Why the Electoral College matters.

[SavannahMann]

The President is not the President of the American People. S/He is not the President of the assorted cities. S/He is the President of the United States. The Electoral College is the process in which the States choose a President. This system was started to limit the power of states which were densely populated. The smaller states really liked this as they had some small effect in the election instead of being dictated to by the larger states.

But let's consider the alternative. Do we change the title of the job? We can't really pretend the States picked the President if we go with popular vote now can we? Do we allow the states to decide who votes? In some states convicts who are out of prison and have completed parole and probation are granted their voting rights again. If we go to popular vote can we allow these people to vote, or deny them the right to vote based on a state law that affects the choice for election of the Peoples President?

How about Voter ID. You do realize that the requirement for a voter ID could well be put into the amendment. The way and times that a vote is cast could also be included in the amendment. If we are going to be considering one constitutional change, what makes you think we won't address them all or even just several. Before you start screaming that it is unconstitutional remember we are talking about a Constitutional Amendment which if it is ratified is automatically Constitutional. The Supreme Court can't do a thing about it.

If Republicans agree to go to the Popular vote but demand Federally Approved identification be checked by a voting official prior to casting a vote would you agree?

That is really what we are talking about, putting our entire Electoral standards up for negotiation.

All so we can further amend the Constitution to show that the one who wins is the People's President. But not the President of the United States. Because the States would be little more than districts.

 

[DOTR]

Why would you put S/He? There has never been a female president and in all likelihood never will be. Anyhow no I would never agree to messing around with the Electoral College. I do think the 17th Amendment needs to be repealed.

 

[Pogo]

The President is not the President of the American People. S/He is not the President of the assorted cities. S/He is the President of the United States. The Electoral College is the process in which the States choose a President. This system was started to limit the power of states which were densely populated. The smaller states really liked this as they had some small effect in the election instead of being dictated to by the larger states.

But let's consider the alternative. Do we change the title of the job? We can't really pretend the States picked the President if we go with popular vote now can we? Do we allow the states to decide who votes? In some states convicts who are out of prison and have completed parole and probation are granted their voting rights again. If we go to popular vote can we allow these people to vote, or deny them the right to vote based on a state law that affects the choice for election of the Peoples President?

How about Voter ID. You do realize that the requirement for a voter ID could well be put into the amendment. The way and times that a vote is cast could also be included in the amendment. If we are going to be considering one constitutional change, what makes you think we won't address them all or even just several. Before you start screaming that it is unconstitutional remember we are talking about a Constitutional Amendment which if it is ratified is automatically Constitutional. The Supreme Court can't do a thing about it.

If Republicans agree to go to the Popular vote but demand Federally Approved identification be checked by a voting official prior to casting a vote would you agree?

That is really what we are talking about, putting our entire Electoral standards up for negotiation.

All so we can further amend the Constitution to show that the one who wins is the People's President. But not the President of the United States. Because the States would be little more than districts.

Of course the Electrical College matters -- it's where Presidents come from. But you're not quite accurate about why it was set up as it was. Actually part of it was in the 18th century it wasn't likely that a candidate from Massachusetts was going to be familiar to citizens of, say, Georgia. Mass communication technology over two-plus centuries has rendered that concern moot. Interestingly a second consideration was that the Founders didn't want poorly educated and uninformed white men who could be easily snookered by a con artist making that call and wanted to ensure there was some way to counter that. Still apropos today.

But the other big issue was that the Southern slaveholding contingent worried that it would be outvoted by the Northern free states, so they whined until they got the Three-Fifths Compromise by which they were allowed to count their slaves (who of course had no vote) as three-fifths of a person for the purpose of counting their representation, and thus their Electoral Vote power, later called "Slave Power".

As a result of that the South --- specifically Virginia --- dominated the nascent period of this country resulting in six of our first seven Presidents being slaveholders from the South; and that would not have been the case but for the artificially-Southern-biased Electoral College.

It's arguable that that domination of slaveholder interest delayed this country's addressing of the elephant-in-the-room question to the point where we still had slavery after Britain, France, Spain and much of the Americas had abandoned it, until it came to a flash point in the Civil War.

Once that was settled of course, we had no more slaves, as the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed citizenship to ex-slaves and prohibited infringement of rights on any male, repeat male citizens. But again, the states (all of them this time, not just the South) could and did count a contingent of their population (women) for the purpose of counting representation (and again, Electoral Votes), yet those women still could not vote. Of course, any state could have enfranchised women if it wanted to and had twice as many popular votes but--- since they were already counted without a vote, no state had any incentive to do that.

Now of course we don't have slaves and we don't deny women. What we do is deny the votes of everybody in a state who didn't vote the way their state did; what we do is create artificial divisions of "red", "blue" and "battleground" states; what we do is make ourselves dependent on polls to see whether we're in one of many states where it doesn't matter if you vote at all because it's already decided. What we do is create divisions wherever we can. And we're good at that, because we get a lot of practice. Over two hundred years' worth.

There's already a thread on this where all of this has been thoroughly hashed out including all of the above and much more. I suggest you peruse it.

 

[Auld Phart]

and today, we have small states that worry that the votes in large cities will outweigh their wants and needs.

Which is why they will never get rid of the EV

 

[Zander]

The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing. I have no problems with the EC system.

 

[B. Kidd]

Democraps got snakebit by the Electoral College twice in 16 years; the only reason Libtards are taking issue with it. Barbara 'Birdbrain' Boxers bill ain't goin' nowhere. Even if it did, not enough states to ratify.
Pissin' in da' wind..............

 

[Pogo]

Democraps got snakebit by the Electoral College twice in 16 years; the only reason Libtards are taking issue with it. Barbara 'Birdbrain' Boxers bill ain't goin' nowhere. Even if it did, not enough states to ratify.
Pissin' in da' wind..............

Again for those from the shallow end of the gene puddle --- the Electrical College comes up every election, that is every four years. And it does that because that's the only time it's active or relevant.

Matter of fact the master EC thread I just linked above was literally named by Donald Rump, verbatim, from one of several tweets he sent................ wait for it..................... FOUR FUCKING YEARS AGO.

Oh and he also said if the PV winner doesn't get the office there should be, and again I quote, "Revolution in the streets".

 

[imawhosure]

and today, we have small states that worry that the votes in large cities will outweigh their wants and needs.

Which is why they will never get rid of the EV

The LEFT has a problem with the EC system; isn't that more than obvious!

They control NOTHING, nada, forget about it! For us to even discuss such nonsense, when EVERY President has been elected under this system, is just the left whining again.

Want to cut a deal with the left? OK, lets do it! An article 5 convention! We will change it to popular vote, and insure that the states have EVERYTHING that the constitution promised them, including repealing the asinine idea that the states do NOT control who their senators are.

If you tie it all together, the far left will NEVER allow YOU to put the constitution back in force, so it will allow the EC to remain...........which is kind of ridiculous, because them allowing the constitution to stand while they have a revolver to their heads politically, is ridiculous.

Make them PAY! Negotiate down. NEVER, EVER, allow them to make the Y axis upon which we negotiate upon!

 

[DOTR]

Dont negotiate with them at all! I am hoping the Republicans have gotten that message if nothing else. The Democrats are beaten...kick them some more now.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Uh no, the left has a problem with vote theft, voter suppression, gerrymandering and Pooting.

Email members of the Electoral College

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing. I have no problems with the EC system.

Yes you do.

The EC was designed to keep fascists like trump from stealing elections. Do a little research - this election was stolen and you know it.

And look what your vote got you - a whiny pussy grabber.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The Electoral College Was Set Up To Stop Fascist Tyrants Like Trump

OH NOES !!!!!

A liberal website!!!!!

RWNJ traitors - do not click on the above link. Instead, rush to a fake news site like Alex Jones.

 

[Hossfly]

Democraps got snakebit by the Electoral College twice in 16 years; the only reason Libtards are taking issue with it. Barbara 'Birdbrain' Boxers bill ain't goin' nowhere. Even if it did, not enough states to ratify.
Pissin' in da' wind..............

Again for those from the shallow end of the gene puddle --- the Electrical College comes up every election, that is every four years. And it does that because that's the only time it's active or relevant.

Matter of fact the master EC thread I just linked above was literally named by Donald Rump, verbatim, from one of several tweets he sent................ wait for it..................... FOUR FUCKING YEARS AGO.

Oh and he also said if the PV winner doesn't get the office there should be, and again I quote, "Revolution in the streets".

I didn't want to say it but Trump is the one responsible for the riots. Good to know.

 

[Pogo]

and today, we have small states that worry that the votes in large cities will outweigh their wants and needs.

Which is why they will never get rid of the EV

The LEFT has a problem with the EC system; isn't that more than obvious!

They control NOTHING, nada, forget about it! For us to even discuss such nonsense, when EVERY President has been elected under this system, is just the left whining again.

Want to cut a deal with the left? OK, lets do it! An article 5 convention! We will change it to popular vote, and insure that the states have EVERYTHING that the constitution promised them, including repealing the asinine idea that the states do NOT control who their senators are.

If you tie it all together, the far left will NEVER allow YOU to put the constitution back in force, so it will allow the EC to remain...........which is kind of ridiculous, because them allowing the constitution to stand while they have a revolver to their heads politically, is ridiculous.

Make them PAY! Negotiate down. NEVER, EVER, allow them to make the Y axis upon which we negotiate upon!

Always count the meds out before taking them.

 

[Auld Phart]

Uh no, the left has a problem with vote theft, voter suppression, gerrymandering and Pooting.

Email members of the Electoral College

 

[Auld Phart]

The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing. I have no problems with the EC system.

Yes you do.

The EC was designed to keep fascists like trump from stealing elections. Do a little research - this election was stolen and you know it.

And look what your vote got you - a whiny pussy grabber.

The EC was designed to keep fascists like trump from stealing elections

Backwards as usual.

 

[SavannahMann]

The President is not the President of the American People. S/He is not the President of the assorted cities. S/He is the President of the United States. The Electoral College is the process in which the States choose a President. This system was started to limit the power of states which were densely populated. The smaller states really liked this as they had some small effect in the election instead of being dictated to by the larger states.

But let's consider the alternative. Do we change the title of the job? We can't really pretend the States picked the President if we go with popular vote now can we? Do we allow the states to decide who votes? In some states convicts who are out of prison and have completed parole and probation are granted their voting rights again. If we go to popular vote can we allow these people to vote, or deny them the right to vote based on a state law that affects the choice for election of the Peoples President?

How about Voter ID. You do realize that the requirement for a voter ID could well be put into the amendment. The way and times that a vote is cast could also be included in the amendment. If we are going to be considering one constitutional change, what makes you think we won't address them all or even just several. Before you start screaming that it is unconstitutional remember we are talking about a Constitutional Amendment which if it is ratified is automatically Constitutional. The Supreme Court can't do a thing about it.

If Republicans agree to go to the Popular vote but demand Federally Approved identification be checked by a voting official prior to casting a vote would you agree?

That is really what we are talking about, putting our entire Electoral standards up for negotiation.

All so we can further amend the Constitution to show that the one who wins is the People's President. But not the President of the United States. Because the States would be little more than districts.

Of course the Electrical College matters -- it's where Presidents come from. But you're not quite accurate about why it was set up as it was. Actually part of it was in the 18th century it wasn't likely that a candidate from Massachusetts was going to be familiar to citizens of, say, Georgia. Mass communication technology over two-plus centuries has rendered that concern moot. Interestingly a second consideration was that the Founders didn't want poorly educated and uninformed white men who could be easily snookered by a con artist making that call and wanted to ensure there was some way to counter that. Still apropos today.

But the other big issue was that the Southern slaveholding contingent worried that it would be outvoted by the Northern free states, so they whined until they got the Three-Fifths Compromise by which they were allowed to count their slaves (who of course had no vote) as three-fifths of a person for the purpose of counting their representation, and thus their Electoral Vote power, later called "Slave Power".

As a result of that the South --- specifically Virginia --- dominated the nascent period of this country resulting in six of our first seven Presidents being slaveholders from the South; and that would not have been the case but for the artificially-Southern-biased Electoral College.

It's arguable that that domination of slaveholder interest delayed this country's addressing of the elephant-in-the-room question to the point where we still had slavery after Britain, France, Spain and much of the Americas had abandoned it, until it came to a flash point in the Civil War.

Once that was settled of course, we had no more slaves, as the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed citizenship to ex-slaves and prohibited infringement of rights on any male, repeat male citizens. But again, the states (all of them this time, not just the South) could and did count a contingent of their population (women) for the purpose of counting representation (and again, Electoral Votes), yet those women still could not vote. Of course, any state could have enfranchised women if it wanted to and had twice as many popular votes but--- since they were already counted without a vote, no state had any incentive to do that.

Now of course we don't have slaves and we don't deny women. What we do is deny the votes of everybody in a state who didn't vote the way their state did; what we do is create artificial divisions of "red", "blue" and "battleground" states; what we do is make ourselves dependent on polls to see whether we're in one of many states where it doesn't matter if you vote at all because it's already decided. What we do is create divisions wherever we can. And we're good at that, because we get a lot of practice. Over two hundred years' worth.

There's already a thread on this where all of this has been thoroughly hashed out including all of the above and much more. I suggest you peruse it.

First thanks for the link. Second, I'm surprised that the nonsense about the three fifths compromise continues. So I'll take a moment to educate you a bit. The Compromise was proposed by two men. James Wilson of Pennsylvania. James Wilson - Wikipedia And Roger Sherman of Connecticut. Roger Sherman - Wikipedia

The Southern States wanted all people, slave or free, counted the same. This would give them greater power in the House of Representatives. The Northern States wanted the Slaves counted not at all. This of course, would give them greater power in the same House.

The Compromise which has been blamed on the South ever since by revisionist historians who want to blame the South for only counting blacks as 3/5th of a person is in fact the fault of the North who didn't want the blacks counted at all.

Irregardless of who you blame, the Racists in the North, or the Racists in the South, the truth is that the South didn't propose the 3/5th Compromise, the North did.

 

[Dreadnaught1968]

The EC was designed to keep fascists like trump from stealing elections. Do a little research - this election was stolen and you know it.

Prove it.

 

[Pogo]

The President is not the President of the American People. S/He is not the President of the assorted cities. S/He is the President of the United States. The Electoral College is the process in which the States choose a President. This system was started to limit the power of states which were densely populated. The smaller states really liked this as they had some small effect in the election instead of being dictated to by the larger states.

But let's consider the alternative. Do we change the title of the job? We can't really pretend the States picked the President if we go with popular vote now can we? Do we allow the states to decide who votes? In some states convicts who are out of prison and have completed parole and probation are granted their voting rights again. If we go to popular vote can we allow these people to vote, or deny them the right to vote based on a state law that affects the choice for election of the Peoples President?

How about Voter ID. You do realize that the requirement for a voter ID could well be put into the amendment. The way and times that a vote is cast could also be included in the amendment. If we are going to be considering one constitutional change, what makes you think we won't address them all or even just several. Before you start screaming that it is unconstitutional remember we are talking about a Constitutional Amendment which if it is ratified is automatically Constitutional. The Supreme Court can't do a thing about it.

If Republicans agree to go to the Popular vote but demand Federally Approved identification be checked by a voting official prior to casting a vote would you agree?

That is really what we are talking about, putting our entire Electoral standards up for negotiation.

All so we can further amend the Constitution to show that the one who wins is the People's President. But not the President of the United States. Because the States would be little more than districts.

Of course the Electrical College matters -- it's where Presidents come from. But you're not quite accurate about why it was set up as it was. Actually part of it was in the 18th century it wasn't likely that a candidate from Massachusetts was going to be familiar to citizens of, say, Georgia. Mass communication technology over two-plus centuries has rendered that concern moot. Interestingly a second consideration was that the Founders didn't want poorly educated and uninformed white men who could be easily snookered by a con artist making that call and wanted to ensure there was some way to counter that. Still apropos today.

But the other big issue was that the Southern slaveholding contingent worried that it would be outvoted by the Northern free states, so they whined until they got the Three-Fifths Compromise by which they were allowed to count their slaves (who of course had no vote) as three-fifths of a person for the purpose of counting their representation, and thus their Electoral Vote power, later called "Slave Power".

As a result of that the South --- specifically Virginia --- dominated the nascent period of this country resulting in six of our first seven Presidents being slaveholders from the South; and that would not have been the case but for the artificially-Southern-biased Electoral College.

It's arguable that that domination of slaveholder interest delayed this country's addressing of the elephant-in-the-room question to the point where we still had slavery after Britain, France, Spain and much of the Americas had abandoned it, until it came to a flash point in the Civil War.

Once that was settled of course, we had no more slaves, as the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed citizenship to ex-slaves and prohibited infringement of rights on any male, repeat male citizens. But again, the states (all of them this time, not just the South) could and did count a contingent of their population (women) for the purpose of counting representation (and again, Electoral Votes), yet those women still could not vote. Of course, any state could have enfranchised women if it wanted to and had twice as many popular votes but--- since they were already counted without a vote, no state had any incentive to do that.

Now of course we don't have slaves and we don't deny women. What we do is deny the votes of everybody in a state who didn't vote the way their state did; what we do is create artificial divisions of "red", "blue" and "battleground" states; what we do is make ourselves dependent on polls to see whether we're in one of many states where it doesn't matter if you vote at all because it's already decided. What we do is create divisions wherever we can. And we're good at that, because we get a lot of practice. Over two hundred years' worth.

There's already a thread on this where all of this has been thoroughly hashed out including all of the above and much more. I suggest you peruse it.

First thanks for the link. Second, I'm surprised that the nonsense about the three fifths compromise continues. So I'll take a moment to educate you a bit. The Compromise was proposed by two men. James Wilson of Pennsylvania. James Wilson - Wikipedia And Roger Sherman of Connecticut. Roger Sherman - Wikipedia

The Southern States wanted all people, slave or free, counted the same. This would give them greater power in the House of Representatives. The Northern States wanted the Slaves counted not at all. This of course, would give them greater power in the same House.

The Compromise which has been blamed on the South ever since by revisionist historians who want to blame the South for only counting blacks as 3/5th of a person is in fact the fault of the North who didn't want the blacks counted at all.

Irregardless of who you blame, the Racists in the North, or the Racists in the South, the truth is that the South didn't propose the 3/5th Compromise, the North did.

Doesn't matter a whit who "proposed" it. The point remains, counting ANY number of slaves is counting a population that had no voice. I don't care if the Easter Bunny "proposed" it.

Again, just as women were counted without having a voice, which means states taking all of the benefit while allocating zero of their wages.

And today everybody in, say California that votes for a Republican POTUS candy, and everybody in, say, Texas that votes for a Democrat ---- has no voice either. There's no reason for any of them to bother going to the polls, at least not for President. It's completely out of their hands. That's another effect of the EC --- it discourages voting at least in locked states. Of course it can certainly be argued that that's what it's designed to do.

 

[imawhosure]

The President is not the President of the American People. S/He is not the President of the assorted cities. S/He is the President of the United States. The Electoral College is the process in which the States choose a President. This system was started to limit the power of states which were densely populated. The smaller states really liked this as they had some small effect in the election instead of being dictated to by the larger states.

But let's consider the alternative. Do we change the title of the job? We can't really pretend the States picked the President if we go with popular vote now can we? Do we allow the states to decide who votes? In some states convicts who are out of prison and have completed parole and probation are granted their voting rights again. If we go to popular vote can we allow these people to vote, or deny them the right to vote based on a state law that affects the choice for election of the Peoples President?

How about Voter ID. You do realize that the requirement for a voter ID could well be put into the amendment. The way and times that a vote is cast could also be included in the amendment. If we are going to be considering one constitutional change, what makes you think we won't address them all or even just several. Before you start screaming that it is unconstitutional remember we are talking about a Constitutional Amendment which if it is ratified is automatically Constitutional. The Supreme Court can't do a thing about it.

If Republicans agree to go to the Popular vote but demand Federally Approved identification be checked by a voting official prior to casting a vote would you agree?

That is really what we are talking about, putting our entire Electoral standards up for negotiation.

All so we can further amend the Constitution to show that the one who wins is the People's President. But not the President of the United States. Because the States would be little more than districts.

Read the whole thread, forget about what the left says, lol.

Here is the deal---------->make an offer we can not refuse, or shut up. You are out of power, and won't see the light of day more than likely, until 2024!