New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

The popular vote isn't a thing

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
OK, obviously I didn't understand your comment and you don't want to explain it, so whatever
In other words each state is a constituent political entity in turn part of the larger whole which is known as the United States of America.

on that basis, it would seem to make sense to me that the electoral college would remain the prevailing mechanism such that no one of those 50 entities can outweigh unfairly the vote of another based on its population.

I think that makes sense. Does that make sense?
 

trapdoor

Governor
Four times in our history has the popular vote been overridden by the EC....two in the last 20 years. The constitution changes. It changed to allow women and minorities to vote. Did you have a problem with that? It changed to outlaw alcohol and then changed to make it legal again.. Did you think the EC is the same process as it was in the first election? It isn't.

Get used to change.
OK, but change in this case requires an actual amendment to the Constitution -- one that passes in 2/3 of the states. Which means it won't happen because there's no way that you can put together a coalition of states large enough for ratification -- you're asking too much of middle America to give up its influence on presidential elections. No one will campaign for Missouri's 4 million votes when there are 6 million available in NYC alone.
 

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
Rural populations historically are better off under the rule of progressive cities than under the rule of the country’s lords. They made impressive gains, for example, in Cuba or revolutionary Nicaragua, while no country was more nightmarish or more countryside-dominated than Pol Pot’s Democratic Kampuchea. Among wealthy nations, they made huge leaps toward liberation in E. Germany while stagnating miserably under National Party government in S. Africa.
WTF does that have anything to do with Rural America? Your mind is always abroad when the subject is America, yet, America is where you remain to cry and whine of capitalism! You need move your gayness to San Fran:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/how-san-francisco-broke-americas-heart/ar-AABGKVD?ocid=spartandhp

A book store really needs you, where will you live?

Founding fathers knew EC would save this great country from the leftist shit above.
 

Nutty Cortez

Dummy (D) NY
Well, there's a well thought through and thoroughly explained and justified position.

Two simple questions.

1) Why did the founders create the electoral college? You don't know, do you? Note I didn't ask you to agree with it, just explain THEIR reasoning. You can't do it, can you? I double dog dare you

2) What changed? What is different than when they created it that makes it "outdated?"

I think their reasoning was spot on and I see nothing to have changed except the overflow of the country with socialists who want to use tyranny of the majority to bludgeon the minority. But I'll give you a chance to actually explain your position with more than that you want it, the electoral college is standing between you and free government cheese

It's Outdated because we lost waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
 
  • Like
Reactions: kaz

Winston

Do you feel lucky, Punk
Primaries are a party thing. Changing how they operate is up to the parties, not a constitutional matter. You're right that the existing primary system disenfranchises voters in much of the country. Fixing that will require putting heat on the parties at the state level. The other alternative is eliminating primaries entirely by going back to choosing the POTUS, VPOTUS, and Senators as the framers intended originally.


The USA was intended and designed to be a federation of free states that were mostly autonomous. That's not absurd; it's unarguably so. The USA has become a nation-state divided into districts with a modicum of autonomy. If that's the way one thinks it should be, fine, but the constitutional system wasn't meant for that would need to be scrapped.


I disagree entirely but, regardless, the constitution includes provisions for amending it. Eliminating the EC, if it's to be done, should be done by constitutional amendment. Eliminating the EC's relevance via subversion such as the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact shouldn't be allowed.
Everyone should have an equal vote. In primaries the last states to vote are meaningless because the nominee is statistically chosen. My vote never matters in the primary, this is wrong
 

Nutty Cortez

Dummy (D) NY
Our Electoral College system prevents candidates with only regional appeal from winning.

Statistically, a rule requiring the winner to prevail in a number of sub-elections produces a better result for the country. For the same reason we count the number of games won in the World Series (rather than the total number of runs, which would be heavily influenced by an anomalous game). If Clinton in 2016, won 100% of the popular vote in her home State of New York, thereby prevailing in the nationwide popular vote, those extra votes would not show she had more support nationwide, only that she is a candidate popular in one very populous state.

The Electoral College penalizes political parties that have only regional strength. In the 2016 election, the Democrats had regional appeal. If you look at a map of the vote for president based on counties, with counties colored red (for Republican), you will see the country painted with a sea of red except, primarily, at the seashores. This regional influence extends in congressional races as well. In the House of Representatives, just three coastal states, California, Massachusetts and New York, now account for a third of all House Democrats.

The Framers of our Constitution built for the long term and created a system to last for generations. And we leftists hate it now since liberals are only in certain pockets of like minded, non-diverse,non-inclusive areas.
 

Winston

Do you feel lucky, Punk
You didn't know that the electoral college was created by the founders? Seriously? Actually it's in the constitution. To say that the founding fathers didn't design our country that way is ridiculous.

You are conflating party politics with the election. Primary voting is designed by the parties. It has nothing to do with the Constitutional election process at all.

But in the end, popular vote is just tyranny of the majority. It's how the left is getting socialism. First, they had to break down the Constitutional limits on Federal power, second they need to break down the election process and go to majority voting. Then you have the system we have now where simple majority vote can give us any socialist construct they want. Single payer, minimum income, whatever they want.

You're a tool of tyranny supporting that
Actually the electoral college has nothing to do with primaries you dumb fart. Wanna try again kiddypoo

Wheeeeeeeeee

Retard alert
 

Nutty Cortez

Dummy (D) NY
It's Simple really. Hillary won the popular vote in certain pockets of the country.

Trump Won the Country.

Exactly as the Founders intended. The founders we leftists HATE !!!!!!

The Electoral College represents a kind of insurance limiting the influence of demagoguery
 

Emily

NSDAP Kanzler
Everyone should have an equal vote. In primaries the last states to vote are meaningless because the nominee is statistically chosen. My vote never matters in the primary, this is wrong
You're absolutely correct when it comes to party primaries. That system should be changed.

In the general election, we don't have a single national election but 50 state elections to choose electors. In your state's presidential election, your vote matters. Without the EC, it would matter less.

The Electoral College represents a kind of insurance limiting the influence of demagoguery
Well said!
 

kaz

Small l libertarian
In other words each state is a constituent political entity in turn part of the larger whole which is known as the United States of America.

on that basis, it would seem to make sense to me that the electoral college would remain the prevailing mechanism such that no one of those 50 entities can outweigh unfairly the vote of another based on its population.

I think that makes sense. Does that make sense?
That makes perfect sense and I totally agree. I still don't get that out of the reading of your first quote, but I'm with you now
 

kaz

Small l libertarian
It's Outdated because we lost waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
It's amazing, isn't it, Nutty? The electoral college wasn't outdated just six years ago when the Democrats kept ignoring the popular vote and crowing about the electoral college results.

Hmm, I wonder what was different between the 2012 and 2016 election for the Democrats ...
 

kaz

Small l libertarian
Actually the electoral college has nothing to do with primaries you dumb fart. Wanna try again kiddypoo

Wheeeeeeeeee

Retard alert
Try reading my post again, the one you quoted in your snotty answer. That's exactly what I said.

So if you get that, explain what the hell you were talking about that Iowa voters are more important than New Jersey. That seems to be a direct reference to the primaries. So?
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
That makes perfect sense and I totally agree. I still don't get that out of the reading of your first quote, but I'm with you now
I must have been tired. Meant it with a sarcastic angle.

Anyhoo...
 

Winston

Do you feel lucky, Punk
Try reading my post again, the one you quoted in your snotty answer. That's exactly what I said.

So if you get that, explain what the hell you were talking about that Iowa voters are more important than New Jersey. That seems to be a direct reference to the primaries. So?
Iowa voters are more important in primaries, nj never selects a nominee. So get your facts straight before you babble
 
Top