Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

***Official 2020 Election General***


hagmania

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Gr00vus said:

We've been saying it needs adjustment throughout. I'm all for an adjustment to the EC to better reflect current population distribution. I don't think we should get rid of it entirely, as we don't want to completely eliminate representation for significant minority portions of the electorate.

I take it then that you too are for changing the EC?

They either need to have it reflect population more closely, or make the popular vote worth some Electoral Votes (say that of the average state).  By doing this, you would encourage more voting in states where the winner is a foregone conclusion (California, Alabama, etc.).

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Bamboo Bill said:
1 hour ago, timschochet said:

I don’t think it was either. It’s a recognition that for a republic too much democracy is dangerous. The EC, Constitution, and judicial system were all designed as bulwarks against unlimited majority rule. 
The EC is important and should be maintained. 

This is ridiculous. With the advent of technology and politicians being able to reach every citizen now through multiple forms of media it is no longer relevant.

I think the original point of the EC is that the Founders didn't want the government to be directly influenced by "every citizen," as those people were fickle and too easily swayed by populist ideas. So, they created a system that watered down the democratic process.

The President would be selected by a group of autonomous Electors.

The Electors would be selected by state legislatures.

State legislatures would be selected by rules chosen by the founders and leaders of each state; usually by popular vote, but not guaranteed.

The system was designed to give the appearance of democracy, while actually filtering the democracy through several steps which, in theory, would produce a more informed voter. Plus, the whole thing was balanced out by having two backstops: first, by having the 2nd place guy be the Vice President; and second, by utilizing Congress as a tiebreaker if the EC was unable to reach a majority.

But......the modern EC doesn't look anything like what the Founders envisioned. Electors are no longer autonomous, they're not selected by state legislatures, the 2nd place finisher doesn't become VP, the small states get proportionally more votes than they did 200 years ago.......oh, and women and (descendants of) slaves get to vote. I'd say that all of those changes add up to exactly what the Founders feared in the first place: uninformed masses being swayed by populism.

I'm not quite sure how to fix it, nor am I even sure it needs to be fixed.

Edited by Joe Summer
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
  • Love 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, timschochet said:

I don’t think it was either. It’s a recognition that for a republic too much democracy is dangerous. The EC, Constitution, and judicial system were all designed as bulwarks against unlimited majority rule. 
The EC is important and should be maintained. 

:eek:

Common ground!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, timschochet said:

I don’t think it was either. It’s a recognition that for a republic too much democracy is dangerous. The EC, Constitution, and judicial system were all designed as bulwarks against unlimited majority rule. 
The EC is important and should be maintained. 

The EC was designed to take the choice of president as much out of the American people's hands as possible.  I mean Alexander Hamilton practically wrote in the federalist papers that the founding father's didn't want the American populace to select the president because they're too dumb and might select someone like Trump.

 

When writing about why electors were the ones who would pick the president...

"The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union"

 

 

  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, FreeBaGeL said:

The EC was designed to take the choice of president as much out of the American people's hands as possible.  I mean Alexander Hamilton practically wrote in the federalist papers that the founding father's didn't want the American populace to select the president because they're too dumb and might select someone like Trump.

 

When writing about why electors were the ones who would pick the president...

"The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union"

 

 

But now it has allowed the exact opposite of their intent to occur. Time to get rid of it. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CR69 said:

But now it has allowed the exact opposite of their intent to occur. Time to get rid of it. 

Right, it allowed the opposite to happen because the modern EC barely resembles the EC that our founding father's created.  So all the posts defending it saying our founding fathers knew what they were doing when they created it are silly, because we're not using the EC they created.  We're using a pigeon-holed, bastardized version that barely resembles the EC.

And you're right, it should be done away with or at least re-worked.  It was never designed to be used as a points system.  Using it as such is really just picking the prez in an arbitrary manner.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The EC is patently undemocratic, and goes against the "one person, one vote" ethos.  If you're OK with some people's votes worth more than others, keep the EC. If you think that all citizens should get equal weight im their vote  to elect the president, then you should get rid of it. 

  • Like 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some updates on the process:

  • 5 states have certified for Biden so far (46 EV).
  • if we assume that all of the "solid blue" states will certify for Biden (NM, MN, DC, CO, WA, OR, CT, IL, NY, NJ, MD, CA, HI, RI), that gets his total up to 235.
  • Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Maine are scheduled to certify on Monday. That would put Biden at 274. At that point it wouldn't matter if the Republican governments of Wisconsin, Arizona or New Hampshire tried to pull any shenanigans with their certification process.
  • if Michigan fails to certify, then Biden would be temporarily stuck at 258. Nevada certifies on Tuesday, but that only gets Biden to 264. He would have to wait until November 30th, when Nebraska (1), and Arizona (11) certify.
  • if Arizona doesn't certify, then Biden would presumably be at 265. He would need Wisconsin to certify on December 1st.

Basically, Trump needs 3 states to deny certification, one of which must be Michigan or Pennsylvania.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Michigan State lawmakers who went to DC to visit Trump were out until midnight drinking Dom at the Trump Hotel lobby bar. Who paid for it you think? Trump or the citizens of Michigan? What are they celebrating?

https://twitter.com/lawindsor/status/1330156815909326850?s=21

  • Thinking 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Z Machine said:

The EC is patently undemocratic, and goes against the "one person, one vote" ethos.  If you're OK with some people's votes worth more than others, keep the EC. If you think that all citizens should get equal weight im their vote  to elect the president, then you should get rid of it. 

The fallacy of your argument is your belief that without the EC all citizens would have equal weight. You’re ignoring how candidates are chosen in the first place. Should we also have one national primary? And if we did, what’s the stop the ones with the most money and fame from being nominated 100% of the time? 

Citizens do not have equal weight, never have, never will. Those will more money have more influence. Those with more political power have more influence. Those with more charisma have more influence. There is no way, ever, to change this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, timschochet said:

The fallacy of your argument is your belief that without the EC all citizens would have equal weight. You’re ignoring how candidates are chosen in the first place. Should we also have one national primary? And if we did, what’s the stop the ones with the most money and fame from being nominated 100% of the time? 

Citizens do not have equal weight, never have, never will. Those will more money have more influence. Those with more political power have more influence. Those with more charisma have more influence. There is no way, ever, to change this. 

I don't think he said each citizen would have equal weight. Nobody is arguing that. Their votes would though. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/20/2020 at 8:01 AM, conlilnew said:

I don’t hear anyone on the left complaining crying and moaning about the electoral college now like they were in 2016. Saying then how bad it was and is and needs to be gotten rid of and replaced with the popular vote to decide the outcome of an election. Oh, because their candidate allegedly secured the necessary electoral college votes to win the election this time. If the left is not worried about any fraud or wrong doings in the voting process then let President Trump exhaust all his options that he is afforded under the law to look into and have the results throughly vetted and double checked. The hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds or has no limits in just about everything they say and do.  

There are lots of people complaining about this. Are you new here?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, CR69 said:

I don't think he said each citizen would have equal weight. Nobody is arguing that. Their votes would though. 

No they wouldn't.  The same, heavily populated cities and areas dominate every election.    It would create a larger problem than now as policy would be dictated by these areas.  Now, we have always changing batlle ground areas. 

Edited by Getzlaf15
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Getzlaf15 said:

No they wouldn't.  The same, heavily populated cities and areas dominate every election.    It would create a larger problem than now as policy would be dictated by these areas.  Now, we have always changing batlle ground areas. 

At least the votes would have equal weight though.  The current system gives unequal weight based on the arbitrary territory lines of state boundaries. 

I don't think land should be able to vote. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Getzlaf15 said:

No they wouldn't.  The same, heavily populated cities and areas dominate every election.    It would create a larger problem than now as policy would be dictated by these areas.  Now, we have always changing batlle ground areas. 

You mean - where all the people live?

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

At least the votes would have equal weight though.  The current system gives unequal weight based on the arbitrary territory lines of state boundaries. 

I don't think land should be able to vote. 

Stop saying that.  Votes would not have equal weight. Votes from population centers would be way more valuable.   Like the new cute land catch phrase now being used. How lame.

Edited by Getzlaf15
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

Please explain the bolded.

Candidates would focus only on the huge population centers instead of a broad range of states.   I don't recall Georgia, Arizona, Nevada as being battle ground states in 2016. Focusing on just a few areas each and every time would be disastrous for the country.

The EC issue is so over blown.   It's only happened four times (not once from 1888-2000)

The thing that needs to change in this country is getting money out of the elections and term limits.  If we had term limits now, R's wouldn't be making arses out of themselves by siding with Trump right now so they don't lose their next election.  They would make decisions that benefit people the most instead of decisions based on them winning and keeping their office in the next election.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The Z Machine said:

The EC is patently undemocratic, and goes against the "one person, one vote" ethos.  If you're OK with some people's votes worth more than others, keep the EC. If you think that all citizens should get equal weight im their vote  to elect the president, then you should get rid of it. 

Huh?  It is LITERALLY ensconced in the US Constitution: https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/the-electoral-college.aspx#overview and was established upon the founding of this country.  Can't get more Democratic than that. 

Edited by BladeRunner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Chemical X said:

i think the EC is a complete joke, but i don’t want to have a lengthy discussion about why.

That's fine.  The Moral of the story is that LA, NY and Chicago would be deciding the President every election, ignoring every other city, county, village or state in the country.  Because we all know that people in Idaho have the same values as those in LA, NY and Chicago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Getzlaf15 said:
45 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

Please explain the bolded.

Candidates would focus only on the huge population centers instead of a broad range of states.   I don't recall Georgia, Arizona, Nevada as being battle ground states in 2016. Focusing on just a few areas each and every time would be disastrous for the country.

Arizona and Nevada were indeed battleground states in 2016.

It's true that the names of battleground states may gradually shift over time, but that doesn't change the fact that the Electoral College allows Presidential candidates to practically ignore deep red or deep blue states. No matter the system, Idaho will be ignored by candidates.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:
4 hours ago, The Z Machine said:

The EC is patently undemocratic, and goes against the "one person, one vote" ethos.  If you're OK with some people's votes worth more than others, keep the EC. If you think that all citizens should get equal weight im their vote  to elect the president, then you should get rid of it. 

Huh?  It is LITERALLY ensconced in the US Constitution

Yes, many undemocratic concepts were ensconced in the Constitution.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

Huh?  It is LITERALLY ensconced in the US Constitution: https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/the-electoral-college.aspx#overview and was established upon the founding of this country.  Can't get more Democratic than that. 

So is 3/5s of a person. The US Constitution is not the be all, end all. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...