Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Good, and Trump supports it.
The EC isn't going anywhere. The electoral college, after all, is enshrined in our Constitution, which means getting rid of it requires a constitutional amendment. That's a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate and the ratification of three-fourths (38) of the 50 states. Having said that, I hear AOC is trying to get a degree from the Electoral College.
The landowners ceding their political power to the clustered masses on the coasts seems to be the premise to some dystopian science fiction movies over the years.
Or is the dystopian science fiction movie the small minority of rural dwellers having almost total control of the rest of the 75% of the population?
As long as my people aren’t turned into soylent green, strapped into the matrix, fed to aliens, slaughterd by replicants, forced to build a Death Star, enslaved by apes or forced to send our kids to fight in Hunger Games, we can try to make it work.
It clearly was necessary for the ratification of the Constitution, as it was put in for the slave states to get credit for their non-vote eligible population.
I like some tempering of straight majority rule as I believe the majority of my fellow citizens to be functional idiots completely devoid of any foresight. I believe un-tempered majority rule will lead to oppression by the ignorant. We will be subject to the avarice jealousies of the lazy. It takes very little intelligence to form collations of interest that are destructive of education, production, and attainment. True there are collar abuses potentially and actually working in counterposing fashion right now, but the one appears to me to be the greater danger than the other. Living together is hard. Balancing interests, needs, and whims thought to be needs is hard. It always will be.
Well certainly but this goes well beyond that. I just used Wyoming because I happen to know the numbers. We could talk Vermont a little bigger than Wyoming at around 600k compared to Texas with a population of almost 29 million. Vermont senate voters have roughly 57 times the power of Texas senate voters.
Not unless we do away with the gerrymandering. And really I think we need more congressional representation as well. You have millions of people that due to where they live never get a representative that actually represents them. In some districts it's 100s of thousands of voters and it's on both sides of the aisle.
No doubt a case can be made that there are inequities in that one part of the system. Also, I am not arguing for the status quo, I am raising the issue of matters that should be considered because even if well considered there will be unintended consequences. If ill-considered in a rush to appease the mob which is power hungry for who knows what reason but certainly not all benevolent, so much the worse.
Believe it sir. You are one of the folks here I haven't met IRL that I would certainly like to. I think we could sit down over a nice steak, a drink or two and have one heck of good time talking about pretty much anything. I always look forward to what you have to say.
I'll say it again....it doesn't need to go away. All they need to do is divy up the votes the states have based on what % of the vote each won in the state...problem solved. But, if this is true, it might be in trouble given Trump's vocal support of getting rid of it prior to being in office. Can you imagine him and the Democrats working together on something!?!?!?!?!
He's on record supporting it in 2012 via a tweet, but he also supported the popular vote in the 60 Minutes interview with Leslie Stahl in November of '16 as then President-Elect, even though he's president *because* of the EC.
The founding fathers disagrees with you and they were pretty smart. It prevents mob rule and in modern times, that means the President would get elected by high populated urban areas, specifically the west coast and northeast coast, all democrat controlled.. The low populated states might as well not even vote. It doesn't matter, because it would never pass. 3/4 in both houses and 3/4 of all states (38) would have to be on board. That simply isn't going to happen in my lifetime.
He believes he would have won a popular vote if that’s what he needed to do. He didn’t focus at all on California, NY, and Illinois. He just campaigned to secure the key swing states. Also, he said the illegals votes in aforementioned states distorted the popular vote. We should standardize the voting process nationwide before we get to a popular vote for President so we all play by same rules.
I'm not implying he shouldn't have won; just stating that he wasn't going to abandon his position that the EC is a disaster for democracy just because he benefited from it. His words. The fact remains, Trump is a believer in the popular vote even today.
Figuring out ways to give California more power doesn't seem like a good way to go about things.
Yes, I've only heard that one about 100 times in this forum, along with all your other liberal buddies.
Isn’t this the entire point of the Senate? The same cannot be said for the EC, but is thrown around as a reason to keep it
There’s nothing we can do about this short of violently overthrowing the government. The provision for amending the Constitution specifically says that this aspect can’t be amended.
Yes, there were really smart...didn't allowed women the right to vote, Senators were not elected by the voters of their states, slavery was allowed and blacks counted as 3/5ths of a person. Geniuses these founding fathers were!
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
First off, you're the last person in this forum who should be pontificating about how the Founding Fathers related to the Electoral College.
The Founding Fathers were pretty smart, but the electoral college is partly a vestige of a compromise over slavery. The south would get outvoted by the north on a single vote basis because the greater percentage of the population was in the north. So, the south would not go along with it. They included the 3/5ths clause to include slaves as part of the population, and then provided for the electoral college to allocate votes, so as to give the South a bit more of a leg-up than they would have had otherwise.
Ok, then, those shortly after the founding fathers were pretty smart. The EC was brilliant with regards to our national election. It doesn't matter anyway, it's here and not going anywhere.
