Discussion:
Two very sound defenses of the Electoral College
(too old to reply)
Rudy Canoza
2016-11-11 04:50:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2012/11/defending_the_electoral_college.html

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/defense-electoral-college


What the blind and ardent populists fail to understand is that the
country was founded as a union of *equal* sovereign states, and the
Constitution was written expressly to recognize and make use of the
power of the states. This shows up in more ways than just the Electoral
College.

Consider Article V of the Constitution, regarding amending the
Constitution itself. Proposed amendments voted on and approved by 2/3
of both houses of Congress - already an anti-majoritarian threshold -
are submitted to the states for ratification, and must be approved by
3/4 of state legislatures, which currently comes to 38 states. Now
suppose an amendment has been submitted to the states, and 36 states
have voted to ratify it, 12 have voted to reject it, and the remaining
two states to decide are California and Wyoming. The California
legislature, dominated by leftists, votes overwhelmingly to ratify the
amendment - say, 80% to 20%. The Wyoming legislature votes very
narrowly - 51% to 49% - to reject the amendment. The amendment *FAILS*
- and this is good, and just. This is just how a federal system works.

We are not a popular democracy. We never were intended to be one, and
it is most excellent that we are not one. Generally, majority sentiment
prevails, but there is nothing sacred about simple majority rule. If
anything, simple majority rule should *never* decide the very important
issues. That equates to mob rule, and it is bad and wrong.

I'm about to reach my mid 60s, and I venture to say there will be *NO*
serious move to eliminate the Electoral College in my lifetime. For one
thing, it would take a constitutional amendment to do so - thankfully -
and see above what I wrote about amending the constitution. There is
simply no *FUCKING* way that all those small population red states in
the heartland are going to vote to ditch the Electoral College, or any
other constitutional provision that favors them at the expense of the
big coastal People's Republics.
Rick Johnson
2016-11-11 05:11:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
What the blind and ardent populists fail to understand is
that the country was founded as a union of *equal*
sovereign states, and the Constitution was written
expressly to recognize and make use of the power of the
states.
Well, tell that to the repubs living in California and the Dems living in Alabama. In both cases, their vote is about as useful as a handful of fresh feces!
Post by Rudy Canoza
This shows up in more ways than just the Electoral College.
Consider Article V of the Constitution, regarding amending
the Constitution itself. Proposed amendments voted on and
approved by 2/3 of both houses of Congress - already an
anti-majoritarian threshold - are submitted to the states
for ratification, and must be approved by 3/4 of state
legislatures, which currently comes to 38 states. Now
suppose an amendment has been submitted to the states, and
36 states have voted to ratify it, 12 have voted to reject
it, and the remaining two states to decide are California
and Wyoming. The California legislature, dominated by
leftists, votes overwhelmingly to ratify the amendment -
say, 80% to 20%. The Wyoming legislature votes very
narrowly - 51% to 49% - to reject the amendment. The
amendment *FAILS* - and this is good, and just. This is
just how a federal system works.
We are not a popular democracy. We never were intended to
be one, and it is most excellent that we are not one.
Generally, majority sentiment prevails, but there is
nothing sacred about simple majority rule. If anything,
simple majority rule should *never* decide the very
important issues. That equates to mob rule, and it is bad
and wrong.
There is nothing wrong with "mob rule", that is, so long as the mob is not voting to violate someone or some group's, rights. That's why we have a "bill a rights", to prevent the majority from using their awesome power inappropriately.
Post by Rudy Canoza
I'm about to reach my mid 60s, and I venture to say there
will be *NO* serious move to eliminate the Electoral
College in my lifetime. For one thing, it would take a
constitutional amendment to do so - thankfully - and see
above what I wrote about amending the constitution. There
is simply no *FUCKING* way that all those small population
red states in the heartland are going to vote to ditch the
Electoral College, or any other constitutional provision
that favors them at the expense of the big coastal People's
Republics.
Wait. I'm confused. The title of this post was "Two very sound defenses of the Electoral College", but what are the "two very sound reasons"? All i got from reading this is that (1) Removing the EC is hard, and (2) America is not a popular democracy.
Mattb.
2016-11-11 05:21:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 21:11:16 -0800 (PST), Rick Johnson
Post by Rick Johnson
Post by Rudy Canoza
What the blind and ardent populists fail to understand is
that the country was founded as a union of *equal*
sovereign states, and the Constitution was written
expressly to recognize and make use of the power of the
states.
Well, tell that to the repubs living in California and the Dems living in Alabama. In both cases, their vote is about as useful as a handful of fresh feces!
Post by Rudy Canoza
This shows up in more ways than just the Electoral College.
Consider Article V of the Constitution, regarding amending
the Constitution itself. Proposed amendments voted on and
approved by 2/3 of both houses of Congress - already an
anti-majoritarian threshold - are submitted to the states
for ratification, and must be approved by 3/4 of state
legislatures, which currently comes to 38 states. Now
suppose an amendment has been submitted to the states, and
36 states have voted to ratify it, 12 have voted to reject
it, and the remaining two states to decide are California
and Wyoming. The California legislature, dominated by
leftists, votes overwhelmingly to ratify the amendment -
say, 80% to 20%. The Wyoming legislature votes very
narrowly - 51% to 49% - to reject the amendment. The
amendment *FAILS* - and this is good, and just. This is
just how a federal system works.
We are not a popular democracy. We never were intended to
be one, and it is most excellent that we are not one.
Generally, majority sentiment prevails, but there is
nothing sacred about simple majority rule. If anything,
simple majority rule should *never* decide the very
important issues. That equates to mob rule, and it is bad
and wrong.
There is nothing wrong with "mob rule", that is, so long as the mob is not voting to violate someone or some group's, rights. That's why we have a "bill a rights", to prevent the majority from using their awesome power inappropriately.
Post by Rudy Canoza
I'm about to reach my mid 60s, and I venture to say there
will be *NO* serious move to eliminate the Electoral
College in my lifetime. For one thing, it would take a
constitutional amendment to do so - thankfully - and see
above what I wrote about amending the constitution. There
is simply no *FUCKING* way that all those small population
red states in the heartland are going to vote to ditch the
Electoral College, or any other constitutional provision
that favors them at the expense of the big coastal People's
Republics.
Wait. I'm confused. The title of this post was "Two very sound defenses of the Electoral College", but what are the "two very sound reasons"? All i got from reading this is that (1) Removing the EC is hard, and (2) America is not a popular democracy.
The USA does not run on a unitary system according to the
Constitution.
Rick Johnson
2016-11-11 06:10:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mattb.
The USA does not run on a unitary system according to the
Constitution.
Which is exactly the problem in regards to the EC.

The purpose of a presidential election is to choose a _single_ person who will serve the *ENTIRE* American populace from the executive branch. When we create a system that defines the "worth of your vote" based on the majority political persuasion in your home state, we remove the power of the individual, and give that power to a handful of state electors. Like i stated earlier: the vote of a Democrat living in Alabama or the vote of a Republican living in California is *WORTHLESS*.

I hear talk all the time about "disenfranchised voters". But what could possibly be more disenfranchising than a vote that is meaningless? The stench of the greatest disenfranchisement of the American voter has been under our noses since the FF signed the bloody declaration!
Mattb.
2016-11-11 07:16:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 22:10:07 -0800 (PST), Rick Johnson
Post by Rick Johnson
Post by Mattb.
The USA does not run on a unitary system according to the
Constitution.
Which is exactly the problem in regards to the EC.
The purpose of a presidential election is to choose a _single_ person who will serve the *ENTIRE* American populace from the executive branch. When we create a system that defines the "worth of your vote" based on the majority political persuasion in your home state, we remove the power of the individual, and give that power to a handful of state electors. Like i stated earlier: the vote of a Democrat living in Alabama or the vote of a Republican living in California is *WORTHLESS*.
I hear talk all the time about "disenfranchised voters". But what could possibly be more disenfranchising than a vote that is meaningless? The stench of the greatest disenfranchisement of the American voter has been under our noses since the FF signed the bloody declaration!
Well the difference is about 400K so far. I do not really like Trump
but I for one am not willing to vote for any politician that wants to
change the Constitution none can be trusted right or left. It may not
be perfect but for as old as it is the Constitution was well written.
If some had their way the big cities would rule us all. This election
showed one thing Obama's policy caused this. Hillary might have won
if Obama hadn't campaigned for her. Democrats in some areas actually
changed side because she came to be Obama continuation rather than a
change.
Rick Johnson
2016-11-11 07:44:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Well the difference is about 400K so far. I do not really
like Trump but I for one am not willing to vote for any
politician that wants to change the Constitution none can
be trusted right or left.
Part of me wants to compose an acerbic quip utilizing the power of the 14th amendment as a counter argument, but since you have always been a very reasonable person, i won't hit "below the belt". O:-)
It may not be perfect but for as old as it is the
Constitution was well written. If some had their way the
big cities would rule us all. This election showed one
thing Obama's policy caused this. Hillary might have won
if Obama hadn't campaigned for her. Democrats in some
areas actually changed side because she came to be Obama
continuation rather than a change.
Yes. The American people have become sick and tired of Obama's constant lecturing. And now with the imminent removal of his "signature act" (ObamaCare), his presidency is going to go down as insignificant to history. He was the first black president, but that's all he's got. And you know what, he can only blame himself for the failure. He could have been one the greats. A modern day Lincoln! But he chose to play dirty, nasty politics instead. If only he had taken the heroic example of MLK and Mandella, instead of the divisive example of Pelosi and Reed.
Mattb.
2016-11-11 22:33:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 23:44:00 -0800 (PST), Rick Johnson
Post by Rick Johnson
Well the difference is about 400K so far. I do not really
like Trump but I for one am not willing to vote for any
politician that wants to change the Constitution none can
be trusted right or left.
Part of me wants to compose an acerbic quip utilizing the power of the 14th amendment as a counter argument, but since you have always been a very reasonable person, i won't hit "below the belt". O:-)
Don't call me that I have a reputation.
Post by Rick Johnson
It may not be perfect but for as old as it is the
Constitution was well written. If some had their way the
big cities would rule us all. This election showed one
thing Obama's policy caused this. Hillary might have won
if Obama hadn't campaigned for her. Democrats in some
areas actually changed side because she came to be Obama
continuation rather than a change.
Yes. The American people have become sick and tired of Obama's constant lecturing. And now with the imminent removal of his "signature act" (ObamaCare), his presidency is going to go down as insignificant to history. He was the first black president, but that's all he's got. And you know what, he can only blame himself for the failure. He could have been one the greats. A modern day Lincoln! But he chose to play dirty, nasty politics instead. If only he had taken the heroic example of MLK and Mandella, instead of the divisive example of Pelosi and Reed.
Obama did let the majority of people down. Most of what he did was
focused on a small group. His Obamacare program for instance might
have help the poor but is so expensive to use than many in the middle
class can't afford to use it with the deductibles and co-pays. They
have insurance they can't afford to use and that needs to be fixed.

I don't know which I dislike more Obama or Bush Jr.
Rick Johnson
2016-11-12 00:28:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mattb.
I don't know which I dislike more Obama or Bush Jr.
That's a tough decision for sure.

You know, I had not realized it until now, but between Dubya and Obama, we have been living through 16 years of hell.

Initially i had no strong feelings regarding Dubya. I guess you could say i was apathetic to his ascension. I mean, i knew he rode into the white house clinging to the coattails of his father, but, whatever...

Then after he failed (knowingly or unknowing) to properly destroy the people that attacked us on 911, my opinion of him began to change. Little did i know, that not only did 911 mark one the most horrible days in modern American history, it also marked the beginning of a long string of failures, idiotic bumbling, poor leadership, and worst of all, *CONTEMPT* for the constitution at the highest levels of the executive branch!

From Dubya's blatant handicapping of our fighting men and women via self-destructive ROI, to his utter disdain for the ideals of freedom that manifested as that "constitutional abomination" otherwise known as the Patriot Act, i can't honestly tell you who was a worse president. In fact, in the last 16 years, the only policy more anti-American than ObamaCare *IS* the Patriot Act itself!

So there you have it folks.

Two consecutive presidents, from two opposing political parties, who *BOTH* enjoyed two terms, and who *BOTH* love wiping their elitist asses with the ghawd damn constitution!

16 years of hell.

That is what the American people have been living through!

16 years of *HELL*!
We Will Always Hang FagZ And Castrate Jews
2016-11-16 21:09:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mattb.
On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 23:44:00 -0800 (PST), Rick Johnson
Post by Rick Johnson
Well the difference is about 400K so far. I do not really
like Trump but I for one am not willing to vote for any
politician that wants to change the Constitution none can
be trusted right or left.
Part of me wants to compose an acerbic quip utilizing the power of the 14th amendment as a counter argument, but since you have always been a very reasonable person, i won't hit "below the belt". O:-)
Don't call me that I have a reputation.
You are NOT reputable? Obama is for the famous and Hollywood
default
2016-11-11 16:53:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 21:11:16 -0800 (PST), Rick Johnson
Post by Rick Johnson
Wait. I'm confused. The title of this post was "Two very sound defenses of the Electoral College", but what are the "two very sound reasons"? All i got from reading this is that (1) Removing the EC is hard, and (2) America is not a popular democracy.
That's what I got.

I think we were supposed to infer that because there were 13
semi-independent colonies a couple of hundred years ago that justifies
preserving the status quo by allowing unpopulated states special
privilege in this day and age.
duke
2016-11-11 23:19:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mattb.
On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 21:11:16 -0800 (PST), Rick Johnson
Post by Rick Johnson
Wait. I'm confused. The title of this post was "Two very sound defenses of the Electoral College", but what are the "two very sound reasons"? All i got from reading this is that (1) Removing the EC is hard, and (2) America is not a popular democracy.
That's what I got.
I think we were supposed to infer that because there were 13
semi-independent colonies a couple of hundred years ago that justifies
preserving the status quo by allowing unpopulated states special
privilege in this day and age.
Fool, what special privilege? The lower the population, the fewer the EC votes
by said state.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Gronk
2016-11-16 05:15:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I've always considered the electoral college to be in the
category of a stroke of genius by the FFs.
It was compromise not a stroke of genius.
Bullshit. The *formulation* of the Electoral College undoubtedly
was based on compromise among the delegates to the Constitutional
Convention, but the *fact* of it - and not having direct popular
vote for president - in no way was a "compromise." The founders
always intended *NOT* to have direct popular vote for the president
(nor for senators.)
You are ignorant of history, as only an ideologically insane
extremist can be.
Not quite. The electoral College created an extremely messy situation
and had to be fixed. That was accomplished through the 12th Amendment
(1803). Read it if you don't believe me. At the time, it was already
known that states could collect votes legitimately and elect
representatives through popular vote. When the 12th Amendment was
proposed, the Pennsylvania delegation, among others, argued for the
dissolution of the Electoral College, rather than fixing it. They
contended that a simple plebiscite for the presidency was doable, the
votes collected along with the votes for Representatives for that
year.
The objection to this came from the South, James Madison leading the
charge. Due to the 3/5 compromise, Southern representation in Congress
was tremendously enhanced by counting 3/5 of the slaves. To give you an
idea of how much this meant, one of three people living in the South
was a slave. The Electoral College, based on the numbers of congressmen
and senators, gave the Southern states much more power in Presidential
elections than their actual number of white, male voting citizens
deserved. The greatest beneficiary of the 12th Amendment was Virginia,
the largest state. The Electoral College should have been dissolved in
1802 or at least with the end of the Civil War.
Correct.

No other country has adopted an electoral college.

We did not impose one on the countries we beat in war.

A dozen or so states determines the election.

There is NOTHING to prevent an elector from changing their otherwise
committed vote. ALL penalties occur AFTER the faithless elector
has so voted.

This might have been useful when there were only 13 states and
news traveled on horseback. But not anymore.
Cloud Hobbit
2016-11-16 21:30:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gronk
I've always considered the electoral college to be in the
category of a stroke of genius by the FFs.
It was compromise not a stroke of genius.
Bullshit. The *formulation* of the Electoral College undoubtedly
was based on compromise among the delegates to the Constitutional
Convention, but the *fact* of it - and not having direct popular
vote for president - in no way was a "compromise." The founders
always intended *NOT* to have direct popular vote for the president
(nor for senators.)
You are ignorant of history, as only an ideologically insane
extremist can be.
Not quite. The electoral College created an extremely messy situation
and had to be fixed. That was accomplished through the 12th Amendment
(1803). Read it if you don't believe me. At the time, it was already
known that states could collect votes legitimately and elect
representatives through popular vote. When the 12th Amendment was
proposed, the Pennsylvania delegation, among others, argued for the
dissolution of the Electoral College, rather than fixing it. They
contended that a simple plebiscite for the presidency was doable, the
votes collected along with the votes for Representatives for that
year.
The objection to this came from the South, James Madison leading the
charge. Due to the 3/5 compromise, Southern representation in Congress
was tremendously enhanced by counting 3/5 of the slaves. To give you an
idea of how much this meant, one of three people living in the South
was a slave. The Electoral College, based on the numbers of congressmen
and senators, gave the Southern states much more power in Presidential
elections than their actual number of white, male voting citizens
deserved. The greatest beneficiary of the 12th Amendment was Virginia,
the largest state. The Electoral College should have been dissolved in
1802 or at least with the end of the Civil War.
Correct.
No other country has adopted an electoral college.
We did not impose one on the countries we beat in war.
A dozen or so states determines the election.
There is NOTHING to prevent an elector from changing their otherwise
committed vote. ALL penalties occur AFTER the faithless elector
has so voted.
This might have been useful when there were only 13 states and
news traveled on horseback. But not anymore.
Considering that the alternative to the electoral college is never ending leftists for president, I think I like the electoral college just fine.

Direct democracy is gang warfare. Whoever has the biggest gang wins. With the electoral college candidates must appeal to more than the kool aid drinkers, they must appeal to the whole country. Without the electoral College, the less populated states will have no say at all in who wins the presidency. I don't see that as a better solution.
Jeanne Douglas
2016-11-16 21:50:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Gronk
I've always considered the electoral college to be in the
category of a stroke of genius by the FFs.
It was compromise not a stroke of genius.
Bullshit. The *formulation* of the Electoral College undoubtedly
was based on compromise among the delegates to the Constitutional
Convention, but the *fact* of it - and not having direct popular
vote for president - in no way was a "compromise." The founders
always intended *NOT* to have direct popular vote for the president
(nor for senators.)
You are ignorant of history, as only an ideologically insane
extremist can be.
Not quite. The electoral College created an extremely messy situation
and had to be fixed. That was accomplished through the 12th Amendment
(1803). Read it if you don't believe me. At the time, it was already
known that states could collect votes legitimately and elect
representatives through popular vote. When the 12th Amendment was
proposed, the Pennsylvania delegation, among others, argued for the
dissolution of the Electoral College, rather than fixing it. They
contended that a simple plebiscite for the presidency was doable, the
votes collected along with the votes for Representatives for that
year.
The objection to this came from the South, James Madison leading the
charge. Due to the 3/5 compromise, Southern representation in Congress
was tremendously enhanced by counting 3/5 of the slaves. To give you an
idea of how much this meant, one of three people living in the South
was a slave. The Electoral College, based on the numbers of congressmen
and senators, gave the Southern states much more power in Presidential
elections than their actual number of white, male voting citizens
deserved. The greatest beneficiary of the 12th Amendment was Virginia,
the largest state. The Electoral College should have been dissolved in
1802 or at least with the end of the Civil War.
Correct.
No other country has adopted an electoral college.
We did not impose one on the countries we beat in war.
A dozen or so states determines the election.
There is NOTHING to prevent an elector from changing their otherwise
committed vote. ALL penalties occur AFTER the faithless elector
has so voted.
This might have been useful when there were only 13 states and
news traveled on horseback. But not anymore.
Considering that the alternative to the electoral college is never ending
leftists for president, I think I like the electoral college just fine.
Direct democracy is gang warfare. Whoever has the biggest gang wins. With
the electoral college candidates must appeal to more than the kool aid
drinkers, they must appeal to the whole country. Without the electoral
College, the less populated states will have no say at all in who wins the
presidency. I don't see that as a better solution.
I do.,

One person, one vote.
--
JD


I'm a "nasty woman" and I vote.
Kevrob
2016-11-16 22:57:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Direct democracy is gang warfare. Whoever has the biggest gang wins. With
the electoral college candidates must appeal to more than the kool aid
drinkers, they must appeal to the whole country. Without the electoral
College, the less populated states will have no say at all in who wins the
presidency. I don't see that as a better solution.
I do.,
One person, one vote.
There was a saying during the decolonialization of new states in the
1950s and 1960s:

One man, one vote, one time.

If you compare the US Electoral College to countries that have a
first-past-the-post system of electing members of parliament, and
parliament elects the prime minister, you can also have a head
of government taking office when the representatives voting for
him only received a plurality of the popular vote. Consider a
country like Canada, who just elected Prime Minister Zoolander,
aka Justin Trudeau:

The Liberal got 54% of the seats, while only taking 39.5% of the popular
vote. That was more than anyone else, but not a majority. Now, I expect
he'd have won a run-off against Harper, if the Canuck PM was elected
by popular vote, but he isn't.

Consider Tony Blair's reelection in the UK in 2001:

Labour got 62% of the seats with just under 41% of the popular vote.

The US is actually going to elect a President far closer to a majority,
of the popular vote, even though someone else is getting more than that.
Neither Trump nor Clinton will hit 50%, and it is a toss-up in my mind
who would win any theoretical run-off.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2001

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_Canadian_federal_election,_2015

Now, I voted for the Libertarian in a state Clinton won. I didn't contribute
to Shrillary's popular vote total, nor to the Drumpf's electoral college
victory. I lost, and then I lost. (Or, I won, by not sanctioning the nation's
choice of either of these awful people.)

Kevin R
Malcolm McMahon
2016-11-17 13:41:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gronk
I've always considered the electoral college to be in the
category of a stroke of genius by the FFs.
It was compromise not a stroke of genius.
Bullshit. The *formulation* of the Electoral College undoubtedly
was based on compromise among the delegates to the Constitutional
Convention, but the *fact* of it - and not having direct popular
vote for president - in no way was a "compromise." The founders
always intended *NOT* to have direct popular vote for the president
(nor for senators.)
You are ignorant of history, as only an ideologically insane
extremist can be.
Not quite. The electoral College created an extremely messy situation
and had to be fixed. That was accomplished through the 12th Amendment
(1803). Read it if you don't believe me. At the time, it was already
known that states could collect votes legitimately and elect
representatives through popular vote. When the 12th Amendment was
proposed, the Pennsylvania delegation, among others, argued for the
dissolution of the Electoral College, rather than fixing it. They
contended that a simple plebiscite for the presidency was doable, the
votes collected along with the votes for Representatives for that
year.
The objection to this came from the South, James Madison leading the
charge. Due to the 3/5 compromise, Southern representation in Congress
was tremendously enhanced by counting 3/5 of the slaves. To give you an
idea of how much this meant, one of three people living in the South
was a slave. The Electoral College, based on the numbers of congressmen
and senators, gave the Southern states much more power in Presidential
elections than their actual number of white, male voting citizens
deserved. The greatest beneficiary of the 12th Amendment was Virginia,
the largest state. The Electoral College should have been dissolved in
1802 or at least with the end of the Civil War.
Correct.
No other country has adopted an electoral college.
There are definite parallels with the British system. Instead of the EC, we have parliament and the Prime Minister is the head of the largest parliamentary party.

This very often results in a PM who hasn't got the highest popular vote.
Post by Gronk
We did not impose one on the countries we beat in war.
A dozen or so states determines the election.
And this can happen in the UK too. Some constituencies are "marginal", others are "safe seats". And guess where government resources have a way of going?
Post by Gronk
There is NOTHING to prevent an elector from changing their otherwise
committed vote. ALL penalties occur AFTER the faithless elector
has so voted.
Why do you think an actual elector is required. and the EC votes aren't applied automatically? As I understand it the EC consists of people precisely because they can override the vote in the case of someone they consider a dangerous demagogue. This seems to have been the founders' big reservation about democracy - that people like Trump exist. No doubt they'd all read Plato's republic in which he says that that's the way democracy always ends - with a demagogue who has the mob behind him. (I don't think they had many military coups in Ancient Greece).
Post by Gronk
This might have been useful when there were only 13 states and
news traveled on horseback. But not anymore.
Rick Johnson
2016-11-17 23:36:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
As I understand it the EC consists of people precisely
because they can override the vote in the case of someone
they consider a dangerous demagogue. This seems to have
been the founders' big reservation about democracy - that
people like Trump exist. No doubt they'd all read Plato's
republic in which he says that that's the way democracy
always ends - with a demagogue who has the mob behind him.
(I don't think they had many military coups in Ancient
Greece).
But is it possible to prevent the end of democracy? Even the "grand American democray"?

IMO, no.

Even from our humble beginnings as opinionated lifeforms dwelling on this wretched earth rock, we have dreamed about, and then painstakingly implemented, numerous "grand structural systems" to satisfy our fetish for hierarchy. But history has proven, that all we can do is watch helplessly as these systems are slowly pecked apart by the opposition.

Time is enemy of all systems.

Perhaps Plato's prophecy will be America's ruin... or perhaps our interventionist foreign policy and/or suicidal domestic policies will destroy us first?. But one way or another, our "grand system" is doomed to fail. And no matter how many bandages we apply, or how many "nationalistic revivals" we engineer in the hearts of our peasants, the end will still come for us.
Theramin
2016-11-17 23:31:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gronk
No other country has adopted an electoral college.
We did not impose one on the countries we beat in war.
So fucking what?
Cloud Hobbit
2016-11-16 21:19:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2012/11/defending_the_electoral_college.html
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/defense-electoral-college
What the blind and ardent populists fail to understand is that the
country was founded as a union of *equal* sovereign states, and the
Constitution was written expressly to recognize and make use of the
power of the states. This shows up in more ways than just the Electoral
College.
Consider Article V of the Constitution, regarding amending the
Constitution itself. Proposed amendments voted on and approved by 2/3
of both houses of Congress - already an anti-majoritarian threshold -
are submitted to the states for ratification, and must be approved by
3/4 of state legislatures, which currently comes to 38 states. Now
suppose an amendment has been submitted to the states, and 36 states
have voted to ratify it, 12 have voted to reject it, and the remaining
two states to decide are California and Wyoming. The California
legislature, dominated by leftists, votes overwhelmingly to ratify the
amendment - say, 80% to 20%. The Wyoming legislature votes very
narrowly - 51% to 49% - to reject the amendment. The amendment *FAILS*
- and this is good, and just. This is just how a federal system works.
We are not a popular democracy. We never were intended to be one, and
it is most excellent that we are not one. Generally, majority sentiment
prevails, but there is nothing sacred about simple majority rule. If
anything, simple majority rule should *never* decide the very important
issues. That equates to mob rule, and it is bad and wrong.
I'm about to reach my mid 60s, and I venture to say there will be *NO*
serious move to eliminate the Electoral College in my lifetime. For one
thing, it would take a constitutional amendment to do so - thankfully -
and see above what I wrote about amending the constitution. There is
simply no *FUCKING* way that all those small population red states in
the heartland are going to vote to ditch the Electoral College, or any
other constitutional provision that favors them at the expense of the
big coastal People's Republics.
There's little chance IMO that such an amendment would ever get to the floor for a vote. The small state senators know the score and as I have said before, nothing has ever been taken out of the Constitution, but I forgot about prohibition, which didn't really go so well unless you count giving strength and money to the mafia as doing well.

Whenever there's a close election somebody from the losing side will start railing against the Electoral College, but it will never go away. The process works and keeps out extremists.
Rick Johnson
2016-11-17 00:01:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Rudy Canoza
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2012/11/defending_the_electoral_college.html
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/defense-electoral-college
What the blind and ardent populists fail to understand is that the
country was founded as a union of *equal* sovereign states, and the
Constitution was written expressly to recognize and make use of the
power of the states. This shows up in more ways than just the Electoral
College.
Consider Article V of the Constitution, regarding amending the
Constitution itself. Proposed amendments voted on and approved by 2/3
of both houses of Congress - already an anti-majoritarian threshold -
are submitted to the states for ratification, and must be approved by
3/4 of state legislatures, which currently comes to 38 states. Now
suppose an amendment has been submitted to the states, and 36 states
have voted to ratify it, 12 have voted to reject it, and the remaining
two states to decide are California and Wyoming. The California
legislature, dominated by leftists, votes overwhelmingly to ratify the
amendment - say, 80% to 20%. The Wyoming legislature votes very
narrowly - 51% to 49% - to reject the amendment. The amendment *FAILS*
- and this is good, and just. This is just how a federal system works.
We are not a popular democracy. We never were intended to be one, and
it is most excellent that we are not one. Generally, majority sentiment
prevails, but there is nothing sacred about simple majority rule. If
anything, simple majority rule should *never* decide the very important
issues. That equates to mob rule, and it is bad and wrong.
I'm about to reach my mid 60s, and I venture to say there will be *NO*
serious move to eliminate the Electoral College in my lifetime. For one
thing, it would take a constitutional amendment to do so - thankfully -
and see above what I wrote about amending the constitution. There is
simply no *FUCKING* way that all those small population red states in
the heartland are going to vote to ditch the Electoral College, or any
other constitutional provision that favors them at the expense of the
big coastal People's Republics.
There's little chance IMO that such an amendment would ever get to the floor for a vote.
I dunno Cloud, just a few weeks ago there was little chance that Trump would be elected. We are living in "interesting times" indeed. :-)

Even though i'd rather have Trump instead of Hillary, i would still like to see the EC removed. Congress members represent their constituents by state, and as such, the elections of these representatives should be a matter for the states to decide. But the president is supposed to represent *EVERYONE*. And that is the reason why every vote must count.
Loading...