The tyranny of the minority.

[berg80]

"Actually, the Electoral College was a system cobbled together in the final minutes of the 1787 constitutional convention. At the time, the method of all elections, for both state and federal offices, was done on a district basis within the state, with a multiplicity of results. It was assumed that voting by state districts would continue.
However, soon after the first election, some states reasoned that the favorite presidential candidate would have a much better chance of winning if all of the electors selected by their state were sure to vote for the winner within the state, something called a “general ticket” of electors pledged to a single candidate. Once one state took that strategy, the others felt compelled to follow suit in order to compete for the strongest influence in any presidential election.
When James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, two of the most important architects of the Constitution, saw the winner-take-all strategy being adopted, they protested. Both made it clear that such an approach violated the spirit of the Constitution.

According to Hamilton, the selection of the president should be made by the majority of all voters. Madison agreed, saying that when the Constitution was written, all of its authors assumed that individual electors would continue to be elected in the separate electoral districts of each state, and it was inconceivable a statewide winner-take-all ticket of electors would supplant the concept of local multiplicity."

Column: The U.S. Electoral College Is A Frustration of Democracy

In each presidential election during the last decade, more than 2 million votes in North Carolina did not count.

www.thepilot.com

Nothing can be so clear as the fact that the EC has the potential not only to thwart the will of the people but subvert the intentions of the founders. I understand perfectly why the Repubs........being the minority...........defend the EC so vigorously. They realize without it they may never see another Repub elected to be prez. The answer to their dilemma is not a defense of the EC but rather a move to the political middle so the party's views are more aligned with the majority.

 

[TheGreatSatan]

The EC is awesome. It brings stability to our republic.

Democrats hate America and want to destroy it. Part of that is the fundamental transformation of our government.

Democrats be like... let's put all the votes in a big pile and whoever has the most wins. What could go wrong?

 

[MarathonMike]

The EC was designed to not allow a couple of highly populated states to elect the President. That design worked perfectly in 2016 when California was not allowed to pick the President for the other 49 states.

 

[Rigby5]

Why does the electoral college make sense?

Because you don't simply want mob rule.
Mob rule is where you get lynchings, slavery, religious persecution like Holocausts, etc.

The source of the electoral college was that each state needed adequate representation, whether large or small, and that rural landed individuals understood life, values, and freedom better than the landless urban poor who are more easily swayed by hysterical rhetoric, (lies)

So good or bad, there simply is no alternative to the electoral college.
Mob rule is just plain evil, and should never be considered.

Just look at the population centers, like NYC, Miami, LA, San Francisco, Chicago, Detroit, etc.
I would never want them to dictate how we live.
They are the worst of the bad, and should get far less votes then they do already.

Mobs are not smarter or moral than individuals, and in fact usually are far less able to have original thought at all.

The whole point of the electoral college is that you let the masses get representation by having them vote for representatives that are smarter and more moral than they are. Then you let the representatives do the final actual selection. That works, and can not be improved.

 

[berg80]

"President Trump, who once called the electoral college “a disaster for a democracy,” defended it on Tuesday night as “far better for the U.S.A.” amid growing calls from Democratic presidential hopefuls to abolish it.

Trump’s comments on Twitter came in the wake of an endorsement by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) of using the national popular vote to elect U.S. presidents rather than the electoral college — a position that has also been articulated by South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg and is under consideration by other 2020 Democratic candidates."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-once-called-the-electoral-college-a-disaster-for-democracy-now-he-says-its-far-better-for-the-usa/2019/03/20/dc038b76-4af7-11e9-93d0-64dbcf38ba41_story.html

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Nothing can be so clear as the fact that the EC has the potential not only to thwart the will of the people but subvert the intentions of the founders. I understand perfectly why the Repubs........being the minority...........defend the EC so vigorously. They realize without it they may never see another Repub elected to be prez. The answer to their dilemma is not a defense of the EC but rather a move to the political middle so the party's views are more aligned with the majority.

I thought you guys were big proponents of affirmative action.

 

[Oddball]

"President Trump, who once called the electoral college “a disaster for a democracy,” defended it on Tuesday night as “far better for the U.S.A.” amid growing calls from Democratic presidential hopefuls to abolish it.

Trump’s comments on Twitter came in the wake of an endorsement by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) of using the national popular vote to elect U.S. presidents rather than the electoral college — a position that has also been articulated by South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg and is under consideration by other 2020 Democratic candidates."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-once-called-the-electoral-college-a-disaster-for-democracy-now-he-says-its-far-better-for-the-usa/2019/03/20/dc038b76-4af7-11e9-93d0-64dbcf38ba41_story.html

Old news that changes absolutely nothing.

 

[buckeye45_73]

"Actually, the Electoral College was a system cobbled together in the final minutes of the 1787 constitutional convention. At the time, the method of all elections, for both state and federal offices, was done on a district basis within the state, with a multiplicity of results. It was assumed that voting by state districts would continue.
However, soon after the first election, some states reasoned that the favorite presidential candidate would have a much better chance of winning if all of the electors selected by their state were sure to vote for the winner within the state, something called a “general ticket” of electors pledged to a single candidate. Once one state took that strategy, the others felt compelled to follow suit in order to compete for the strongest influence in any presidential election.
When James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, two of the most important architects of the Constitution, saw the winner-take-all strategy being adopted, they protested. Both made it clear that such an approach violated the spirit of the Constitution.

According to Hamilton, the selection of the president should be made by the majority of all voters. Madison agreed, saying that when the Constitution was written, all of its authors assumed that individual electors would continue to be elected in the separate electoral districts of each state, and it was inconceivable a statewide winner-take-all ticket of electors would supplant the concept of local multiplicity."

Column: The U.S. Electoral College Is A Frustration of Democracy

In each presidential election during the last decade, more than 2 million votes in North Carolina did not count.

www.thepilot.com

Nothing can be so clear as the fact that the EC has the potential not only to thwart the will of the people but subvert the intentions of the founders. I understand perfectly why the Repubs........being the minority...........defend the EC so vigorously. They realize without it they may never see another Repub elected to be prez. The answer to their dilemma is not a defense of the EC but rather a move to the political middle so the party's views are more aligned with the majority.

This is the most ironic post ever. The EC was written so large states wouldn't run roughshod over small ones.,........sorry libs, too fucking bad. It was brilliant then and it is now.

 

[Oddball]

Why does the electoral college make sense?

Because you don't simply want mob rule.
Mob rule is where you get lynchings, slavery, religious persecution like Holocausts, etc.

The source of the electoral college was that each state needed adequate representation, whether large or small, and that rural landed individuals understood life, values, and freedom better than the landless urban poor who are more easily swayed by hysterical rhetoric, (lies)

So good or bad, there simply is no alternative to the electoral college.
Mob rule is just plain evil, and should never be considered.

Just look at the population centers, like NYC, Miami, LA, San Francisco, Chicago, Detroit, etc.
I would never want them to dictate how we live.
They are the worst of the bad, and should get far less votes then they do already.

Mobs are not smarter or moral than individuals, and in fact usually are far less able to have original thought at all.

The whole point of the electoral college is that you let the masses get representation by having them vote for representatives that are smarter and more moral than they are. Then you let the representatives do the final actual selection. That works, and can not be improved.

Solid factual arguments, which are always ignored by the mobsters.....Like I said; too pig-headed to accept anything that disproves their constant sniveling about the EC.

 

[Claudette]

"Actually, the Electoral College was a system cobbled together in the final minutes of the 1787 constitutional convention. At the time, the method of all elections, for both state and federal offices, was done on a district basis within the state, with a multiplicity of results. It was assumed that voting by state districts would continue.
However, soon after the first election, some states reasoned that the favorite presidential candidate would have a much better chance of winning if all of the electors selected by their state were sure to vote for the winner within the state, something called a “general ticket” of electors pledged to a single candidate. Once one state took that strategy, the others felt compelled to follow suit in order to compete for the strongest influence in any presidential election.
When James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, two of the most important architects of the Constitution, saw the winner-take-all strategy being adopted, they protested. Both made it clear that such an approach violated the spirit of the Constitution.

According to Hamilton, the selection of the president should be made by the majority of all voters. Madison agreed, saying that when the Constitution was written, all of its authors assumed that individual electors would continue to be elected in the separate electoral districts of each state, and it was inconceivable a statewide winner-take-all ticket of electors would supplant the concept of local multiplicity."

Column: The U.S. Electoral College Is A Frustration of Democracy

In each presidential election during the last decade, more than 2 million votes in North Carolina did not count.

www.thepilot.com

Nothing can be so clear as the fact that the EC has the potential not only to thwart the will of the people but subvert the intentions of the founders. I understand perfectly why the Repubs........being the minority...........defend the EC so vigorously. They realize without it they may never see another Repub elected to be prez. The answer to their dilemma is not a defense of the EC but rather a move to the political middle so the party's views are more aligned with the majority.

This is the most ironic post ever. The EC was written so large states wouldn't run roughshod over small ones.,........sorry libs, too fucking bad. It was brilliant then and it is now.

Yup that's exactly why the FF put the EC in the Constitution. If not for that that states with smaller populations would never get to decide the POTUS. Those with large populations would pick our POTUS every year.

The FF knew what they were doing and thank God they did.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Actually, the Electoral College was a system cobbled together in the final minutes of the 1787 constitutional convention. At the time, the method of all elections, for both state and federal offices, was done on a district basis within the state, with a multiplicity of results. It was assumed that voting by state districts would continue.
However, soon after the first election, some states reasoned that the favorite presidential candidate would have a much better chance of winning if all of the electors selected by their state were sure to vote for the winner within the state, something called a “general ticket” of electors pledged to a single candidate. Once one state took that strategy, the others felt compelled to follow suit in order to compete for the strongest influence in any presidential election.
When James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, two of the most important architects of the Constitution, saw the winner-take-all strategy being adopted, they protested. Both made it clear that such an approach violated the spirit of the Constitution.

According to Hamilton, the selection of the president should be made by the majority of all voters. Madison agreed, saying that when the Constitution was written, all of its authors assumed that individual electors would continue to be elected in the separate electoral districts of each state, and it was inconceivable a statewide winner-take-all ticket of electors would supplant the concept of local multiplicity."

Column: The U.S. Electoral College Is A Frustration of Democracy

In each presidential election during the last decade, more than 2 million votes in North Carolina did not count.

www.thepilot.com

Nothing can be so clear as the fact that the EC has the potential not only to thwart the will of the people but subvert the intentions of the founders. I understand perfectly why the Repubs........being the minority...........defend the EC so vigorously. They realize without it they may never see another Repub elected to be prez. The answer to their dilemma is not a defense of the EC but rather a move to the political middle so the party's views are more aligned with the majority.

It was the Framers’ original intent that the electors vote in accordance with their own good conscience, contrary to how their state voted, if an elector felt compelled to do so.

It was also the Framers’ original intent that our rights and protected liberties not be subject to the spoils of political war – that although one might belong to a party of political faction out of power, he needn’t be concerned that his rights and protected liberties would be placed in jeopardy by the party or political faction now in power, as whomever might hold power, would respect the Constitution’s caselaw safeguarding the rights of the people.

That’s no longer the case the consequence of the tyranny of the conservative minority, as rightists seek to increase the authority of the state at the expense of individual liberty, and deny the people their right to privacy, right to vote, right to equal protection of the law, and right to due process of the law.

 

[22lcidw]

Why does the electoral college make sense?

Because you don't simply want mob rule.
Mob rule is where you get lynchings, slavery, religious persecution like Holocausts, etc.

The source of the electoral college was that each state needed adequate representation, whether large or small, and that rural landed individuals understood life, values, and freedom better than the landless urban poor who are more easily swayed by hysterical rhetoric, (lies)

So good or bad, there simply is no alternative to the electoral college.
Mob rule is just plain evil, and should never be considered.

Just look at the population centers, like NYC, Miami, LA, San Francisco, Chicago, Detroit, etc.
I would never want them to dictate how we live.
They are the worst of the bad, and should get far less votes then they do already.

Mobs are not smarter or moral than individuals, and in fact usually are far less able to have original thought at all.

The whole point of the electoral college is that you let the masses get representation by having them vote for representatives that are smarter and more moral than they are. Then you let the representatives do the final actual selection. That works, and can not be improved.

In the 19th Century, the Electoral College worked in reverse. The rural areas were more powerful then the cities. Today the congested cities and suburbs are more powerful then the rural areas. The EC was made as a circuit breaker to give the nation and its people balance and equality. The truth is, cities have not been destroyed by Trump. The Democratic Party has died. What has taken its place is can not co exist with the Constitution. So those empowered have been cutting into that document for over a century.

 

[Oddball]

"Actually, the Electoral College was a system cobbled together in the final minutes of the 1787 constitutional convention. At the time, the method of all elections, for both state and federal offices, was done on a district basis within the state, with a multiplicity of results. It was assumed that voting by state districts would continue.
However, soon after the first election, some states reasoned that the favorite presidential candidate would have a much better chance of winning if all of the electors selected by their state were sure to vote for the winner within the state, something called a “general ticket” of electors pledged to a single candidate. Once one state took that strategy, the others felt compelled to follow suit in order to compete for the strongest influence in any presidential election.
When James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, two of the most important architects of the Constitution, saw the winner-take-all strategy being adopted, they protested. Both made it clear that such an approach violated the spirit of the Constitution.

According to Hamilton, the selection of the president should be made by the majority of all voters. Madison agreed, saying that when the Constitution was written, all of its authors assumed that individual electors would continue to be elected in the separate electoral districts of each state, and it was inconceivable a statewide winner-take-all ticket of electors would supplant the concept of local multiplicity."

Column: The U.S. Electoral College Is A Frustration of Democracy

In each presidential election during the last decade, more than 2 million votes in North Carolina did not count.

www.thepilot.com

Nothing can be so clear as the fact that the EC has the potential not only to thwart the will of the people but subvert the intentions of the founders. I understand perfectly why the Repubs........being the minority...........defend the EC so vigorously. They realize without it they may never see another Repub elected to be prez. The answer to their dilemma is not a defense of the EC but rather a move to the political middle so the party's views are more aligned with the majority.

It was the Framers’ original intent that the electors vote in accordance with their own good conscience, contrary to how their state voted, if an elector felt compelled to do so.

It was also the Framers’ original intent that our rights and protected liberties not be subject to the spoils of political war – that although one might belong to a party of political faction out of power, he needn’t be concerned that his rights and protected liberties would be placed in jeopardy by the party or political faction now in power, as whomever might hold power, would respect the Constitution’s caselaw safeguarding the rights of the people.

That’s no longer the case the consequence of the tyranny of the conservative minority, as rightists seek to increase the authority of the state at the expense of individual liberty, and deny the people their right to privacy, right to vote, right to equal protection of the law, and right to due process of the law.

That’s no longer the case the consequence of the tyranny of the conservative minority, as rightists seek to increase the authority of the state at the expense of individual liberty, and deny the people their right to privacy, right to vote, right to equal protection of the law, and right to due process of the law.

Project, project, project....Then project some more!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

5 million fraud votes in CA should NOT determine the President

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"Actually, the Electoral College was a system cobbled together in the final minutes of the 1787 constitutional convention. At the time, the method of all elections, for both state and federal offices, was done on a district basis within the state, with a multiplicity of results. It was assumed that voting by state districts would continue.
However, soon after the first election, some states reasoned that the favorite presidential candidate would have a much better chance of winning if all of the electors selected by their state were sure to vote for the winner within the state, something called a “general ticket” of electors pledged to a single candidate. Once one state took that strategy, the others felt compelled to follow suit in order to compete for the strongest influence in any presidential election.
When James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, two of the most important architects of the Constitution, saw the winner-take-all strategy being adopted, they protested. Both made it clear that such an approach violated the spirit of the Constitution.

According to Hamilton, the selection of the president should be made by the majority of all voters. Madison agreed, saying that when the Constitution was written, all of its authors assumed that individual electors would continue to be elected in the separate electoral districts of each state, and it was inconceivable a statewide winner-take-all ticket of electors would supplant the concept of local multiplicity."

Column: The U.S. Electoral College Is A Frustration of Democracy

In each presidential election during the last decade, more than 2 million votes in North Carolina did not count.

www.thepilot.com

Nothing can be so clear as the fact that the EC has the potential not only to thwart the will of the people but subvert the intentions of the founders. I understand perfectly why the Repubs........being the minority...........defend the EC so vigorously. They realize without it they may never see another Repub elected to be prez. The answer to their dilemma is not a defense of the EC but rather a move to the political middle so the party's views are more aligned with the majority.

I've got the best idea ever! If you don't like the EC, and 1st and 2nd Amendments, just LEAVE!

Go to Wuhan!

 

[Meathead]

"Actually, the Electoral College was a system cobbled together in the final minutes of the 1787 constitutional convention. At the time, the method of all elections, for both state and federal offices, was done on a district basis within the state, with a multiplicity of results. It was assumed that voting by state districts would continue.
However, soon after the first election, some states reasoned that the favorite presidential candidate would have a much better chance of winning if all of the electors selected by their state were sure to vote for the winner within the state, something called a “general ticket” of electors pledged to a single candidate. Once one state took that strategy, the others felt compelled to follow suit in order to compete for the strongest influence in any presidential election.
When James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, two of the most important architects of the Constitution, saw the winner-take-all strategy being adopted, they protested. Both made it clear that such an approach violated the spirit of the Constitution.

According to Hamilton, the selection of the president should be made by the majority of all voters. Madison agreed, saying that when the Constitution was written, all of its authors assumed that individual electors would continue to be elected in the separate electoral districts of each state, and it was inconceivable a statewide winner-take-all ticket of electors would supplant the concept of local multiplicity."

Column: The U.S. Electoral College Is A Frustration of Democracy

In each presidential election during the last decade, more than 2 million votes in North Carolina did not count.

www.thepilot.com

Nothing can be so clear as the fact that the EC has the potential not only to thwart the will of the people but subvert the intentions of the founders. I understand perfectly why the Repubs........being the minority...........defend the EC so vigorously. They realize without it they may never see another Repub elected to be prez. The answer to their dilemma is not a defense of the EC but rather a move to the political middle so the party's views are more aligned with the majority.

From the get-go, it was a matter of states rights and being able to get less populated states to join the Union. States are free to allot their EC votes by congressional district and two already have.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

"Actually, the Electoral College was a system cobbled together in the final minutes of the 1787 constitutional convention. At the time, the method of all elections, for both state and federal offices, was done on a district basis within the state, with a multiplicity of results. It was assumed that voting by state districts would continue.
However, soon after the first election, some states reasoned that the favorite presidential candidate would have a much better chance of winning if all of the electors selected by their state were sure to vote for the winner within the state, something called a “general ticket” of electors pledged to a single candidate. Once one state took that strategy, the others felt compelled to follow suit in order to compete for the strongest influence in any presidential election.
When James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, two of the most important architects of the Constitution, saw the winner-take-all strategy being adopted, they protested. Both made it clear that such an approach violated the spirit of the Constitution.

According to Hamilton, the selection of the president should be made by the majority of all voters. Madison agreed, saying that when the Constitution was written, all of its authors assumed that individual electors would continue to be elected in the separate electoral districts of each state, and it was inconceivable a statewide winner-take-all ticket of electors would supplant the concept of local multiplicity."

Column: The U.S. Electoral College Is A Frustration of Democracy

In each presidential election during the last decade, more than 2 million votes in North Carolina did not count.

www.thepilot.com

Nothing can be so clear as the fact that the EC has the potential not only to thwart the will of the people but subvert the intentions of the founders. I understand perfectly why the Repubs........being the minority...........defend the EC so vigorously. They realize without it they may never see another Repub elected to be prez. The answer to their dilemma is not a defense of the EC but rather a move to the political middle so the party's views are more aligned with the majority.

Cooln opinion piece bro. The reality is what leftists call the right is the center. These are the people who do not need therapy animals, safe spaces and dont scream at the sky when they lose. You nuts have gone so far left it just seems like rational people are far right.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

The EC is awesome. It brings stability to our republic.

Democrats hate America and want to destroy it. Part of that is the fundamental transformation of our government.

Democrats be like... let's put all the votes in a big pile and whoever has the most wins. What could go wrong?

Exactly,well said.

 

[blackhawk]

How many of you who want to end the Electoral College and go to the popular vote would still want that if New York and California were rock solid red states instead of blue ones?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

"Actually, the Electoral College was a system cobbled together in the final minutes of the 1787 constitutional convention. At the time, the method of all elections, for both state and federal offices, was done on a district basis within the state, with a multiplicity of results. It was assumed that voting by state districts would continue.
However, soon after the first election, some states reasoned that the favorite presidential candidate would have a much better chance of winning if all of the electors selected by their state were sure to vote for the winner within the state, something called a “general ticket” of electors pledged to a single candidate. Once one state took that strategy, the others felt compelled to follow suit in order to compete for the strongest influence in any presidential election.
When James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, two of the most important architects of the Constitution, saw the winner-take-all strategy being adopted, they protested. Both made it clear that such an approach violated the spirit of the Constitution.

According to Hamilton, the selection of the president should be made by the majority of all voters. Madison agreed, saying that when the Constitution was written, all of its authors assumed that individual electors would continue to be elected in the separate electoral districts of each state, and it was inconceivable a statewide winner-take-all ticket of electors would supplant the concept of local multiplicity."

Column: The U.S. Electoral College Is A Frustration of Democracy

In each presidential election during the last decade, more than 2 million votes in North Carolina did not count.

www.thepilot.com

Nothing can be so clear as the fact that the EC has the potential not only to thwart the will of the people but subvert the intentions of the founders. I understand perfectly why the Repubs........being the minority...........defend the EC so vigorously. They realize without it they may never see another Repub elected to be prez. The answer to their dilemma is not a defense of the EC but rather a move to the political middle so the party's views are more aligned with the majority.

Why do you hate minorities?

Racist.