Electoral College

[Gunny]

They don't have an equal vote. They have proportionate vote. Big difference. It's why we have a bicameral legislature.

You called me making a leftist argument but which one of us is making an argument of equal representation -- calling it proportionate is playing semantics -- for disproportionate populations? In other words, propping up the minorities and giving them equal power with the majority?

Sounds pretty damned socialist to me.

 

[jreeves]

Then what would be the point of the electoral college to begin with? I have already outlined the reasons for it and what it is. If we go by your plan then we are back to popular eletion. The President's title is : The President of the "United States." It Is not The President of the People of the United States. He, or someday a she, is not a representative of the People. He is not a Prime Minister or a Govenor or a Senator. He is the Executive office that governs the entire "United States." He therefore should be elected by the appointed electors of the States. The people already have their representative. It is called Congress.

I would have to respectfully disagree, how can he be the "President of the United States", if people in the states don't elect him by their popular vote. I am not for a federal popular vote, just a state popular vote that reflects that state's electors awarded.

 

[Gunny]

Except they do not have an "equal" vote. They have a REPRESENTATIVE vote. Unless your going to claim those states some how have as many representatives in congress as California or Texas or New York.

How many Senators do they have as compared to Ca, Tx or NY?

 

[Gunny]

They are states. Therefore they get "theoretically" equal voting rights for President. This isn't so, BTW, but it is closer than actual popular vote. The President isn't the President of 55 million+. He is the President of 50 states.

I refer you to post 81 as my response.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

How many Senators do they have as compared to Ca, Tx or NY?

Does not matter, A State has as many Electors as it has members in BOTH houses of Congress. That means Wyoming has 3 Electors and California has something like 55, Texas has something like 32, so on and so on.

 

[jillian]

How many Senators do they have as compared to Ca, Tx or NY?

This oughta be good,,,,,

 

[RetiredGySgt]

This oughta be good,,,,,

Not at all, the argument is that somehow the electoral college is not representative. That would mean that somehow Wyoming had more representation then California was allowed or New York or Texas.

Simply NOT true. Just because each has 2 Senators does NOT change the fact that each also has a number of electors equal to the number of Representatives they have, ensuring that a big State has MORE representation in the electoral college than a small state.

The argument that somehow because they both have 2 Senators is somehow unfair or non representative is simply NOT true.

 

[Gunny]

Does not matter, A State has as many Electors as it has members in BOTH houses of Congress. That means Wyoming has 3 Electors and California has something like 55, Texas has something like 32, so on and so on.

Sure it matters, but that's for another argument. As far as this one goes, after weeding through all the deflective bullshit thrown my way ... here is the simple fact and argument I am trying to make:

Makeup and operation of the electoral college itself are tightly defined by the Constitution, but the method of choosing electors is left to the states. In the beginning many states did not provide for popular election of the presidential electors. Today, however, electors are chosen by direct popular vote in every state. When voters vote for president, they are actually voting for the electors pledged to their presidential candidate. (Electors are named by state party organizations. Serving as an elector is considered an honor, a reward for faithful service.)

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/case/3pt/electoral.html

Note in my original statement I said dump the electoral college AND caucuses. Last week, Hillary Cinton won the popular vote in this state. That should net her 32 electoral votes.

Instead, Obama fans basically stole a third of her delegates by remaining after hours and caucusing.

In other words, you can walk into a vote the underdog, and as long as you have committed fans, can swipe delegates from the actual winner. And as happened in 2000, the winner of the popular vote can lose the Presidential election.

That's bullshit. If as stated in the reference above, the electorates vote according to the popular vote, then that should not be able to happen.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Sure it matters, but that's for another argument. As far as this one goes, after weeding through all the deflective bullshit thrown my way ... here is the simple fact and argument I am trying to make:



Note in my original statement I said dump the electoral college AND caucuses. Last week, Hillary Cinton won the popular vote in this state. That should net her 32 electoral votes.

Instead, Obama fans basically stole a third of her delegates by remaining after hours and caucusing.

In other words, you can walk into a vote the underdog, and as long as you have committed fans, can swipe delegates from the actual winner. And as happened in 2000, the winner of the popular vote can lose the Presidential election.

That's bullshit. If as stated in the reference above, the electorates vote according to the popular vote, then that should not be able to happen.

Except your comparing apples and oranges.

The Federal Government and the Electoral college have absolutely NOTHING to do with Party Caucus or Primary procedures. NOTHING. Even the States have almost nothing to do with how an INDIVIDUAL Party decides to allocate its chosen delegates inside the party during primaries. And Primaries have NOTHING at all to do with the General Election.

There is no US General election for President. The Federal Election process is for Senator and Representative. Individual States have DECIDED to allow general votes to influence how they assign electors. That has nothing to do with the Popular vote for President. Since there is none.

Now since we will have the rejects now arguing that Florida in 2000 was not a Federal responsibility, one need only look to what was decided by the Supreme Court. That since the States MUST assign electors by a set date and since Florida decided to allow a general election to decide who would be electors the process is covered by the 14th and 15th amendments and thus the entire Constitution. Gore attempted to prevent ANY decision by the required date, in direct violation of Federal law and Florida law. A recount had to be uniform and had to be conducted in time for the already LEGAL vote that was taken to be changed. The Florida Supreme Court chose to ignore Florida law and thus forced the US Supreme Court to act to protect the FEDERAL process.

 

[Gunny]

Except your comparing apples and oranges.

The Federal Government and the Electoral college have absolutely NOTHING to do with Party Caucus or Primary procedures. NOTHING. Even the States have almost nothing to do with how an INDIVIDUAL Party decides to allocate its chosen delegates inside the party during primaries. And Primaries have NOTHING at all to do with the General Election.

There is no US General election for President. The Federal Election process is for Senator and Representative. Individual States have DECIDED to allow general votes to influence how they assign electors. That has nothing to do with the Popular vote for President. Since there is none.

Now since we will have the rejects now arguing that Florida in 2000 was not a Federal responsibility, one need only look to what was decided by the Supreme Court. That since the States MUST assign electors by a set date and since Florida decided to allow a general election to decide who would be electors the process is covered by the 14th and 15th amendments and thus the entire Constitution. Gore attempted to prevent ANY decision by the required date, in direct violation of Federal law and Florida law. A recount had to be uniform and had to be conducted in time for the already LEGAL vote that was taken to be changed. The Florida Supreme Court chose to ignore Florida law and thus forced the US Supreme Court to act to protect the FEDERAL process.

You would be wrong. The electoral college is only a DIRECT RESULT of caucuses and party primaries.

Odd your statement appears to directly the contradict the kink from Harvard Law I provided.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You would be wrong. The electoral college is only a DIRECT RESULT of caucuses and party primaries.

Odd your statement appears to directly the contradict the kink from Harvard Law I provided.

Party Caucus have nothing to do with the General election in November. They are seperate and distinct events. Hillary or Obama winning in a Democratic primary in Texas have nothing to do with how the Electors are picked after the General election. For example if McCain wins the State, or if Hillary won the Primary but Obama becomes the winner in the General election.

 

[Gunny]

Party Caucus have nothing to do with the General election in November. They are seperate and distinct events. Hillary or Obama winning in a Democratic primary in Texas have nothing to do with how the Electors are picked after the General election. For example if McCain wins the State, or if Hillary won the Primary but Obama becomes the winner in the General election.

The party caucus determines who gets what delegates, which determines who wins the states, which determines who the party chooses to run in the General Election.

I'd say that has a LOT to do with it.

 

[Bern80]

Nope. I said quote "dump the electoral college" unquote. Without asking a single question, you just assumed what I meant by that and jumped in both feet first with your one-sided, closed-minded point of view.

Fine by me. Stick with the dumber argument. What you don't seem to get is that argument has implications above and beyond that argument alone. What position exacltey did I assume? I asked you several question again under the premise that one argument necessitates another. For example saying you believe in states rights, but he EC should be dumped whether you like it or not are not compatible arguments.

Removing the EC has major ramifications for a country that was founded as a Republic. You wanna debate whether we should be or not fine. But don't pretend that getting rid of the EC doesn't have implications above and beyond just getting rid of the EC.

Try again. I told you what I was NOT. I did not say you were anything. Yet another erroneous assumption on your part. Try reading what is there, not what you think is there.

Yes the old say it without saying it routine also known as the chicken shit routine.

No backtracking involved. Again, try asking for clarification next time instead of assuming.

I think you've made it clear so let's start there:

With no electoral college how do you propose the wishes of the states citizens be represented population densities being what they are and all?

Assuming it's broken would you be making this argument if the EC worked the way it was suppossed to?

I don't base my thinking on what I assume the founders were thinking, and knowing what they were doing then and how it applies now are not necessarily the same.

The founders were wealthy men who set themselves up to presume to think for everyone. Kinda like the ellectoral college does.

That's pretty amazing Gunny. You don't assume what they were thinking then assume what they were thinking.

And as far as assumptions are concerned, fine it's assumption I don't know definatively what would happen. What are the chances I'm wrong? This is basic math Gunny. A presidential candidate could win an election by focusing solely on urban areas. There is zero reason to think they wouldn't do exactley that. Again this is another argument that requires another postion. You stated thatit is an assumption that areas of small population (which in some cases is whole states) would receive little to no attention and implied said assumption would be innacurate.. That requires you then to hold the position that a candidaate actually would actively campaign in those areas. Now either you are horribly naive or you just haven't thought about it because there absolutely no logical reason that a candidate is going to campaign in 500 little bum-fuck towns when he/she can accomplish what he/she needs to by heavily campaigning in just a handful urban areas.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

I would have to respectfully disagree, how can he be the "President of the United States", if people in the states don't elect him by their popular vote. I am not for a federal popular vote, just a state popular vote that reflects that state's electors awarded.

I think you are missing my point. The people are the states and the states are the federal govt. The people elect the representatives of their states and the states elect the president. This is merely my opinion and respect yours. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

I refer you to post 81 as my response.

Proportionate vote is socialist? Admit it, you don't know what socialism is, do you?