Politics Would abolishing the electoral college actually stimulate voting?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
If texas keeps trending blue with all the new transplants as it seems, it's going to be increasingly harder for any gop candidate to be become president again.

Texas is the most populous red state. 36-40 electoral votes going blue would go a long way in having the electoral college reflect the popular.
 
illmatic99 said:
If texas keeps trending blue with all the new transplants as it seems, it's going to be increasingly harder for any gop candidate to be become president again.

Texas is the most populous red state. 36-40 electoral votes going blue would go a long way in having the electoral college reflect the popular.
Click to expand...

All the Conservatives that yell in glee that people are 'fleeing' California might get a surprise, is what you say...

It's a silent revolution, we are moving to your states to steal the election. Boohaahaa
 
Lanny said:
And it's one man one vote isn't it? Should a minority tell the majority what to do? I don't know what to do about the small states being marginalized but I just can't get over the fact that a President of all the people ought to be determined by all the people.
Click to expand...

This isn’t some new thing Lanny. The Electoral College has been in operation since 1776. It’s not going to change just because Democrats have been pouting over Hillary for the past four years.

You really need to update that one ”man” one vote line. That hasn’t been accurate since 1920.
 
illmatic99 said:
If texas keeps trending blue with all the new transplants as it seems, it's going to be increasingly harder for any gop candidate to be become president again.

Texas is the most populous red state. 36-40 electoral votes going blue would go a long way in having the electoral college reflect the popular.
Click to expand...

The GOP is going to have to reinvent itself in the near future if they want to remain competitive nationally. Trump has set them back a long ways. Their reliance on the religious right is becoming stale. They are going to have to find a new message and better leaders. It will happen, but it won’t be quick.
 
Lanny said:
And it's one man one vote isn't it? Should a minority tell the majority what to do? I don't know what to do about the small states being marginalized but I just can't get over the fact that a President of all the people ought to be determined by all the people.
Click to expand...
Small states would never have agreed to join the Union at all without the split legislature, the electoral college, and the separation of powers into three branches.
 
e_blazer said:
This isn’t some new thing Lanny. The Electoral College has been in operation since 1776. It’s not going to change just because Democrats have been pouting over Hillary for the past four years.

You really need to update that one ”man” one vote line. That hasn’t been accurate since 1920.
Click to expand...
Where did I mention Hillary? Are you replying to me or what you think are pouting Democrats?
Are you trying to explain our Constitution and how it pertains to the Electoral College to me?
Of course one man one vote isn't accurate. That's exactly my point.
Next time try to make more sense.
 
andalusian said:
All the Conservatives that yell in glee that people are 'fleeing' California might get a surprise, is what you say...

It's a silent revolution, we are moving to your states to steal the election. Boohaahaa
Click to expand...
Not to mention the massive majority of college educated blue voters under the age of 40. The problem is voter engagement with this demographic.
 
BlazerWookee said:
Small states would never have agreed to join the Union at all without the split legislature, the electoral college, and the separation of powers into three branches.
Click to expand...
100% correct. Now that they're here they want to stay here. It's a pretty good place to grow up and live your life in.
 
Lanny said:
Where did I mention Hillary? Are you replying to me or what you think are pouting Democrats?
Are you trying to explain our Constitution and how it pertains to the Electoral College to me?
Of course one man one vote isn't accurate. That's exactly my point.
Next time try to make more sense.
Click to expand...
I hate how people keep mentioning Hillary with negative connotations. First of all, the only people who keep bringing her up are MAGAs, and second, she was a damn good candidate with decades of experience serving in multiple facets of government and was highly educated and respected on the global stage. They treat her like some failed wife from the swamp. Just irritates me to no end when people ignore her terrific credentials.

Back to what my mom says whenever we see her name evoked: people can't respect strong women. Just an unequivocal fact.
 
BlazerWookee said:
Small states would never have agreed to join the Union at all without the split legislature, the electoral college, and the separation of powers into three branches.
Click to expand...

That is absolutely true. At the time, tho, it made sense to have outhouses and not internal plumbing - because the smell was horrible. The invention of the P joint solved that problem and all of a sudden having a toilet in the house was a huge upgrade.

What was right for the 1700s can and often is a hinderance in the 21st century.
 
illmatic99 said:
I hate how people keep mentioning Hillary with negative connotations. First of all, the only people who keep bringing her up are MAGAs, and second, she was a damn good candidate with decades of experience serving in multiple facets of government and was highly educated and respected on the global stage. They treat her like some failed wife. Just irritates me to no end when people ignore her terrific credentials.
Click to expand...

Well, they also go on about how crooked and evil she is, but even if it is true - the choice was between crooked, evil and accomplished and crooked, evil and incompetent - and they chose wrong.
 
Lanny said:
And it's one man one vote isn't it? Should a minority tell the majority what to do? I don't know what to do about the small states being marginalized but I just can't get over the fact that a President of all the people ought to be determined by all the people.
Click to expand...
I know the concept sucks, but that was not the intent of the Founding Fathers......and why America is purposely not a true Democracy. When those individuals (rich land owners, merchants and lawyers mostly) sat down to write the Constitution, the minority they were protecting were NOT people of color or women. Those people didn’t “exist” (except as chattel). The minority whose rights they set out to protect were they themselves. The “majority” were poor white men (farmers, factory workers, et al) who were the ones who actually shed their blood for the Revolution. The Founding Fathers knew they had to give the “little folks” a piece of the action or a second Revolution would soon follow the first. They also knew that if they gave the rabble an true democracy, the rabble would eventually turn on them (Because of their wealth and privilege). So they gave us a Democratic Republic (for lack of a better term) in which the rabble had a say in governance while the rights of the rich and powerful were protected. Everything changes over time (including the definition of “a minority”)........except the American political system......The American political system has been protecting the rights of the rich for 244 years (with help from the complacent and complicit rabble). Good luck seeing any real changes anytime soon......
 
UncleCliffy'sDaddy said:
I know the concept sucks, but that was not the intent of the Founding Fathers......and why America is purposely not a true Democracy. When those individuals (rich land owners, merchants and lawyers mostly) sat down to write the Constitution, the minority they were protecting were NOT people of color or women. Those people didn’t “exist” (except as chattel). The minority whose rights they set out to protect were they themselves. The “majority” were poor white men (farmers, factory workers, et al) who were the ones who actually shed their blood for the Revolution. The Founding Fathers knew they had to give the “little folks” a piece of the action or a second Revolution would soon follow the first. They also knew that if they gave the rabble an true democracy, the rabble would eventually turn on them (Because of their wealth and privilege. So they gave us a Democratic Republic (for lack of a better term) in which the rabble had a say in governance while the rights of the rich and powerful were protected. Everything changes over time (including the definition of “a minority”)........except the American political system......The American political system has been protecting the rights of the rich for 244 years (with help from the complacent and complicit rabble). Good luck seeing any real changes anytime soon......
Click to expand...
The founders considered a black man 3/5ths of a white man. This ins't conjecture, it's fact. They actually said that! And there are 27 amendments to the Constitution. It's an imperfect document.

And I love how the GOP and sycophants of Trump like his idiot press secretary and this new supreme court justice repeatedly bring up *the Constitution* as if it's some end all be all for governance. It's not. It's a work in progress, and can be changed to reflect our current lives, not how it was 250 yrs ago.
 
illmatic99 said:
The founders considered a black man 3/5ths of a white man. This ins't conjecture, it's fact. They actually said that! And there are 27 amendments to the Constitution. It's am imperfect document.

And I love how the GOP and sycophants of Trump like his idiot press secretary and this new supreme court justice repeatedly bring up *the Constitution* as if it's some end all be all for governance. It's not. It's a work in progress, and can be changed to reflect our current lives, not how it was 250 yrs ago.
Click to expand...
Yep. This “Originalist” concept the conservatives keep pushing is utterly asinine when you look at history and how far things have changed over the centuries. “Originalism” (to me) means a return to slavery, female oppression and a return to the white male dominated culture of the 18th Century. Just one more way for old white men (with the help of their cowed white female handmaidens) to futilely hang on to their power for as long as possible. And that is EXACTLY what we have on the current SCOTUS.......and why “actual” minorities are going to radically change this shit down the road. And probably in a way that is over reactive thanks to the consistent shenanigans being pulled by the Republican Party. There’s is going to be a reckoning in the future. Unfortunately, McConnell and his slimy cohorts will likely be gone by then........
 
Lanny said:
Where did I mention Hillary? Are you replying to me or what you think are pouting Democrats?
Are you trying to explain our Constitution and how it pertains to the Electoral College to me?
Of course one man one vote isn't accurate. That's exactly my point.
Next time try to make more sense.
Click to expand...

One person, one vote is accurate at a state level. It just isn’t directly relevant to the election of the president per the constitution. That’s not going to change simply because some folks in populous states want it to. This whole issue has been hot among Democrats since Hillary lost.

I’m going to let that “next time” jab of yours pass, but you’re better than that.
 
illmatic99 said:
I hate how people keep mentioning Hillary with negative connotations. First of all, the only people who keep bringing her up are MAGAs, and second, she was a damn good candidate with decades of experience serving in multiple facets of government and was highly educated and respected on the global stage. They treat her like some failed wife from the swamp. Just irritates me to no end when people ignore her terrific credentials.

Back to what my mom says whenever we see her name evoked: people can't respect strong women. Just an unequivocal fact.
Click to expand...

Well, since I’m the one who has brought her name a few times in this thread, let me comment a bit on your post.

1. I am not a Republican or a Trumpie. I am a registered independent who leans to the right in my political views fiscally, but not so much on personal liberties. I was Republican, but was turned off by the Tea Party crowd. Trump was the final straw that got me to leave the party.

2. My only reason for mentioning her is that her loss was due to failure to deal with the reality that the president is chosen by the EC. She didn’t campaign effectively in the Midwest. She won the popular vote, but lost the election and since then friends and some people on this board have been going on about the EC like it stole their baby or something. IT’S THE CONSTITUTIONAL METHOD OF SELECTING THE PRESIDENT. If you don’t like it, work to change it, but in the meantime, your candidates had better live with that reality.

3. Hillary was extremely qualified to be president from an experience standpoint, but charisma is a major component of how presidents are elected. Hillary is charisma-challenged.

4. I am extremely tired of people using claims of misogyny every time someone mentions Hillary in a negative context. I have zero problem with powerful women. I would have voted for Klobuchar. I don’t agree with a lot of Harris’s campaign policies, but I don’t mind her as Joe’s running mate. I voted for the ticket knowing she may well be president before the end of Joe’s first term.
 
e_blazer said:
One person, one vote is accurate at a state level. It just isn’t directly relevant to the election of the president per the constitution. That’s not going to change simply because some folks in populous states want it to. This whole issue has been hot among Democrats since Hillary lost.

I’m going to let that “next time” jab of yours pass, but you’re better than that.
Click to expand...
uh, this has been hot long before then. Gore v Bush was 20 yrs ago.
 
illmatic99 said:
And I love how the GOP and sycophants of Trump like his idiot press secretary and this new supreme court justice repeatedly bring up *the Constitution* as if it's some end all be all for governance. It's not. It's a work in progress, and can be changed to reflect our current lives, not how it was 250 yrs ago.
Click to expand...

Actually, that's pretty much the definition of a constitution.
 
e_blazer said:
Actually, that's pretty much the definition of a constitution.
Click to expand...

Actually, literally, constitution means fundamental principals for governance, it certainly is not the "end all" for governance.

Given that end all means definitive, and fundamental means "forming a necessary base or core", therefore - logically
definitive !== fundamental principals .

QED
 
andalusian said:
Actually, literally, constitution means fundamental principals for governance, it certainly is not the "end all" for governance.

Given that end all means definitive, and fundamental means "forming a necessary base or core", therefore - logically
definitive !== fundamental principals .

QED
Click to expand...

Exactly, a constitution gives the fundamental principles for governing. All laws and policies have to conform to those principles. In that sense, it is the “end all”. The constitution recognizes that things change over time, that no document crafted by humans can foresee everything that may arise that could impact a nation, and thus contains provisions for its amendment. In that sense, there is no “end all”. I believe that there are now 27 adopted amendments to the US Constitution. The last one took over 200 years from the time it was first written to actually be adopted. None of this changes anything I’ve said above. If you want to go to a pure popular vote to elect the president, an amendment is needed or enough states to total at least 270 electoral votes have to agree to adopt the end around move to give all of their EC votes to the winner of the popular vote regardless of how their own constituents voted.
 
e_blazer said:
Exactly, a constitution gives the fundamental principles for governing. All laws and policies have to conform to those principles. In that sense, it is the “end all”. The constitution recognizes that things change over time, that no document crafted by humans can foresee everything that may arise that could impact a nation, and thus contains provisions for its amendment. In that sense, there is no “end all”. I believe that there are now 27 adopted amendments to the US Constitution. The last one took over 200 years from the time it was first written to actually be adopted. None of this changes anything I’ve said above. If you want to go to a pure popular vote to elect the president, an amendment is needed or enough states to total at least 270 electoral votes have to agree to adopt the end around move to give all of their EC votes to the winner of the popular vote regardless of how their own constituents voted.
Click to expand...

You are contradicting yourself. principal is not end-all, end-all is definite. You should have healthy sanitation and you should use indoor plumbing are not one and the same. One is principle, the other is definitive...

I am not arguing with what you meant to say, I am arguing with your choice of words, they are incorrect, by definition. The constitution is a guiding light, it is not an end-all document.
 
andalusian said:
You are contradicting yourself. principal is not end-all, end-all is definite. You should have healthy sanitation and you should use indoor plumbing are not one and the same. One is principle, the other is definitive...

I am not arguing with what you meant to say, I am arguing with your choice of words, they are incorrect, by definition. The constitution is a guiding light, it is not an end-all document.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not contradicting myself; there are two meanings to "end-all" when it comes to a constitution. There's the fact that the constitution is the "end-all" for determining whether a law or policy is constitutional. There's also the fact that the constitution isn't self-limiting in the sense that provides for its own amendment. In that sense no current version of the constitution is the "end-all" since it can be amended in the future if there is enough political will to do so.

Edit: I do think that there's been considerable difference of opinion among justices as to how tied they are to the plain text of the Constitution in weighing whether a law is constitutional. Clearly, Roe v Wade used a whale of a lot of rope to try to anchor that decision to the Constitution. Still, and perhaps this is just semantics (but you do seem to want to try to tie me in a semantical knot), a Supreme Court decision has to be based upon the principles defined in the Constitution. They can't just make things up out of whole cloth. It is in that sense that I'm saying it is the "end-all".
 
Last edited:
e_blazer said:
No, I'm not contradicting myself; there are two meanings to "end-all" when it comes to a constitution. There's the fact that the constitution is the "end-all" for determining whether a law or policy is constitutional. There's also the fact that the constitution isn't self-limiting in the sense that provides for its own amendment. In that sense no current version of the constitution is the "end-all" since it can be amended in the future if there is enough political will to do so.
Click to expand...

I guess that the point of contention here, even tho we agree, might be in what people define as the constitution - where the absolutionists define the constitution as it was written before all the amendments - where we agree that it is a legal document that can be changed - and as long as it is done with accordance to the constitution itself, which was the original meaning that I got from @illmatic99

Using the lexical definition of end-all, your comments are wrong. Using end-all to mean the final arbiter of change is fine, but it is not lexically correct.
 
I doubt any of us that argue against the EC are under any illusions that it will be changed or eliminated. The American system is quite resistant to change, by design, and the continued existence of the EC is both evidence of that and also a contributing factor to that.

barfo
 
andalusian said:
Using the lexical definition of end-all, your comments are wrong. Using end-all to mean the final arbiter of change is fine, but it is not lexically correct.
Click to expand...

Lexico.com defines "end-all" as, "The thing that is final or definitive."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top