Why Left Wingers HATE the Electoral College !!!

[thereisnospoon]

Democracy..by it's very nature is.."Tyranny of the Majority".

An absolute democracy, yes. We do not have that here.
The US is a representative republic. And as such, the Electoral College is necessary to protect the interests of the minority in the presidential election.

So all representative republics must have an electoral college?

You libs have no right discussing the issue of democracy because you believe in it as a matter of convenience

Ahh, I see, we have no right to exercise our 1st amendment rights when its not convenient to you, got it.

An Electoral College is necessary to protect the interests of the minority in the presidential election.
Who said anything about First Amendment rights? The issue is you people do not agree with democracy unless it goes your way.
You don't get to hold both sides of the argument.
Stop it with the all or nothing straw man argument. At least have the balls to argue the points in the discussion instead of trying to deflect the discussion where you want it to go.

 

[Meister]

A good read for the electoral college, afterall, it is the United States.
The Electoral College - Origin and History

A third idea was to have the president elected by a direct popular vote. Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones.

Seems that our FF's WERE much smarting than a 5th grader.


Thank you, Asaratis

And you think Nevada, or South Dakota or Alaska have as much input/say as Texas, California, NY or Florida. Can you name one election in the past 30 years that has been decided by Alaska?

Nevada has 6, South Dakota has 3, and Alaska has 3.
California has 55, New York has 29, Texas has 38, and Florida has 29.

So no, the small unpopulated states don't have has much power as the populated states, but they are represented, regardless. That's something that wouldn't happen without an electoral college.

 

[jillian]

A good read for the electoral college, afterall, it is the United States.
The Electoral College - Origin and History

A third idea was to have the president elected by a direct popular vote. Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones.

Seems that our FF's WERE much smarting than a 5th grader.


Thank you, Asaratis

And you think Nevada, or South Dakota or Alaska have as much input/say as Texas, California, NY or Florida. Can you name one election in the past 30 years that has been decided by Alaska?

Nevada has 6, South Dakota has 3, and Alaska has 3.
California has 55, New York has 29, Texas has 38, and Florida has 29.

So no, the small unpopulated states don't have has much power as the populated states, but they are represented, regardless. That's something that wouldn't happen without an electoral college.

and how many people do nevada's 6 represent versus how many peole new york's 29 represent?

THAT is where the disparity is.

 

[Meister]

And you think Nevada, or South Dakota or Alaska have as much input/say as Texas, California, NY or Florida. Can you name one election in the past 30 years that has been decided by Alaska?

Nevada has 6, South Dakota has 3, and Alaska has 3.
California has 55, New York has 29, Texas has 38, and Florida has 29.

So no, the small unpopulated states don't have has much power as the populated states, but they are represented, regardless. That's something that wouldn't happen without an electoral college.

and how many people do nevada's 6 represent versus how many peole new york's 29 represent?

THAT is where the disparity is.

Yes, there is desparity, Jillian, but it does mean that every state does get represented. Something that wouldn't happen otherwise. Fact.

 

[jillian]

Nevada has 6, South Dakota has 3, and Alaska has 3.
California has 55, New York has 29, Texas has 38, and Florida has 29.

So no, the small unpopulated states don't have has much power as the populated states, but they are represented, regardless. That's something that wouldn't happen without an electoral college.

and how many people do nevada's 6 represent versus how many peole new york's 29 represent?

THAT is where the disparity is.

Yes, there is desparity, Jillian, but it does mean that every state does get represented. Something that wouldn't happen otherwise. Fact.

the vote of a person in north dakota shouldn't be worth more than my vote. i'd suggest that the current system was contrived to protect landowners and has outlived any reasonable usefulness.

do you think that iowa and new hampshire should matter more in picking a party's nominee than new york?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The electoral college represents regional demography and geography as well as general population statistics as an aggregate. The uniqueness of Delaware or Nevada cannot be subsumed into California or Nevada because of the Electoral College. Like all good American politics, the electoral college demands balance, rejecting the elitism of the far right and the mass mob of the far left.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The reason I hate the electoral college is that in 2000 Al Gore beat the worst president this country has ever had to experience by half a million votes but because of the electoral system and one state Jeb Bush and his concubine was able to use the right wing supreme court and steal it from Gore. Do you need anything else

Algore beat Barack Obama in 2000?

Damn, I did not know that....

 

[Cammmpbell]

A good read for the electoral college, afterall, it is the United States.
The Electoral College - Origin and History

A third idea was to have the president elected by a direct popular vote. Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones.

Seems that our FF's WERE much smarter than a 5th grader. Thank you, Asaratis

Yeah...they owned slaves and wrote into the constitution that each one would be legally worth three fifths of a man. So much for the "All Men Created Equal" bullshit!

 

[jillian]

The reason I hate the electoral college is that in 2000 Al Gore beat the worst president this country has ever had to experience by half a million votes but because of the electoral system and one state Jeb Bush and his concubine was able to use the right wing supreme court and steal it from Gore. Do you need anything else

Algore beat Barack Obama in 2000?

Damn, I did not know that....

retard.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Cammmpbell is JoeB, and we know what his pseudo-liberal libertarianism means: nothing.

 

[Meister]

and how many people do nevada's 6 represent versus how many peole new york's 29 represent?

THAT is where the disparity is.

Yes, there is desparity, Jillian, but it does mean that every state does get represented. Something that wouldn't happen otherwise. Fact.

the vote of a person in north dakota shouldn't be worth more than my vote. i'd suggest that the current system was contrived to protect landowners and has outlived any reasonable usefulness.

do you think that iowa and new hampshire should matter more in picking a party's nominee than new york?

You and I are way off on this one, Jillian. Do you really think that Wy. North Dakota, or New Hampshire should not be represented?
I don't see anything contrived by our FF's, I see that every state gets represented....every state.
Having said that, the populated states have the lions share of the power in this country.

 

[Uncensored2008]

And the Cons don't want power??
RATFLMAO!!!

Conservatives base government on a bottom up model.

The people retain the greatest power, and cede a small portion to cities and townships. Those cede a small portion of their derived authorities to counties and shires, which cede a small portion to the many states.

States then cede a tiny fraction to the federal government for national defense and a system of justice to decide disputes between states.

The above is what our Constitution says - it is the model of government formed in 1789. It is not the model of government that the modern left promotes.

You promote a top down government. The Federal government is the supreme lord, which grants some authority to the states. At any time, it may revoke that authority. It is the ruler of the people, directly and may impose law and edict on the subjects as it sees fit.

The government we formed in 1789 prohibited the federal government form having direct authority over any citizen. Authority was held by the localities and the states. Lincoln changed this dynamic, destroying the Union and building the Empire. From then we have gone down.

So no, the "cons" don't seek power. We seek a return to the model of government that the nation was established on, that of liberty.

That aside, tyranny of the minority is better?

Tyranny is the domain of the left, liberty is the domain of the right. You seek wise and benevolent rulers, who will distribute the wealth of the nation in a "fair" manner.

We seek liberty, where each is free to succeed or fail without a ruler deciding.

And if you are against Tyranny of the Majority, you must be against Prop 8. The gay men and women of California thank you for your support...

The federal rulers overriding what the people voted for. Exactly what I just illustrated.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Uncensored, that is not federalism. That is a wing nut interpretation of the Constitution and our historical narrative. You won't ever get your way.

 

[jillian]

You and I are way off on this one, Jillian. Do you really think that Wy. North Dakota, or New Hampshire should not be represented?
I don't see anything contrived by our FF's, I see that every state gets represented....every state.
Having said that, the populated states have the lions share of the power in this country.

i know. not the first time we disagree. won't be the last.

they are represented...one person/one vote. giving their people more power per vote is unjustifiable, imo.

shouldn't the more populous states have more power? after all, they represent more people.

it seems pretty straightforward.

 

[bripat9643]

Uncensored, that is not federalism. That is a wing nut interpretation of the Constitution and our historical narrative. You won't ever get your way.

The liberal conception of federalism is that the states are simply convenient administrative units created to carry out the instructions of the federal government. Despite the fact that all the historical evidence runs in the opposite direction, liberals cling to this inherently statist servile understanding of our government.

 

[Uncensored2008]

the vote of a person in north dakota shouldn't be worth more than my vote. i'd suggest that the current system was contrived to protect landowners and has outlived any reasonable usefulness.

do you think that iowa and new hampshire should matter more in picking a party's nominee than new york?

In fact, why should a peasant in North Dakota be permitted to vote at all?

Your argument is spurious and ignorant, the sophomoric rantings of a child. (No surprise.)

Your vote has as much weight as any other vote. What you don't grasp, because you have no knowledge of the law or even basic civics, is that elections are NOT national. You vote in New York, with all other citizens of New York. Your vote is worth the same as every other New Yorker. (No doubt you think the upstate folk should denied voting rights, but...)

The election held, is for New York. When you cross to cast a ballot for Obama in New Jersey, you are voting in a completely separate election. Each state holds an entirely autonomous election.

The vote in North Dakota has no more weight than yours does, it isn't related to your votes in New York and New Jersey in any way or shape.

 

[Dr Grump]

And the Cons don't want power??
RATFLMAO!!!

Conservatives base government on a bottom up model.

The people retain the greatest power, and cede a small portion to cities and townships. Those cede a small portion of their derived authorities to counties and shires, which cede a small portion to the many states.

States then cede a tiny fraction to the federal government for national defense and a system of justice to decide disputes between states.

The above is what our Constitution says - it is the model of government formed in 1789. It is not the model of government that the modern left promotes.

You promote a top down government. The Federal government is the supreme lord, which grants some authority to the states. At any time, it may revoke that authority. It is the ruler of the people, directly and may impose law and edict on the subjects as it sees fit.

The government we formed in 1789 prohibited the federal government form having direct authority over any citizen. Authority was held by the localities and the states. Lincoln changed this dynamic, destroying the Union and building the Empire. From then we have gone down.

So no, the "cons" don't seek power. We seek a return to the model of government that the nation was established on, that of liberty.

That aside, tyranny of the minority is better?

Tyranny is the domain of the left, liberty is the domain of the right. You seek wise and benevolent rulers, who will distribute the wealth of the nation in a "fair" manner.

We seek liberty, where each is free to succeed or fail without a ruler deciding.

And if you are against Tyranny of the Majority, you must be against Prop 8. The gay men and women of California thank you for your support...

The federal rulers overriding what the people voted for. Exactly what I just illustrated.

LOL with regard to the right wanting liberty. Sure they do...just ask gays and those pro choice people - lotta liberty happening there, right? Also, how about those who want the Christian sciptures on Federal buildings even though a large number of the country are not Christian. Is that your idea of liberty, too?

Your last sentence - so you like democracy? I could have sworn you liked the republican model. What the people voted for was two wolves sitting down with a sheep for a meal and the former deciding what is for dinner.

That is what really cracks me up about you neocons. "Free us from the tyranny of the majority". What's the alternative, tyranny of the minority? Laughable

 

[Uncensored2008]

The electoral college represents regional demography and geography as well as general population statistics as an aggregate. The uniqueness of Delaware or Nevada cannot be subsumed into California or Nevada because of the Electoral College. Like all good American politics, the electoral college demands balance, rejecting the elitism of the far right and the mass mob of the far left.

Shit Jake, that was a good post.

Are you feeling alright?

 

[Dr Grump]

the vote of a person in north dakota shouldn't be worth more than my vote. i'd suggest that the current system was contrived to protect landowners and has outlived any reasonable usefulness.

do you think that iowa and new hampshire should matter more in picking a party's nominee than new york?

In fact, why should a peasant in North Dakota be permitted to vote at all?

Your argument is spurious and ignorant, the sophomoric rantings of a child. (No surprise.)

Your vote has as much weight as any other vote. What you don't grasp, because you have no knowledge of the law or even basic civics, is that elections are NOT national. You vote in New York, with all other citizens of New York. Your vote is worth the same as every other New Yorker. (No doubt you think the upstate folk should denied voting rights, but...)

The election held, is for New York. When you cross to cast a ballot for Obama in New Jersey, you are voting in a completely separate election. Each state holds an entirely autonomous election.

The vote in North Dakota has no more weight than yours does, it isn't related to your votes in New York and New Jersey in any way or shape.

OK, I'm dealing with an idiot. Why didn't you just say so, so I wouldn't waste my time. You fit into one of two categories.
1) You're a troll in that you know what you say is bullshit and are just stirring the pot.
2) You are as dumb as a post

Either way, you're a bona fide idiot...

 

[Dr Grump]

The electoral college represents regional demography and geography as well as general population statistics as an aggregate. The uniqueness of Delaware or Nevada cannot be subsumed into California or Nevada because of the Electoral College. Like all good American politics, the electoral college demands balance, rejecting the elitism of the far right and the mass mob of the far left.

I disagree with that. On paper it gives more power to the little states as Jillian mentioned, whereas in reality, I reckon two or three states decide your presidential election these days....