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

Proof that the Electoral College is a disaster for the nation...

trapdoor

Governor
So every election ever held in the country is nothing other than tyranny?

Democracy is ugly...and sometimes ugly bills get passed.

Tell us how the EC prevented racial segregation in the early days of the United States.

And the always accusatory tone is unnecessary.
Different states have state-level protections that mitigate the tyranny of the majority -- and even where they don't have much you have the option of moving to a better state.

"Democracy" is not what we have, nor what our government was designed to be -- the founding fathers saw democracy as no different from mob rule. What we have is a representative republic that is supposed to reflect the views of all, even those whose views are in the minority.

In the "early days of the republic" racial segregation was not considered federal matter -- it wouldn't become one until after the passage of the 13th Amendment (1867). The EC did protect the interests of those who held a minority opinion, however, such as protecting the minority view of slave-holding states. Or, if you want a more morally positive example, it protected the minority view that there was a need to fund the U.S. Navy (inland states didn't want to pay for a standing Navy).
 

Craig

Senator
Supporting Member
Different states have state-level protections that mitigate the tyranny of the majority -- and even where they don't have much you have the option of moving to a better state.

"Democracy" is not what we have, nor what our government was designed to be -- the founding fathers saw democracy as no different from mob rule. What we have is a representative republic that is supposed to reflect the views of all, even those whose views are in the minority.

In the "early days of the republic" racial segregation was not considered federal matter -- it wouldn't become one until after the passage of the 13th Amendment (1867). The EC did protect the interests of those who held a minority opinion, however, such as protecting the minority view of slave-holding states. Or, if you want a more morally positive example, it protected the minority view that there was a need to fund the U.S. Navy (inland states didn't want to pay for a standing Navy).


What state has an election system equivalent to the EC? What Governor has ever taken office by losing the popular vote?

So...slavery, as a minority view, was protected as a system because folks were afraid of the tyranny of the majority, but were obviously OK with enslaving other humans. Which is of course, a far greater tyranny. I find it deliciously ironic that your argument against tyranny of the majority results in you supporting slavery as a minority right.

And of course, those states were refused full participation in the political process as blacks were counted as 3/5ths...which lessened the population count of the slave states and gave greater tyranny to the non slave states.

Yes Trap...we're a Constitutional Representative Republic. The actual name of the country is The United States of America. We elect our leaders via the democratic process. i.e....one person, one vote.
 

trapdoor

Governor
What state has an election system equivalent to the EC? What Governor has ever taken office by losing the popular vote?
No state has one, that I'm aware of. Early on, some states didn't even hold public gubernatorial elections -- they elected their Congresses/legislatures and the legislators elected the governors. States aren't bound by the same rules.

So...slavery, as a minority view, was protected as a system because folks were afraid of the tyranny of the majority, but were obviously OK with enslaving other humans. Which is of course, a far greater tyranny. I find it deliciously ironic that your argument against tyranny of the majority results in you supporting slavery as a minority right.
Yep -- I'm afraid the founding father's weren't perfect human beings. Among them were racists who favored slavery, and that minority position was protected by the founding document of our country -- UNTIL that founding document was changed 89 years later. Slavery, like it or not, was not seen as tyranny.

And of course, those states were refused full participation in the political process as blacks were counted as 3/5ths...which lessened the population count of the slave states and gave greater tyranny to the non slave states.
And without that 3/5, the slave states would have been a worse, not better, position from a poltical standpoint. It allowed partial counting of the slaves, and without it they wouldn't have counted, at all, in the population figures used to determine the number of legislators from a given state.

Yes Trap...we're a Constitutional Representative Republic. The actual name of the country is The United States of America. We elect our leaders via the democratic process. i.e....one person, one vote.
No, we elect our president based on a republican process that includes a protection for all regions of the country. One man gets one vote for electors, and the electors select the president -- its the process of a representative republic, not a democracy.[/quote]
 

Craig

Senator
Supporting Member
No state has one, that I'm aware of. Early on, some states didn't even hold public gubernatorial elections -- they elected their Congresses/legislatures and the legislators elected the governors. States aren't bound by the same rules.



Yep -- I'm afraid the founding father's weren't perfect human beings. Among them were racists who favored slavery, and that minority position was protected by the founding document of our country -- UNTIL that founding document was changed 89 years later. Slavery, like it or not, was not seen as tyranny.



And without that 3/5, the slave states would have been a worse, not better, position from a poltical standpoint. It allowed partial counting of the slaves, and without it they wouldn't have counted, at all, in the population figures used to determine the number of legislators from a given state.



No, we elect our president based on a republican process that includes a protection for all regions of the country. One man gets one vote for electors, and the electors select the president -- its the process of a representative republic, not a democracy.
[/quote]

Right...NO STATE has adopted such a ludicrous electoral system.

I see slavery as tyranny. Some FFs did as well. Concessions were made in order to get the documents signed and to become a nation. Had such tyranny not been in force, slaves would have been counted as full people and allowed to vote. As it was, the south was given special laws in order to keep that disgusting institution.

We elect our LEADERS via one person one vote. One leader is elected differently.
 

trapdoor

Governor
Right...NO STATE has adopted such a ludicrous electoral system.



We elect our LEADERS via one person one vote. One leader is elected differently.[/quote]

State populations are generally too small for their to be fears of a regional dispute. Other states like Illinois, have the problem on a small scale tha the electoral college prevents on a national scale. Lasw in Illinois are based no on what the rest of the state needs, but on what Chicago needs.
 

Craig

Senator
Supporting Member
Right...NO STATE has adopted such a ludicrous electoral system.



We elect our LEADERS via one person one vote. One leader is elected differently.
State populations are generally too small for their to be fears of a regional dispute. Other states like Illinois, have the problem on a small scale tha the electoral college prevents on a national scale. Lasw in Illinois are based no on what the rest of the state needs, but on what Chicago needs.[/quote]

Damn you fling bullshit. Then you contradict it.

Every single state has regional disputes. Many, as in Chicago, are city/rural divides. California, like Illinois, has a giant north/south divide. Oregon and Washington's are east/west. Maryland's is cut in half. NJ is north/south. Colorado has a group seeking to form a new state as we speak. Even Delaware has a north south split as Wilmington controls every aspect of the state.

Cities drive economies because that's where the population is...and if 90% of the state lives in the urban area, then of course most benefits would go the urban area.
 

trapdoor

Governor
State populations are generally too small for their to be fears of a regional dispute. Other states like Illinois, have the problem on a small scale tha the electoral college prevents on a national scale. Lasw in Illinois are based no on what the rest of the state needs, but on what Chicago needs.
Damn you fling bullshit. Then you contradict it.[/QUOTE]
Damn, you say there's no problem, and then call it contradiction when I point out that there is a problem. I won't debate "bullshit." I lack your expertise.
 

Craig

Senator
Supporting Member
Damn you fling bullshit. Then you contradict it.
Damn, you say there's no problem, and then call it contradiction when I point out that there is a problem. I won't debate "bullshit." I lack your expertise.[/quote]

Oh you most certainly do not lack such expertise.

You say 51% of the vote is tyranny of the majority.
You say no states have regional disputes.

That's some expert bullshit flinging right there Trap...
 
Two guys on a tractor in middle america should not determine the fate of the rest of us. While their point of view may be interesting, it is not necessary. I find the electoral college to be undemocratic and a vestige of a negotiation that has long been moot. We really don't need the small states to prosper, we tolerate them and when the day comes that we get fed up with their bullshit, we will fix this vestigal remnant of a bygone era.
 

fairsheet

Senator
Two guys on a tractor in middle america should not determine the fate of the rest of us. While their point of view may be interesting, it is not necessary. I find the electoral college to be undemocratic and a vestige of a negotiation that has long been moot. We really don't need the small states to prosper, we tolerate them and when the day comes that we get fed up with their bullshit, we will fix this vestigal remnant of a bygone era.
A Wyomingite's vote for Senator, is worth 70X that of a Californian's. That's right - SEVENTY times.

Maybe we could compromise for a while and see how it works out. We could make the Wyoming person's vote worth twice that of a Californian's.
 
A Wyomingite's vote for Senator, is worth 70X that of a Californian's. That's right - SEVENTY times.

Maybe we could compromise for a while and see how it works out. We could make the Wyoming person's vote worth twice that of a Californian's.
It is a destructive artifact that proves my contention that the constitution needs revising. We cannot let a few people dictate terms to the rest of us. Especially when they are dumb ass conservatives who don't know shit about the world that cannot be described in a ten minute sermon.
 

fairsheet

Senator
It is a destructive artifact that proves my contention that the constitution needs revising. We cannot let a few people dictate terms to the rest of us. Especially when they are dumb ass conservatives who don't know shit about the world that cannot be described in a ten minute sermon.
It wouldn't bother me so much if the likes of the Wyomingites weren't so constantly weenie-whining about how put upon they are, because their votes are ONLY worth 70x that of a Californian.
 

EatTheRich

President
Two guys on a tractor in middle america should not determine the fate of the rest of us. While their point of view may be interesting, it is not necessary. I find the electoral college to be undemocratic and a vestige of a negotiation that has long been moot. We really don't need the small states to prosper, we tolerate them and when the day comes that we get fed up with their bullshit, we will fix this vestigal remnant of a bygone era.
Like the British fixed it in 1832 ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotten_borough ... the description remind you of any Senators you know?
 

EatTheRich

President
Squareshot, the Electoral college doesn't have the power to "over rule" the people. I believe (emphasis on believe rather than know) that the electors are sworn to vote the way the majority voted. I think there has been an occasion when a renegade elector has ignored the majority.
There have been 157 such cases, including one that threw the vice presidential election into the Senate. There were also 14 electors elected in 1960 without pledging to support any particular candidate. 29 states and D.C. require their electors to swear to vote with the majority. The other 21 states do not.
 

trapdoor

Governor
Damn, you say there's no problem, and then call it contradiction when I point out that there is a problem. I won't debate "bullshit." I lack your expertise.
Oh you most certainly do not lack such expertise.

You say 51% of the vote is tyranny of the majority.
You say no states have regional disputes.

That's some expert bullshit flinging right there Trap...[/quote]

The regional disputes within states highlight the problem. Returning to the Illinois example -- are the concerns of Clark County/Chicago the same, or even in service to, the needs of the other 101 counties in the state? For the most part, no, and yet you would say that the one-man-one-vote decisions driven by Clark County are both legitimate and fair to the rest of the state.

Now, what if (for example) Clark Countians decided to exempt themselves from state income taxes, and doubled the taxes in the rest of the state to make up the shortfall? Under the system you espouse, they'd be perfectly within their rights to do this.

Now, suppose New York, California, Washington State, Florida and Texas decided to do elect a president that would do the same thing for them? (president could do this via selective enforcement of the tax code in the same way Obama is choosing not to prosecute certain illegal aliens).

Hence, the need for the electoral college.
 
Oh you most certainly do not lack such expertise.

You say 51% of the vote is tyranny of the majority.
You say no states have regional disputes.

That's some expert bullshit flinging right there Trap...
The regional disputes within states highlight the problem. Returning to the Illinois example -- are the concerns of Clark County/Chicago the same, or even in service to, the needs of the other 101 counties in the state? For the most part, no, and yet you would say that the one-man-one-vote decisions driven by Clark County are both legitimate and fair to the rest of the state.

Now, what if (for example) Clark Countians decided to exempt themselves from state income taxes, and doubled the taxes in the rest of the state to make up the shortfall? Under the system you espouse, they'd be perfectly within their rights to do this.

Now, suppose New York, California, Washington State, Florida and Texas decided to do elect a president that would do the same thing for them? (president could do this via selective enforcement of the tax code in the same way Obama is choosing not to prosecute certain illegal aliens).

Hence, the need for the electoral college.[/quote]

The electoral college is not going to fix that one Trap. The solution is publicity and legal redress via the body of law. The EC is unfair, unnecessary and is part of the reason we need so much money to run a campaign. Get rid of it and go to another scheme that forces national elections to pay attention to the people not the states.
 

trapdoor

Governor
The electoral college is not going to fix that one Trap. The solution is publicity and legal redress via the body of law. The EC is unfair, unnecessary and is part of the reason we need so much money to run a campaign. Get rid of it and go to another scheme that forces national elections to pay attention to the people not the states.[
The electoral college helps prevent a coalition of statese with large populations from electing a president that kowtows only to those large population centers. It's a faulty system, but it is better than mob rule.[/quote]
 

RedCloud

Mayor
There have been 157 such cases, including one that threw the vice presidential election into the Senate. There were also 14 electors elected in 1960 without pledging to support any particular candidate. 29 states and D.C. require their electors to swear to vote with the majority. The other 21 states do not.
ETR, I yield to your superior knowledge of the workings of the EC. However, I still lean to support of the EC--with some modifications. "Winner take all" would be one of the requirements I would change. I would also make it a federal rule that ALL state electoral rules be the same.
 

fairsheet

Senator
Again though, the near future will render all our electoral college handwringing, moot. The redsters have only two states of electoral relevance left - Texas and Georgia. They'll lose at least one if not both, within the next several decades.

It IS a problem that every state gets an equal number of Senators though.
 
Top