The Electorial College

[DiamondDave]

Dumbass, the future amendment has nothing to do with the past amendment.

Check Mate.

Now, stick your fuckin' head back into the sand where it belongs.

I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you if you think that the Constitution will be amended to make the US a direct Democracy

You probably never thought that alcohol would be banned either.

Grow the fuck up, get out of you fucking crib, and fight for your rights.

My rights are laid out pretty well in our constitution... what you propose is not...

nice try, but a feeble attempt and a feeble idea

 

[The T]

See the Highlighted? WHEN WAS the LAST Convention? WHEN was the LAST Amendment?

Again? Good Luck. YOU LOSE.

Dumbass, the future amendment has nothing to do with the past amendment.

Check Mate.

Now, stick your fuckin' head back into the sand where it belongs.

I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you if you think that the Constitution will be amended to make the US a direct Democracy

It will NOT happen. The people themselves will prohibit it...that is of course if that poster thinks that the people are that stupid?

 

[The T]

Voting online would circumvent the need for this ridiculously antiquated practice designed to prevent a French Revolution circa 1780

-IDIOTIC- And PRONE to FRAUD.

Try AGAIN.

WTF woulf you rather have that is absolutely NOT "prone to fraud?

Why the fuck can we pay taxes online, if this method is "Prone to Fraud."

Jaysus, what a pathetic nation of weinies we've become.

There's a REASON for everything. YOU cannot accept the EC. That's YOUR problem.

 

[Samson]

Dumbass, the future amendment has nothing to do with the past amendment.

Check Mate.

Now, stick your fuckin' head back into the sand where it belongs.

I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you if you think that the Constitution will be amended to make the US a direct Democracy

It will NOT happen. The people themselves will prohibit it...that is of course if that poster thinks that the people are that stupid?

No they're apathetic.

They have become so accustomed to whinging about their lack of control over government that their scared shitless to actually become accountable for it.

 

[Samson]

-IDIOTIC- And PRONE to FRAUD.

Try AGAIN.

WTF woulf you rather have that is absolutely NOT "prone to fraud?

Why the fuck can we pay taxes online, if this method is "Prone to Fraud."

Jaysus, what a pathetic nation of weinies we've become.

There's a REASON for everything. YOU cannot accept the EC. That's YOUR problem.

You just bend over and take it.

I'm gonna resist.

 

[DiamondDave]

WTF woulf you rather have that is absolutely NOT "prone to fraud?

Why the fuck can we pay taxes online, if this method is "Prone to Fraud."

Jaysus, what a pathetic nation of weinies we've become.

There's a REASON for everything. YOU cannot accept the EC. That's YOUR problem.

You just bend over and take it.

I'm gonna resist.

And the rest of us will resist the tyranny of direct democracy and stick to a constitutional republic with checks and balances

We'll await your big power play to amend the constitution to make the US a direct democracy... but we won't be holding our breath

 

[QUENTIN]

What would be antiquated would be to go more toward a direct democracy where 50.0001% of the populace could take away the rights and/or property of 49.9999% by that little direct vote

The republic has purposely put these checks and balances in place to help prevent that and to prevent the selection of all in federal office from being a result of the pure direct vote

Right now, in the Legislative Branch you're hyping as the most directly democratic, if the 26 least populated states voted as a block, then 17% of the population could have a majority in the Senate with all the power that entails. How is a system in which 17% can subjugate the will of 83% more democratic than a system in which a simple majority rules?

Again, the fact that people don't directly vote on laws and policy but instead elect representatives is already enough of a safeguard against mob rule. It makes no sense for a candidate who represents the will of less people than another candidate and received less votes to assume representative control.

 

[DiamondDave]

What would be antiquated would be to go more toward a direct democracy where 50.0001% of the populace could take away the rights and/or property of 49.9999% by that little direct vote

The republic has purposely put these checks and balances in place to help prevent that and to prevent the selection of all in federal office from being a result of the pure direct vote

Right now, in the Legislative Branch you're hyping as the most directly democratic, if the 26 least populated states voted as a block, then 17% of the population could have a majority in the Senate with all the power that entails. How is a system in which 17% can subjugate the will of 83% more democratic than a system in which a simple majority rules?

Again, the fact that people don't directly vote on laws and policy but instead elect representatives is already enough of a safeguard against mob rule. It makes no sense for a candidate who represents the will of less people than another candidate and received less votes to assume representative control.

It makes no sense to have different branches of the government chosen exactly the same way....

 

[Samson]

There's a REASON for everything. YOU cannot accept the EC. That's YOUR problem.

You just bend over and take it.

I'm gonna resist.

And the rest of us will resist the tyranny of direct democracy and stick to a constitutional republic with checks and balances

We'll await your big power play to amend the constitution to make the US a direct democracy... but we won't be holding our breath

The "tyranny of Direct Democracy?"

Lemme ask you: what is the worst that could happen?

We elect someone completely unqualified?

Oh yeah, the electoral college REALLY does a great job with that****sarcasm****

No, the electoral college is only an anachronism that the stupid and the immature that cannot bear to accept responsibility maintain.

 

[The T]

You just bend over and take it.

I'm gonna resist.

And the rest of us will resist the tyranny of direct democracy and stick to a constitutional republic with checks and balances

We'll await your big power play to amend the constitution to make the US a direct democracy... but we won't be holding our breath

The "tyranny of Direct Democracy?"

Lemme ask you: what is the worst that could happen?

We elect someone completely unqualified?

Oh yeah, the electoral college REALLY does a great job with that****sarcasm****

No, the electoral college is only an anachronism that the stupid and the immature that cannot bear to accept responsibility maintain.

WRONG. The EC as a mechanism to ENSURE that TYRANNY did NOT Take over. WHY don't you see that?

The Founders again were SMART. They Understood GREED...and how it could overrule. After all? They were writing these things in a TIME that there was a TYRANT named KING GEORGE III, that Ruled on a WHIM.

Or does that escape you? They understood perfectly TYRANNY...and even more the PERILS of a Pure DEMOCRACY that is nothing MORE than MOB RULE.

 

[LuckyDan]

You just bend over and take it.

I'm gonna resist.

And the rest of us will resist the tyranny of direct democracy and stick to a constitutional republic with checks and balances

We'll await your big power play to amend the constitution to make the US a direct democracy... but we won't be holding our breath

The "tyranny of Direct Democracy?"

Lemme ask you: what is the worst that could happen?

We elect someone completely unqualified?

Oh yeah, the electoral college REALLY does a great job with that****sarcasm****

No, the electoral college is only an anachronism that the stupid and the immature that cannot bear to accept responsibility maintain.

Sarcasm or not, theoretically, the EC could prevent that. As someone already said, the electors are not legally bound to follow their state's popular result.

Even if you don't agree it serves a purpose now, who knows what the country will be like in 50 years. Might come in handy then.

And I still don't see why you can't vote online AND have the EC.

 

[Samson]

And the rest of us will resist the tyranny of direct democracy and stick to a constitutional republic with checks and balances

We'll await your big power play to amend the constitution to make the US a direct democracy... but we won't be holding our breath

The "tyranny of Direct Democracy?"

Lemme ask you: what is the worst that could happen?

We elect someone completely unqualified?

Oh yeah, the electoral college REALLY does a great job with that****sarcasm****

No, the electoral college is only an anachronism that the stupid and the immature that cannot bear to accept responsibility maintain.

Sarcasm or not, theoretically, the EC could prevent that. As someone already said, the electors are not legally bound to follow their state's popular result.

Even if you don't agree it serves a purpose now, who knows what the country will be like in 50 years. Might come in handy then.

And I still don't see why you can't vote online AND have the EC.

There's no reason you couldn't vote online and have the EC, but it wouldn't make the EC any less of an anachromism.

 

[veritas]

Back when the EC was installed as a mechanism, only landowners could vote. So it had nothing to do with the "masses". Because the "masses" couldn't vote.

 

[oreo]

Back when the EC was installed as a mechanism, only landowners could vote. So it had nothing to do with the "masses". Because the "masses" couldn't vote.

Our forefathers were smart enough to realise--"back in the day" that people who lived in populated areas--versus the country--were able to influence government--thereby--politicians could ignore the countryside by simply campaigning in large populace areas.

They instituted the electoral college in order to give "fair representation to all".

If we didn't have it today--the middle section of this country would simply be a fly-over for Presidential candidates & they would only campaign in major metropolitian areas.

The electoral college stops them cold from doing this.

 

[Samson]

Back when the EC was installed as a mechanism, only landowners could vote. So it had nothing to do with the "masses". Because the "masses" couldn't vote.

Our forefathers were smart enough to realise--"back in the day" that people who lived in populated areas--versus the country--were able to influence government--thereby--politicians could ignore the countryside by simply campaigning in large populace areas.

They instituted the electoral college in order to give "fair representation to all".

If we didn't have it today--the middle section of this country would simply be a fly-over for Presidential candidates & they would only campaign in major metropolitian areas.

The electoral college stops them cold from doing this.

It does? The electoral College "stops them cold" from only campaigning in Major Metropolitian Areas?

REALLY??

Since when?

 

[QUENTIN]

I appreciate your responses to the actual content of my post, DD. This places turns to ad hominem name-calling far too often and this is obviously an important subject for citizens to debate.

The T, the fact that current political realities inhibit a change from being made does not mean the change is not a rational and positive option.

The Electoral College, Senate representation being arbitrarily two per state rather than based on population, gerrymandering, the irrational primary process that makes only a few key states the focus of a national race and candidate's effort, and every other instrument to impede democracy should be amended or abolished. They don't make a lick of sense and continue merely out of tradition.

The representative process of the Legislative Branch is already enough limit to direct democracy, all further restrictions are simply instruments to suppress the will of the people.

The 'will of the people' is not always constitutional, and mob rule does tend to have the majority taking advantage of the minority and voting away their rights to benefit themselves... there is a reason for the Constitution and a reason why we were not set up as a pure democracy purely on the will of the masses... and there is a reason why each branch is selected differently....

The representatives in the legislative are not enough to limit the tyranny of the masses that is possible in a system closer to direct democracy

What the advocates of the EC have failed to demonstrate here is how it serves as any check against mob rule or the subjugation of the minority's will.

The EC is still based on population, so the most populous states can still disadvantage and disenfranchise the will of less populated states and a minority of citizens.

What it does in effect, is actually further strip rights from the minority, but on the state level rather than national stage, resulting in far more minority votes being effectively suppressed.

In a more simple popular tally, the minority are not any further disenfranchised than they currently are, but rather each vote counts. Currently, if you are a minority within your state your vote is essentially meaningless. A popular vote would increase the impact the votes of the minority had by allowing them to contribute directly to the tally of their candidate rather than having no impact.

In either system, there exists the possibility of a majority diminishing the impact of the minority on the political process, either way one side will lose, but in the electoral college it adds both an unnecessary middleman and diminishes the will of minorities within each region.

It's the difference of whether a minority across the entire nation fails to have their interests best represented, or whether a minority within each state does. But only the former gives the weight and impact of a vote to every one cast. I also fail to see how subjugation of the majority for the minority is preferable. Either way the losing group is not in power, but what benefit to them is derived by having their state vote as a block rather than their political and ideological brethren vote as a block regardless of location?

I know that the idea that it increases minority representation has been one of the most prominent arguments among those in favor of the EC, but fail to see how it actually provides that any more than a popular vote would. I've read the Federalist Papers and was unpersuaded by Madison's rationale for asserting that it added protections for minority groups. Perhaps you can offer a compelling argument.

What would be antiquated would be to go more toward a direct democracy where 50.0001% of the populace could take away the rights and/or property of 49.9999% by that little direct vote

The republic has purposely put these checks and balances in place to help prevent that and to prevent the selection of all in federal office from being a result of the pure direct vote

Right now, in the Legislative Branch you're hyping as the most directly democratic, if the 26 least populated states voted as a block, then 17% of the population could have a majority in the Senate with all the power that entails. How is a system in which 17% can subjugate the will of 83% more democratic than a system in which a simple majority rules?

Again, the fact that people don't directly vote on laws and policy but instead elect representatives is already enough of a safeguard against mob rule. It makes no sense for a candidate who represents the will of less people than another candidate and received less votes to assume representative control.

It makes no sense to have different branches of the government chosen exactly the same way....

Well the Judicial Branch is in no real threat of being elected by popular vote.

The Senate having two representative members from each state regardless of population is also by no means a direct vote and fulfills the desire to give each state equal weight in a key role in what's designed as the most powerful branch.

But again, what positive checks and balances do you see provided by the Electoral College that are absent from a popular tally?

 

[oreo]

Back when the EC was installed as a mechanism, only landowners could vote. So it had nothing to do with the "masses". Because the "masses" couldn't vote.

Our forefathers were smart enough to realise--"back in the day" that people who lived in populated areas--versus the country--were able to influence government--thereby--politicians could ignore the countryside by simply campaigning in large populace areas.

They instituted the electoral college in order to give "fair representation to all".

If we didn't have it today--the middle section of this country would simply be a fly-over for Presidential candidates & they would only campaign in major metropolitian areas.

The electoral college stops them cold from doing this.

It does? The electoral College "stops them cold" from only campaigning in Major Metropolitian Areas?

REALLY??

Since when?

Da--duh--Da--duh--Da--duh--the intent of my post is to let you know that the middle portion of this country--aka the Heartland of this country "cannot be ignored" by Presidential candidates--who would prefer to campaign in only major metropolitan communities.

Now if you prefer to "outsource" the FOOD that is grown in this country--or can figure out a way to turn your computer into edible protein--& are willing to give up your potatoes, corn, wheat, beef, pork, butter, milk, eggs, fruit & vegetables--then say so. These people who supply you FOOD have every much as right as you do & deserve equal representation in Washington D.C--regardless of the masse's living on top of one another in metropolitan cities.

Henceforth--the electoral college exists.

 

[Dr Grump]

Yes it does... for the small states populations do not get lost in the masses... each state can show what they stood for and who they voted for.... it prevents the small states from being silenced by the urban masses

I understand the concept and you have a good point. But I guess what I'm trying to say, is in the wash up, when all is said and done, although they have had their say, what good has it done them?

 

[Dr Grump]

[

YOU are too fuckin' entrenched in a PURE Democracy, where anarchy rules the day. That is to say MOB RULE. That isn't how this REPUBLIC operates by DESIGN.

You wanna change it? then an AMENDMENT is in order by Constitutional Covention. Good luck with that. It ain't gonna happen any time soon.

Of course you're NOT gonna READ that bit of history. I find it of NO particuliar surprise. Read it and WEEP...Stronger States (More Populus) Cannot Override Smaller ones by sheer Numbers, precisely because WE are NOT a Democracy...*BY DESIGN*.

The Founders were SMARTER than YOU.

Get used to it.

But you are in a mob rule situation. At the moment the Dems are the mob...and they rule....shrug...

 

[oreo]

Yes it does... for the small states populations do not get lost in the masses... each state can show what they stood for and who they voted for.... it prevents the small states from being silenced by the urban masses

I understand the concept and you have a good point. But I guess what I'm trying to say, is in the wash up, when all is said and done, although they have had their say, what good has it done them?

What bad has it done? Can you answer that?