They actually were. But the proper way to judge them is how they advanced the structure of government from where it was back then under the circumstances which existed.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
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.
Democrats move to eliminate the Electoral College (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter knowledge dropper
- Start date
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
[scooter]
Footballguy
None of those slave owners were Democrats, as the Democratic party did not exist until at least 40 years after the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution.Different time. Besides those slave owners were predominately democrats
If you knew that, then your post borders on trolling.
If you didn't know that, then you really need to be better prepared when posting in this forum.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Always funny when bs gets repeated and called out a second time. Given the repeated efforts about polling and statistics...this won’t be the last time either.
The only way I see it happening is if the National Popular Vote Compact gets approved (and survives the inevitable legal challenges). That's the one where states pledge to award their electors to the national popular vote winner, thereby doing an end-run around the Electoral College.
This gets things exactly backward. In a system with no Electoral College, the vote of a rural resident counts exactly as much as that of an urban one. It is under our current system where large swathes of the population "might as well not even vote". It's not even a question of big state vs. small state. It's swing state vs. solidly red/blue state. If you live in California, or Texas, or Utah, or Vermont, your vote for president is utterly meaningless. And not just for the candidate who wins the state. Donald Trump lost CA by 30 points, but he still got 4M votes from it, all of which were wasted. We have created a system where 10-12 states decide for the rest of us (I happen to live in one of those states, but I still think it's ridiculous). And it's not just a case of votes not mattering. If you live in a non-swing state, you're a spectator for pretty much the entire election. You can donate money, and if you're "lucky" enough to live near a swing state, you can travel there and volunteer, but in all other respects you're no different from a resident of a foreign country.
And by the way, we don't even have to rely on hypothetical discussion of what will happen. We already know because every year in this country, we hold tons of elections where the person with the most votes wins. Does Texas elect Democrats because the big cities of Dallas and Houston overwhelm the rest of the state? Do Cleveland and Columbus lock Republicans out of power in Ohio? Does Miami control Florida?
JohnnyU
Footballguy
Should we add more Senators and Representatives? Where does it stop? The system has worked very well for over 200+ years. Can't keep moving the goal post just because of 2016. Just like wanting to add more / or reduce Supreme Court justices just because it doesn't favor one party.
Last edited by a moderator:
JohnnyU
Footballguy
[scooter]
Footballguy
The current system didn't come into place until roughly 81-to-184 years after the original system was created. (Depending on how loosely you want to define the current system.)
That's not "shortly after".
Yes. There’s a proposed constitutional amendment along those lines that is still awaiting ratification by the states.
The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments, but there were actually twelve that were all proposed together. Ten of them were ratified very quickly — they are the Bill of Rights. An eleventh was finally ratified in 1991 (preventing Congress from giving itself a pay raise that takes effect before the next election). The twelfth one is still out there. It would make the number of Congressional districts grow along with the population. Based on current population estimates, it would increase the number of House members from 435 to 6,489.
I don’t understand why it hasn’t yet been ratified by the states.
Last edited by a moderator:
[scooter]
Footballguy
squistion pointed out that the Founding Fathers catered the Constitution towards 1700s slaveholders.
You responded by referring to 1860s slaveholders.
OK.
NCCommish
Footballguy
Thanks I learned something new today. But I would argue the states dont have equal sufferage at this time. That the founders couldn't have imagined there would be cities whose population would dwarf the entire population of their young nation.
whoknew
Footballguy
I specifically said representatives. Currently, the average representative represents 747k people. That's by far the highest of OECD nations.
As you probably know, when the Constitution was set up, the goal was one representative for 30k people. That's a huge difference. It doesn't make much sense that we haven't increased the size of the House.
JohnnyU
Footballguy
I agree the EC evolved up until I believe the 19 century, but the idea of it was a great idea.
Last edited by a moderator:
Don Quixote
Footballguy
From Madison's notes on the constitutional convention:
"It is essential then that the appointment of the Executive should either be drawn from some source, or held by some tenure, that will give him a free agency with regard to the Legislature. This could not be if he was to be appointable from time to time by the Legislature. It was not clear that an appointment in the 1st. instance even with an eligibility afterwards would not establish an improper connection between the two departments. Certain it was that the appointment would be attended with intrigues and contentions that ought not to be unnecessarily admitted. He was disposed for these reasons to refer the appointment to some other source. The people at large was in his opinion the fittest in itself. It would be as likely as any that could be devised to produce an Executive Magistrate of distinguished Character. The people generally could only know & vote for some Citizen whose merits had rendered him an object of general attention & esteem. There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections."
"It is essential then that the appointment of the Executive should either be drawn from some source, or held by some tenure, that will give him a free agency with regard to the Legislature. This could not be if he was to be appointable from time to time by the Legislature. It was not clear that an appointment in the 1st. instance even with an eligibility afterwards would not establish an improper connection between the two departments. Certain it was that the appointment would be attended with intrigues and contentions that ought not to be unnecessarily admitted. He was disposed for these reasons to refer the appointment to some other source. The people at large was in his opinion the fittest in itself. It would be as likely as any that could be devised to produce an Executive Magistrate of distinguished Character. The people generally could only know & vote for some Citizen whose merits had rendered him an object of general attention & esteem. There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections."
Arsenal of Doom
Footballguy
No, it would just mean that people living in highly populated areas would have their votes count the same as people in sparse rural areas. The EC doesn’t favor small states all that much, it favors states with a relatively even distribution of Democratic and Republican voters. Republicans in California or Delaware would have more reason to vote, as would Democrats in Texas or Wyoming.
Maybe a Constitutional amendment can’t pass, but I still think it’s a good issue for Democrats to run on and push, as the polling generally favors getting rid of it. I also think one person, one vote is an inherently better position to defend than, my vote should count more than someone else’s, regardless of the justification.
knowledge dropper
Footballguy
Increasing the number of representatives could help get things done as they may be forced to behave less like entitled rock stars like they do today?
JohnnyU
Footballguy
I think Democrats should run on things they can actually change. First, they put all their eggs in the destroy Trump basket, then the GND, now they want to change the Supreme Court and Electoral College. Maybe if they focused on things that middle America is interested in it would be in their best interest.
Amused to Death
Footballguy
The irony in the bolded is that under our current system the rural voter counts much more than the urban voter. But it favors the conservatives so they don't want to disrupt it. But they're strongly against an equal vote system because that would favor the liberals - disregarding the fact that more people in this country are voting Dems even though their wishes are being ignored.
NCCommish
Footballguy
It would mean more purple districts hopefully where rank partisanship wouldn't be rewarded. Which would also reduce the power of the parties. There will always be solid red and blue districts of course but less of those is better.
timschochet
Footballguy
JohnnyU
Footballguy
States like California already have a lot of Electoral votes and so does New York. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the idea of the EC is to give low populated states more of a say than they would have if the election was by popular vote. While lower populated states have fewer electoral votes, they have more of say in elections in the current system than they would if we went solely by popular vote.
Last edited by a moderator:
That one guy
Footballguy
I think I’d currently argue increasing number of Representatives in the House the bigger issue with regards to the intended functionality of our government rather than how presidential election result is determined. I’d venture a less than scholarly guess that the founding fathers would be a bit perterbed at the power we’ve ceded the executive over the years and would want to balance that out
timschochet
Footballguy
As far as your idea I’d obviously love to have more Senators from CA but I don’t know how to do it without dividing up the state, which would be a bad idea IMO for several reasons unrelated to federal representation.
Amused to Death
Footballguy
And yet more people in this country are voting for Dems, but losing. Put another way, our federal government is representing a minority of the country.
JohnnyU
Footballguy
supermike80
Footballguy
This is what I said before. I don't have any idea why the democrats insist on wasting time. To me, that tells me they are a party without a direction, or a strong leader who can help guide the energy into things that can make a change. This is a pure waste of time. How much time? Who knows...Probably not much. But knowing this, wouldn't someone in power in the DNC be able to tell these radical outliers to toe the line?
It irritates me
NCCommish
Footballguy
Well if you could make the change to say 4 senators you'd just elect 2 senators instead of one each cycle they were up. No need to divvy up anything. Still a statewide election.
timschochet
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
We’d have to change the Constitution though to do that right? Why would South Dakota ever agree? I don’t think it’s possible.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
1. You're partially wrong.
2. Even to the extent you're partially right, this was done in a different world, where there weren't states that had populations 75 times as large as other states and our economy was far more decentralized, making protection of "state interests" far more relevant. If you could somehow explain these things to the Founding Fathers I'm fairly certain that, after going insane contemplating them, they'd eventually tell you that the electoral college is not having the intended effect in a world like this.
3. You're mostly wrong about the current system, it favors swing states not small states. eg nobody cares about small-state Idaho but everyone cares about its larger neighbor to the south, Nevada.
4. Even if you were right ... so what? Why should voters from smaller states have more of a say than those from larger states? What does that accomplish that is so important that we should sacrifice some sliver of democracy for it?
Last edited by a moderator:
JohnnyU
Footballguy
knowledge dropper
Footballguy
The fact that only about 61% of eligible voters actually vote in the presidential election doesn’t help.
timschochet
Footballguy
NCCommish
Footballguy
As far as a constitutional convention goes we don't need every state. As far as changing the number of senators goes there is some disagreement with how possible it is. And if in fact it is impossible then it suggests other issues with the way we use supermajorities as legislative tools.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
I don't think this would be too hard for them to imagine. London had almost 1 million people then. I don't think they thought London was just going to stop having kids and growing. I dont think they viewed US cities as lesser to the large European cities, just younger. They saw city after city explode in population. And there is only one US city that dwarfs the population of the nation back then.
If you just make the senate match up to population you just end up with two houses. I dont believe there is a scenario that the founders would have thought, yeah, that makes sense.
JohnnyU
Footballguy
dkp993
Footballguy
Amused to Death
Footballguy
I definitely agree there. Maybe we could do things like move election day to the weekend or make it a federal holiday would help increase voter turnout. Or provide more public transportation to the polls. Or expand early voting. Or provide more voting machines in places where people have to wait hours to vote. In other words, remove some barriers to voting.
Herb
Footballguy
You and I live within 50 miles of each other, I believe. I bet we would actually get along pretty well in person, believe it or not. That said, don't presume that all or even most of middle America agrees with you.
Also, continually reminding us that the slaveholders were Democrats has about as much bearing on this conversation as me continually reminding you that America's best selling truck is the Ford F-150. Which, you'll notice, I'm not repeatedly doing.
timschochet
Footballguy
Look I understand that right now the smaller states tend to be more conservative and the big states tend to be more liberal, so the electoral college seems to favor the conservatives. But it doesn’t have to always be that way. Donald Trump for example introduced a populism within the conservative movement we haven’t seen before and personally I don’t much like it.
The whole reason the founding fathers set up this system was to provide safeguards against majority rule: as JohnnyU correctly put it, the threat of the mob. That mob can come from either the left or the right. I’m very reluctant to give those safeguards up.
The whole reason the founding fathers set up this system was to provide safeguards against majority rule: as JohnnyU correctly put it, the threat of the mob. That mob can come from either the left or the right. I’m very reluctant to give those safeguards up.
JohnnyU
Footballguy
knowledge dropper
Footballguy
I don’t think it’s barriers. It’s apathy. Our two major parties have turned off a lot of people. They govern and cater to the extremes. A large segment of our population has tuned out.
squistion
Footballguy
There may be a way around it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among a group of U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The compact is designed to ensure that the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide is elected president, and it would come into effect only when it would guarantee that outcome.[2][3] As of March 2019[update], it has been adopted by thirteen states and the District of Columbia. Together, they have 184 electoral votes, which is 34.2% of the Electoral College and 68.1% of the 270 votes needed to give the compact legal force.
Mechanism[edit]
Proposed in the form of an interstate compact, the agreement would go into effect among the participating states in the compact only after they collectively represent an absolute majority of votes (currently at least 270) in the Electoral College. In the next presidential election after adoption by the requisite number of states, the participating states would award all of their electoral votes to the candidate with the largest national popular vote total in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. As a result, that candidate would win the presidency by securing a majority of votes in the Electoral College. Until the compact's conditions are met, all states award electoral votes in their current manner.
The compact would modify the way participating states implement Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which requires each state legislature to define a method to appoint its electors to vote in the Electoral College. The Constitution does not mandate any particular legislative scheme for selecting electors, and instead vests state legislatures with the exclusive power to choose how to allocate their states' electors (although systems that violate the 14th Amendment, which mandates equal protection of law and prohibits racial discrimination, would be prohibited).[3][4] States have chosen various methods of allocation over the years, with regular changes in the nation's early decades. Today, all but two states (Maine and Nebraska) award all their electoral votes ("winner-take-all" style) to the candidate (single winner) with the most votes (first-past-the-post system) statewide (at-large). Maine and Nebraska currently use the congressional district method, awarding one electoral vote winner-take-all in each congressional district, and their remaining two electoral votes winner-take-all in their state-wide vote.
[...]
dkp993
Footballguy
No doubt and I’m not casting judgement or pointing fingers at any “side”. Just pointing out that as smart as they were they were also slaves (no pun intended) to their time and culture. They didn’t see everything that was to come as thus there are flaws that need to be corrected as times and culture change.
That may have been the intention, but today it mostly just gives swing states more of a say. Politicians cater their campaigns to what voters in Florida, Ohio and New Hampshire want but completely ignore the needs of Californians or Texans.
Amused to Death
Footballguy
Absolutely, increase voter awareness and hold more politicians accountable would nice. But all of the things I listed would serve to increase turnout as well.
NCCommish
Footballguy
There are at least 3 and there over 30 cities that have more people than several of the states. Not sure they foresaw over 300 million people populating the country or the way it would be distributed.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
It wouldn't nullify them. It would simply eliminate the irrelevant state distinction, a pointless remnant of a time when people in various parts of states had strong interests in common. That's no longer the case, as any detailed map of voting patterns would tell you.
Or to put it another way- why should states have a say at all? If you're going to tinker with direct democracy I think you should have a pretty good reason for doing so. What's our reason? Just saying "lower population states benefit" isn't an answer, mostly because it's untrue and also because it doesn't explain why they should benefit.
JohnnyU
Footballguy
[scooter]
Footballguy
That wasn't the intent, it was more of a side effect. The original intent was to pacify slave states who demanded that they get extra votes on behalf of their slaves.
When slave states lost their special status in 1868, it gave more power to the smaller states.
When the House was capped at 435 members in 1929, it gave even more power to the smaller states.
The current version of the EC does not resemble what the Founding Fathers envisioned in any way, shape, or form.
