What good is the Electoral College?

[Pad_Foot]

Yeah? That comment was on the Electoral College and that has to change. Period

The filibuster ? True ! I’d rather the Dems removed it first to get a whole lot straightened out

Woman president ?? You had your chance
Give us Nicky !!

 

[YDB95]

The Electoral College reflects what the United States of America was at its founding and, constitutionally, still is. It is a federation of almost-but-not-quite sovereign states, each of which has its own executive, legislative and judicial structures and acts and speaks as its own entity. Because of this, the Constitution does not ask who "the American people" say should be president. It asks, through the Electoral College, what the states say. It certainly does not ask (pay attention Maine and Nebraska) what congressional districts say.

"Pay attention Maine and Nebraska?" The Constitution doesn't tell the states how to allocate their electoral votes. Any state could choose to do what they do.

An instructive modern example of this national principle, if you are still with me, is the United Nations generally and its security council in particular. The United Kingdom, whose population is 1/20th that of China, gets the same vote as China, as does France, Russia and the United States. A Brit's opinion is thereby 20 times more powerful than a Chinese — highly undemocratic.

The same goes for the Electoral College, where California has about 60 times the population of Wyoming but only 18 times the electoral votes (54 vs 3). So a vote for president in Wyoming carries three times as much clout as one in California. As you said, highly undemocratic.

That is the objection the Electoral College, and the Senate, addresses.

Not really. The prevailing issue at hand was slavery.

The Democrats, currently the most passionate opponents of the filibuster, will become its fiercest defenders should the Republicans take the Senate in two weeks. It's all political cynicism. Just like we have to vote for Kamala Harris because it's time for a woman president.

It is way, way, way past time for a woman president. But I don't know anyone who's voting for Harris for that reason (at least not only that reason). No, the #1 reason by far is that the only plausible alternative is Trump.

The Democrats would most certainly not be singing that song if the woman in the race were a Republican.

If she were anything like Trump (or Sarah Palin or Marjorie Taylor Greene, etc.), they certainly would be.

But hey, I'll give you credit for at least trying to answer the question instead of only hurling insults at the Democrats, although you did do that as well.

 

[YDB95]

There is a group of human filth, also referred to as democrats, that have come up with THIS IDEA.

People who support having the president elected by a majority of the American people are "human filth"...and they whine when we call them deplorables!

 

[ChloeTzang]

Citing the political difficulty of scrapping the EC does not constitute any argument for its value.

So? I didn't argue for or against it's values. I simply said, if you want to change it, here's what you need to do. Go for it.

We all know Democrats want mob rule. That's why we have the political system we do. It's designed to prevent just that.

 

[YDB95]

It is genuinely amazing how you can count on supporters of the Electoral College to get every single thing they claim about it wrong.

 

[Bn2f]

So? I didn't argue for or against it's values. I simply said, if you want to change it, here's what you need to do. Go for it.

We all know Democrats want mob rule. That's why we have the political system we do. It's designed to prevent just that.

Back from your vacay?
Just in time to spread election misinformation I see. WB!

 

[ChloeTzang]

Back from your vacay?
Just in time to spread election misinformation I see. WB!

LOL, I wish. Severe case of overwork and overtime, but nothing new there.

Election misinformation? rotflmao.

 

[Bn2f]

LOL, I wish. Severe case of overwork and overtime, but nothing new there.

Election misinformation? rotflmao.

Glad I could make you lol.
Of course, I think you should work some more and make all the $$ you can! Don’t come back until January 1st, ok? Then you and I can celebrate the new year with Harris’s presidency and the knowledge that your OT hours won’t be taxed and the thriving US economy is in the hands of a democrat who will continue to put Wall Street at ease with no plans on starting an insane tariff war.

 

[Politruk]

The Democrats, currently the most passionate opponents of the filibuster, will become its fiercest defenders should the Republicans take the Senate in two weeks.

I have always, consistently, wanted the filibuster abolished -- regardless of which party controlled the Senate at the moment.

 

[Politruk]

We all know Democrats want mob rule.

You really are an idiot, aren't you?!

Look, your pure, direct democracy, like ancient Athens had, or a New England town meeting -- that is not mob rule. And neither is the direct election of the president by popular vote -- that is simply the method used by every other republic in the world, unitary or federal, that has a presidential system.

 

[SevMax2]

The Framers had a reasonable fear of too much democracy, especially after events during the Articles of Confederation. That being said, there can be more democratic aspects to our republic than they created, and there are, as in the direct election of Senators, for instance. I would favor the abolition of the Electoral College in the abstract, and indeed, it would have aided our country twice in my lifetime, as Al Gore, whatever his flaws, would have made a far better President (even with his Hatch and Pendleton Act violations) than W, and Hillary arguably than Trump (assuming that she didn't cause World War 3 in Syria). That being said, I can grasp the fear of a small, rural state at being excluded from any voice in the halls of power, and so I think that a more pragmatic and feasible solution would be proportional representation in the Electoral College. Just a thought, of course. That wouldn't require an amendment, either. Just have state legislatures abolish winner-take-all.

 

[bws1]

The EC is more relevant today than it ever has been! If it wasn't for the whole electoral college process, heavily populate states, like Washington, Oregon, California and New York would basically decide the presidential elections. Since Texas appears to be slowly leaning left, that would become the final nail in the coffin of any political political parties not controlling that bloc of states. Lesser populated states, aka the fly over states, are already getting the shaft and theirs and the fates of the country are being decided by the representatives from a small number of states.

 

[Politruk]

The EC is more relevant today than it ever has been! If it wasn't for the whole electoral college process, heavily populate states, like Washington, Oregon, California and New York would basically decide the presidential elections.

No, they wouldn't, because states as units would not decide it, voters would. Casting a Republican vote in New York -- at present a waste of effort -- would matter as much as casting a Republican vote in Texas -- at present a waste of effort.

 

[PaxNurgle]

Blah blah blah. There's a process to amend the Constitution. You want to change it, get going. It's been done before. How many states would approve doing away with the Senate or the EC you think? It's a built in part of those checks and balances that the Democrats are always so eager to do away with. So go ahead. Try.

1. The amending resolution must be passed by a two-thirds supermajority vote in both the House and the Senate.
2. If approved by Congress, the proposed amendment is sent to the governors of all states for their approval, by one of two ways:
   The governor submits the amendment to the state legislature for its consideration; or
   The governor convenes a state ratifying convention.
   If the amendment is ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures or ratifying conventions, it becomes part of the Constitution.
   
   
3. Alternatively, the second method of amending the Constitution prescribed by Article V, if two-thirds f the state legislatures vote to demand it, Congress is required to convene a full constitutional convention.

How ironic you eagerly, passionately would support a tyrant who would do away with the Constitution AND the Bill of rights.

Blah blah blah, you seldom have anything to say of import other than hypocrisy, bigotry and filth. You are nonetheless correct in your assessment of how to amend the Constitution- I give you that. But why, then, do you support a leader who clearly has no intentions of abiding by it?

 

[Chernosoth]

Can anyone here imagine the clusterfuck of trying to get an accurate count of 155,000,000 votes? And now there is mail in voting with shifting deadlines to receive ballots.

 

[Politruk]

Can anyone here imagine the clusterfuck of trying to get an accurate count of 155,000,000 votes? And now there is mail in voting with shifting deadlines to receive ballots.

A presidential election without the EC would use the same elections offices we have now. It would make nothing more difficult or complicated, nothing at all.

 

[JohnEngelman]

When Americans were less mobile many felt more loyalty to their states than to the United Staes. Robert E. Lee opposed secession and felt guilty about owning laves. When President Lincoln offered Lee command of the Union Army Lee considered the offer, and then decided that his main loyalty was to Virginia.

Few Americans feel that way now. The Electoral College was the reason we had to endure four years of Trump, and the reason we may have to put up with another four years of that ogre.

 

[YDB95]

Robert E. Lee opposed secession and felt guilty about owning laves.

That has been largely debunked. Lee was a sadistic hardliner even by the standards of slaveowners.

 

[JoePepsiCo]

...

Few Americans feel that way now. The Electoral College was the reason we had to endure four years of Trump, and the reason we may have to put up with another four years of that ogre.

The only way in which this statement gains any validity would be if the rules were changed during the course of events in order to alter the course of the event.

Trump presided over the nation because he won the election.
Biden presided over the nation because he won an election.

No judge, jury, or person stepped in and said,
this is now the President because,

"rules do not apply..."

What I am reading expressed here is an anger over losing
and the inability to process the loss and moveon.org...

Your anger and blame are solely misplaced.

 

[Chernosoth]

Problems on the national scale tend to get shouting and propaganda instead of solutions and addressing the cause of the problem. A falling birthrate gets "ban abortion" and "more immigrants." Now there's "abolish the electoral college" and handwaving away the concerns of the entire rural population, the farmers who grow our food.

 

[JoePepsiCo]

 

[Bray123]

Oligarchs don't want any of that damned democracy.
America is closer to an oligarchy than a democracy, both major parties prefer to elect candidates who have immense personal wealth and the electorate has zero influence on policy.

 

[JoePepsiCo]

Democracy is a pernicious evil which is why "America" was founded as a representational republic, but they probably do not teach that in your schools, they teach that we're a mobopoly.

Two wolves get to tell the lamb, "Hey Bub, guess what's up for supp?"

 

[JoePepsiCo]

It's, The United States Moron.

"America" is a big place. Ask Canada. Mexico.

Anybody south of the Panama Canal...

 

[JoePepsiCo]

I'm only doing this because it's the stuff it likes to do...


I am in Rome!