

... as would marginalizing the majority (which is what is happening now).

At the end of the day it comes down to what we think is more important - people being equal or arbitrary lines on a map being equal.

The Electoral College is a relic of times when it took weeks to see the news from one side of the country to another, just like the end of slavery and women rights - it is an out of date idea that benefits the few while hurts the many.

No it doesn't. The majority in a Majority of States, win their day.

You do know this is a Union of States, aptly named the United States. It never was one nation that subdivided into States.

 

[andalusian]

No it doesn't. The majority in a Majority of States, win their day.

You do know this is a Union of States, aptly named the United States. It never was one nation that subdivided into States.

I was clearly referring to the majority of citizens.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

This country is failing this declaration if the vote of someone in Vermont is worth more than the vote of someone in New York.

 

[Natebishop3]

... as would marginalizing the majority (which is what is happening now).

At the end of the day it comes down to what we think is more important - people being equal or arbitrary lines on a map being equal.

The Electoral College is a relic of times when it took weeks to see the news from one side of the country to another, just like the end of slavery and women rights - it is an out of date idea that benefits the few while hurts the many.

It's not just about "the many" in terms of overall population. It's about the many states. It's a government that was designed to pull together and combine many different states with many different governments, wants and needs.

It's not just "arbitrary lines on a map." Do you really think the South is the same as the NW? Do you think we have the same beliefs and culture? Just because we're all Americans does not make us the same. Hell, there are parts of Oregon that do not agree with or believe the same things as Portland. There was legitimately some people that wanted to divide up Oregon and join Idaho.

The system is not marginalizing the majority. The majority gets a say in their state, and their state gets a say in our Democratic Republic. That's how our Congress and our Senate works as well. Should we just put all of our government up to mob rule? Pure Democracy?

 

[andalusian]

It's not just about "the many" in terms of overall population. It's about the many states. It's a government that was designed to pull together and combine many different states with many different governments, wants and needs.

It's not just "arbitrary lines on a map." Do you really think the South is the same as the NW? Do you think we have the same beliefs and culture? Just because we're all Americans does not make us the same. Hell, there are parts of Oregon that do not agree with or believe the same things as Portland. There was legitimately some people that wanted to divide up Oregon and join Idaho.

The system is not marginalizing the majority. The majority gets a say in their state, and their state gets a say in our Democratic Republic. That's how our Congress and our Senate works as well. Should we just put all of our government up to mob rule? Pure Democracy?

But the federal government is supposed to deal with things that matter to everyone in the country - and for that - the electoral college favors the concept of the state over the concept of the person.

Why does going to a popular vote for the federal government (which is what should represent every person in the country) remove anything from the state government that deals with local matters?

I absolutely think this is an out of date idea that is kept alive because it protects the political fiefdoms people built.

 

[Natebishop3]

But the federal government is supposed to deal with things that matter to everyone in the country - and for that - the electoral college favors the concept of the state over the concept of the person.

Why does going to a popular vote for the federal government (which is what should represent every person in the country) remove anything from the state government that deals with local matters?

I absolutely think this is an out of date idea that is kept alive because it protects the political fiefdoms people built.

And I'm saying that why stop with the electoral college? Why not get rid of congress and the senate? If you feel so strongly about pure democracy, why be a democratic republic at all?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

And I'm saying that why stop with the electoral college? Why not get rid of congress and the senate? If you feel so strongly about pure democracy, why be a democratic republic at all?

I have long believed we need a National Initiative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_initiative

I would do that first before even thinking of getting rid of the EC.

 

[andalusian]

And I'm saying that why stop with the electoral college? Why not get rid of congress and the senate? If you feel so strongly about pure democracy, why be a democratic republic at all?

Because of the very good points you yourself brought - which are the regional differences.

But, if the country is one country - the federal government that is supposed to care about everyone in the country - should emphasize people over states imho.

I do not understand why there is a need to be black and white - there are good things about the regional / hierarchical structure, but there are things that were designed over 200 years ago that no longer make sense - these are the ones I think need to tweaked.

 

[Natebishop3]

Because of the very good points you yourself brought - which are the regional differences.

But, if the country is one country - the federal government that is supposed to care about everyone in the country - should emphasize people over states imho.

I do not understand why there is a need to be black and white - there are good things about the regional / hierarchical structure, but there are things that were designed over 200 years ago that no longer make sense - these are the ones I think need to tweaked.

Because they stand for the same thing. The EC exists so that each state gets a fair (not necessarily equal) say in who gets to be President. In much the same way that each state gets a fair say in different initiatives that are put before Congress or the Senate. I'm sure there are bills that go before congress that the majority of Americans (by population) would want passed, but do not pass because they don't have a majority of the votes in Congress. It's the same principle.

Hillary lost the Presidency because she did not engage with many of the people who got Obama elected in the first place. She lost many of the states who voted Democrat in the past two elections. To me, that's the electoral college working as intended. The Presidency should not come down to a hand full of cities and states.

 

[andalusian]

Because they stand for the same thing. The EC exists so that each state gets a fair (not necessarily equal) say in who gets to be President.

We clearly disagree about that. The federal government should work for all people in the country equally, not for the states.

The senate / congress division is what keeps the "states rights" on the legislation front.

The Presidency should not come down to a hand full of cities and states.

Of course not, it should come to people. But, right now, it comes down to the states, not the people. That's wrong, imho.

The electoral collage punishes people based on their location - it's just a different sort of discrimination, plain and simple.

 

[barfo]

And I'm saying that why stop with the electoral college? Why not get rid of congress and the senate? If you feel so strongly about pure democracy, why be a democratic republic at all?

There's a good reason for representative democracy - time. We can't all get up to speed on every issue and voting on them, we'd spend all our time on that.

Your question could have been, why not elect congresspeople and senators on a national basis, rather than by district.

barfo

 

[barfo]

I have long believed we need a National Initiative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_initiative

I would do that first before even thinking of getting rid of the EC.

Brexit is one argument against that. One stupidly designed initiative can really wreak havoc.

barfo

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

There's a good reason for representative democracy - time. We can't all get up to speed on every issue and voting on them, we'd spend all our time on that.

Your question could have been, why not elect congresspeople and senators on a national basis, rather than by district.

barfo

Yeah, we got to have scammers scam us along the way.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

We should just have an electronic vote on any issue. done and done!