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

End winner take all in the electoral college and let the true voice of the people be heard.

middleview

President
Supporting Member
If the surrounding ex-urbs and suburbs didn't tend to align more closely with the cities they surround than the rural areas 100 miles or more out, you would have a point here. That they do makes this post of yours here a pedantic navel gaze, (I know, no one here is shocked by that, am I right?) rather than an actual argument.
Meanwhile....if you'd look up from your own navel from time to time...you've provided no evidence that the founding fathers felt they were protecting farmers from city folk at all. What they were doing was agreeing to a compromise between slave and free states.

Even today, the rural area around Denver is about 30 miles out. Jefferson county, which has the largest population in Colorado, was republican until a few years ago and we are only 15 miles outside of Denver.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Yes, he mistook my forgetting what I had said for denying I had said something that was not correct. And now he will try and beat that dead horse into the ground in a failed effort to try and prove it was the latter. As I demonstrated with the map, it was the former, and my point stands - the founders were, in fact, interested in protecting the rights of the rural population from the whims of the people living in the Boston/New York/Philadelphia (big city) corridor.
Got a link to any of the founding fathers saying that or are you now claiming an ability to read the minds of the dead?

You continue to contradict yourself, first claiming you didn't say something, then admitting you had, but claiming you were right all along. Trying to say you forgot your original position is hilarious.

Why in hell would they want to give political power to unpopulated areas? The fact is that they were giving power to areas where a large number of the population were not permitted to vote at all.

They were trying to BALANCE political power between populated and un-populated areas
 
Last edited:

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
Got a link to any of the founding fathers saying that or are you now claiming an ability to read the minds of the dead?

You continue to contradict yourself, first claiming you didn't say something, then admitting you had, but claiming you were right all along. Trying to say you forgot your original position is hilarious.

Why in hell would they want to give political power to unpopulated areas? The fact is that they were giving power to areas where a large number of the population were not permitted to vote at all.

They were trying to BALANCE political power between populated and un-populated areas
The very construction of the government makes it clear that they were protecting the rights of the minority from the "tyranny of the majority," for which you are arguing. And the fact that the electoral college is set up to reflect the balance of power in their construction of the bicameral legislature proves that they were, in fact, seeking to balance the interests between more populous and less populous areas in the choosing or the President. It is a prima facie case that you have, as a matter of fact, completely failed to overturn.
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
Meanwhile....if you'd look up from your own navel from time to time...you've provided no evidence that the founding fathers felt they were protecting farmers from city folk at all. What they were doing was agreeing to a compromise between slave and free states.

Even today, the rural area around Denver is about 30 miles out. Jefferson county, which has the largest population in Colorado, was republican until a few years ago and we are only 15 miles outside of Denver.
That is, in fact, a false narrative. They set up the EC to reflect the balance of power they created in the Congress, by giving each state electors equal to their number of representatives plus two for the senators. It is an exquisitely elegant design clearly intended to balance power between populous and less populated areas of the country. Your attempt to link it to the heinous practice of slavery is typical leftist politics of personal destruction and, lets face it, also exceptionally deplorable.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
That is, in fact, a false narrative. They set up the EC to reflect the balance of power they created in the Congress, by giving each state electors equal to their number of representatives plus two for the senators. It is an exquisitely elegant design clearly intended to balance power between populous and less populated areas of the country. Your attempt to link it to the heinous practice of slavery is typical leftist politics of personal destruction and, lets face it, also exceptionally deplorable.
Bullshit...feel free to explain what areas outside of Boston, New York or Philadelphia received a more fair share of power due to the EC. Remember that originally Electors were selected by the governor or the legislature.

Not talking about the House and Senate, because that is completely irrelevant.
 

EatTheRich

President
That is precisely 180 degrees wrong. You know as well as I do that Marxism is NOT designed to protect "individuals." In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. So stop pretending you are supporting a policy here that puts individuals over the "state." That is patently absurd!
I have read Marx, and it is clear that his overriding concern is the rights of individuals. You have not, and you have a fantasy-villain caricature that has very little to do with the real Marx.
 

EatTheRich

President
If the surrounding ex-urbs and suburbs didn't tend to align more closely with the cities they surround than the rural areas 100 miles or more out, you would have a point here. That they do makes this post of yours here a pedantic navel gaze, (I know, no one here is shocked by that, am I right?) rather than an actual argument.
Again, what do you call a candidate who wins the vast majority of the vote in the cities and suburbs where most people live, and also a sizable share of the vote in the rural areas where few people live? I would call that candidate popular.
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
Bullshit...feel free to explain what areas outside of Boston, New York or Philadelphia received a more fair share of power due to the EC. Remember that originally Electors were selected by the governor or the legislature.

Not talking about the House and Senate, because that is completely irrelevant.
All of them, due to its construction - which gave each state two electors, regardless of population, to go along with the ones that were based on population. The House and Senate are entirely relevant - the EC was constructed to reflect the balance of power they engineered into the two chambers of Congress. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

You caught me offguard, after a week away, not remembering the poetic license I had taken in making my point by drawing the parallels between the current situation and the aims of the founders in constructing the EC as they did. But as usual, it was not only exceptionally clever wordsmithing, it was also 100% correct - the effort they took to protect the rights of farmers in the agrarian south and settlers out in the frontier states from the power being amassed in the teeming north eastern coastal corridor was based on the exact same sentiment as my position here - that it is vitally important to freedom and liberty for all to maintain a semblance of balance of power between major metropolitan areas and the rural "fly over" country. The EC does exactly that, which is why you and your radical left wing fellow travelers want to eviscerate it.
 

EatTheRich

President
All of them, due to its construction - which gave each state two electors, regardless of population, to go along with the ones that were based on population. The House and Senate are entirely relevant - the EC was constructed to reflect the balance of power they engineered into the two chambers of Congress. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

You caught me offguard, after a week away, not remembering the poetic license I had taken in making my point by drawing the parallels between the current situation and the aims of the founders in constructing the EC as they did. But as usual, it was not only exceptionally clever wordsmithing, it was also 100% correct - the effort they took to protect the rights of farmers in the agrarian south and settlers out in the frontier states from the power being amassed in the teeming north eastern coastal corridor was based on the exact same sentiment as my position here - that it is vitally important to freedom and liberty for all to maintain a semblance of balance of power between major metropolitan areas and the rural "fly over" country. The EC does exactly that, which is why you and your radical left wing fellow travelers want to eviscerate it.
The Senate was designed to “balance” the power of the plebeian class by vesting power in the hands of a moneyed (and often politically connected) elite.
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
The Senate was designed to “balance” the power of the plebeian class by vesting power in the hands of a moneyed (and often politically connected) elite.
So why don't you go live somewhere where the poor people are in charge? That is how the thing was constructed - the fact that you don't like it is irrelevant. Everywhere mob rule reigns has resulted in "shithole" conditions. They set it up the way they did to avoid the USA becoming a "shithole." I get that you would prefer that that not be the case so you and your comrades could turn the USA into a "shithole" - but it isn't going to happen until you "repeal and replace" the Constitution.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
So why don't you go live somewhere where the poor people are in charge? That is how the thing was constructed - the fact that you don't like it is irrelevant. Everywhere mob rule reigns has resulted in "shithole" conditions. They set it up the way they did to avoid the USA becoming a "shithole." I get that you would prefer that that not be the case so you and your comrades could turn the USA into a "shithole" - but it isn't going to happen until you "repeal and replace" the Constitution.
we are talking about the EC. You keep falling back on the mob rule bull shit. That is because the rest of your logic is so frail.

You have yet to show any of the founding fathers talking about balancing power between the farmers and city dwellers. Americans were mostly farmers then....so you change up your demographic to claim farmers within a hundred miles of a city count as city folk. In 1776 how many days did it take to travel 100 miles?

Too funny.
 

Nutty Cortez

Dummy (D) NY
Got a link to any of the founding fathers saying that or are you now claiming an ability to read the minds of the dead?

You continue to contradict yourself, first claiming you didn't say something, then admitting you had, but claiming you were right all along. Trying to say you forgot your original position is hilarious.

Why in hell would they want to give political power to unpopulated areas? The fact is that they were giving power to areas where a large number of the population were not permitted to vote at all.

They were trying to BALANCE political power between populated and un-populated areas

So you want to go back to electing a king. There already is a balance in the 50 separate elections that equal the Presidential election. It's called the Electoral College.

Broad nationwide appeal.

Just because you read the writing on the wall and know we leftists have small pockets in populated areas- and not broad nationwide support doesn't mean you change what's worked for 200+ years.

Leftists - Be better, less radical, get a bigger tent and less condescending-

Signed- the USA
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
So you want to go back to electing a king. There already is a balance in the 50 separate elections that equal the Presidential election. It's called the Electoral College.

Broad nationwide appeal.

Just because you read the writing on the wall and know we leftists have small pockets in populated areas- and not broad nationwide support doesn't mean you change what's worked for 200+ years.

Leftists - Be better, less radical, get a bigger tent and less condescending-

Signed- the USA
Please tell us all of the last elected king.
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
we are talking about the EC. You keep falling back on the mob rule bull shit. That is because the rest of your logic is so frail.

You have yet to show any of the founding fathers talking about balancing power between the farmers and city dwellers. Americans were mostly farmers then....so you change up your demographic to claim farmers within a hundred miles of a city count as city folk. In 1776 how many days did it take to travel 100 miles?

Too funny.
Yes, we are. The EC is what stands between us and mob rule, which, of course, is why you seek to eviscerate it.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Yes, we are. The EC is what stands between us and mob rule, which, of course, is why you seek to eviscerate it.
What a bizarre statement....The popular vote and the EC have agreed in all but 4 elections in our history.

You like it because it is your wish to override the will of the majority. 2016 was decided by less than 1% of the voters in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pa. That amounted to about 80,000 voters. Since the winner was a republican that was ok with you.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
So you want to go back to electing a king. There already is a balance in the 50 separate elections that equal the Presidential election. It's called the Electoral College.

Broad nationwide appeal.

Just because you read the writing on the wall and know we leftists have small pockets in populated areas- and not broad nationwide support doesn't mean you change what's worked for 200+ years.

Leftists - Be better, less radical, get a bigger tent and less condescending-

Signed- the USA
The left won the popular vote by 3 million. Seems the right needs to figure out why more people vote democrat.
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
What a bizarre statement....The popular vote and the EC have agreed in all but 4 elections in our history.

You like it because it is your wish to override the will of the majority. 2016 was decided by less than 1% of the voters in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pa. That amounted to about 80,000 voters. Since the winner was a republican that was ok with you.
That shit cuts both ways - if it only differed four times, why do you have your panties in a wad over it? In case you slept through civics class in high school, we do not have a "majority rule" system of government. The founders went to great lengths to provide protections against straight "majority rule" political outcomes. What they designed is exquisitely elegant in the way it keeps the political majority in check by balancing, to some extent, the power of the minority with that of the majority, by making the Senate, and, to some extent, the Presidency via the EC, the ability to be held (more frequently) by the political minority. If the majority has to worry about the opposition gaining power, despite being, you know, the minority, because the system gives them the opportunity to gain political power despite being, you know, the minority, then the majority, when it holds power, has to think twice about jamming their agenda down the throats of the minority - because they might be on the receiving end of a similar cram down the next time the balance of power shifts back to the minority, since the system, you know, makes that not just a possibility but a probability. The simple fact is that, if two of the three legislative entities are determined strictly by popular vote totals, the chances for the political minority to gain two of the three at any given time becomes practically nil. And the political check on the exercise of power by the political majority dissipates. Which, of course, is exactly why you advocate for the elimination of the balancing effect of the EC.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
That shit cuts both ways - if it only differed four times, why do you have your panties in a wad over it? In case you slept through civics class in high school, we do not have a "majority rule" system of government. The founders went to great lengths to provide protections against straight "majority rule" political outcomes. What they designed is exquisitely elegant in the way it keeps the political majority in check by balancing, to some extent, the power of the minority with that of the majority, by making the Senate, and, to some extent, the Presidency via the EC, the ability to be held (more frequently) by the political minority. If the majority has to worry about the opposition gaining power, despite being, you know, the minority, because the system gives them the opportunity to gain political power despite being, you know, the minority, then the majority, when it holds power, has to think twice about jamming their agenda down the throats of the minority - because they might be on the receiving end of a similar cram down the next time the balance of power shifts back to the minority, since the system, you know, makes that not just a possibility but a probability. The simple fact is that, if two of the three legislative entities are determined strictly by popular vote totals, the chances for the political minority to gain two of the three at any given time becomes practically nil. And the political check on the exercise of power by the political majority dissipates. Which, of course, is exactly why you advocate for the elimination of the balancing effect of the EC.
unbelievable. so now a few states with extremely close elections are deciding presidential elections and you want to preserve the status of those battleground states at the expense of all else. Democrats in red states and republicans in blue can just stay home.
 

now_what

Governor
Supporting Member
unbelievable. so now a few states with extremely close elections are deciding presidential elections and you want to preserve the status of those battleground states at the expense of all else. Democrats in red states and republicans in blue can just stay home.
Exactly. The electoral college just puts the power into a small group of states. Our antiquated system must look so silly from the outside looking in.
 
Top