1. Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?
    Dismiss Notice

The popular vote isn't a thing

Discussion in 'Latest Political News and Current Events' started by kaz, May 23, 2019.

  1. EatTheRich

    EatTheRich President

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Messages:
    63,364
    Likes Received:
    3,314
    And the same “one person, one vote” principle is the same reason the Senate is an oligarchic relic that should also be done away with.
     
  2. EatTheRich

    EatTheRich President

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Messages:
    63,364
    Likes Received:
    3,314
  3. EatTheRich

    EatTheRich President

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Messages:
    63,364
    Likes Received:
    3,314
    Whether speaking of U.S. states or foreign ones.“We are for a world without borders.”-Che Guevara
     
  4. EatTheRich

    EatTheRich President

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Messages:
    63,364
    Likes Received:
    3,314
    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.
     
    • Disagree x 1
  5. middleview

    middleview President Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    74,446
    Likes Received:
    5,627
    This president was elected by some, not all.
     
  6. The truth

    The truth Council Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2019
    Messages:
    899
    Likes Received:
    101
    The electoral college is absurd and outdated,it must go
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree x 1
  7. Mick

    Mick Mayor

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2019
    Messages:
    2,566
    Likes Received:
    543
    True. He won 31 states. That's kind of how this works.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  8. Winston

    Winston Do you feel lucky, Punk

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2018
    Messages:
    11,154
    Likes Received:
    646
    What do you say
     
  9. Nutty Cortez

    Nutty Cortez Woot Woot !!!!!!

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    5,470
    Likes Received:
    1,446

    With a popular vote- that's EXACTLY what you have, dunce.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. Nutty Cortez

    Nutty Cortez Woot Woot !!!!!!

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    5,470
    Likes Received:
    1,446

    Condescend much ?

    I'm so glad Thousands of Billionaires in San Fran- right around the corner from homeless tents and sh*t covered sidewalks is SO SO advanced and progressive !!!
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  11. PhilFish

    PhilFish Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2011
    Messages:
    29,927
    Likes Received:
    6,728
    That is usually vthe case
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  12. Emily

    Emily NSDAP Kanzler

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2015
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,010
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 2
  13. Zam-Zam

    Zam-Zam Governor

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Messages:
    15,386
    Likes Received:
    5,282
    Food for thought:

    Leaving aside the fact that a deal is a deal, there are very practical reasons why we will always need the Electoral College under our current constitutional system.


    The most important is that we want the presidential election to settle the question of legitimacy—who is entitled carry on the office of the president. Under the Constitution, the person who receives the most electoral votes becomes the president, even if he or she does not receive either a plurality or a majority of the popular vote.

    In the election of 1992, Bill Clinton received a majority of electoral votes and was the duly elected president, despite the fact that he received only a plurality (43 percent) of the popular votes. A third party candidate, Ross Perot, received almost 19 percent. In fact, Bill Clinton did not win a majority of the popular vote in either of his elections, yet there was never any doubt—because he won an Electoral College majority—that he had the legitimacy to speak for the American people.

    This points to the reason why the Electoral College should remain as an important element of our governmental structure. If we had a pure popular vote system, as many people who are disappointed with the 2016 outcome are now proposing, it would not be feasible—because of third party candidates—to ensure that any candidate would win a popular majority. Even in 2016, for example, although Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, she only received a plurality (48 percent)—not a majority; third party candidates took the rest.

    If we abandoned the Electoral College, and adopted a system in which a person could win the presidency with only a plurality of the popular votes we would be swamped with candidates. Every group with an ideological or major policy interest would field a candidate, hoping that their candidate would win a plurality and become the president.


    There would candidates of the pro-life and pro-choice parties; free trade and anti-trade parties; pro-immigration and anti-immigration parties; and parties favoring or opposing gun control—just to use the hot issues of today as examples.

    We see this effect in parliamentary systems, where the party with the most votes after an election has to put together a coalition of many parties in order to create a governing majority in the Parliament. Unless we were to scrap the constitutional system we have today and adopt a parliamentary structure, we could easily end up with a president elected with only 20 percent-25 percent of the vote.

    Of course, we could graft a run-off system onto our Constitution; the two top candidates in, say, a 10-person race, would then run against one another for the presidency. But that could easily mean that the American people would have a choice between a candidate of the pro-choice party and a candidate of the pro-gun party. If you thought the choice was bad this year, it could be far worse.

    Those who complain now that it is unfair for Donald Trump to become president when he received fewer votes than Hillary Clinton have not considered either the implications of what they are proposing or the genius of the Framers.


    Complete text; https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/12/06/why_we_need_the_electoral_college_132499.html


    All a moot point anyway; The Electoral College is here to stay for a very long time.
     
    • Winner Winner x 3
  14. Emily

    Emily NSDAP Kanzler

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2015
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,010
    Unfortunately, it's not a moot point because of current efforts to subvert the constitution. The EC would still exist but be rendered irrelevant if the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact goes into effect.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    Last edited: May 24, 2019
  15. kaz

    kaz Small l libertarian

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2017
    Messages:
    2,283
    Likes Received:
    429
    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
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  16. kaz

    kaz Small l libertarian

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2017
    Messages:
    2,283
    Likes Received:
    429
    OK, obviously I didn't understand your comment and you don't want to explain it, so whatever
     
  17. kaz

    kaz Small l libertarian

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2017
    Messages:
    2,283
    Likes Received:
    429
    Another good point
     
  18. kaz

    kaz Small l libertarian

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2017
    Messages:
    2,283
    Likes Received:
    429
    Never read the Constitution, did you? Have you ever taken an American History class? Ever read a book?
     
  19. now_what

    now_what Mayor Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2019
    Messages:
    5,617
    Likes Received:
    571
    No it isn't. With a popular vote, all votes are equal. With the electoral college, some votes get weighed heavier than others. It's affirmative action for small states.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. kaz

    kaz Small l libertarian

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2017
    Messages:
    2,283
    Likes Received:
    429
    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
     
    • Winner Winner x 2

Share This Page