The Purpose of the Electoral College

[Boss]

Using a PV system would by definition eliminate the bullshit concepts of "red states" and "blue states". Consequently ALL those states that are already locked by the EC system (and only by that) are ignored by candidates, because they either have the state's EVs locked up already (which makes campaigning here a waste of time), or they have no shot at them (which makes campaigning there a waste of time).

Bullshit! Every election there are swing states. They constantly change. Pennsylvania hasn't gone Republican since 1984. Ronald Reagan won California in a landslide.

 

[Boss]

I DON"T think "California determines every election", and there's no way to make that argument either.

Well no, they don't NOW because we have an Electoral College.

Why does it feel like I'm arguing with a bunch of 7-year-olds?

 

[Pogo]

Using a PV system would by definition eliminate the bullshit concepts of "red states" and "blue states". Consequently ALL those states that are already locked by the EC system (and only by that) are ignored by candidates, because they either have the state's EVs locked up already (which makes campaigning here a waste of time), or they have no shot at them (which makes campaigning there a waste of time).

Bullshit! Every election there are swing states. They constantly change. Pennsylvania hasn't gone Republican since 1984. Ronald Reagan won California in a landslide.

No, not "bullshit" at all. The entire concepts of "red state", "blue state" and "swing state" are completely contrived by the Electoral College system. Without that process ------- there's no such thing. NONE of those terms exist. There are simply states. Not "Blue" states or "Red" states or "purple" states, just ---- united states.


And some of the people in that state vote this way and other people in that state vote that way. There's no such thing as any state anywhere where EVERYBODY votes one way. ALL of that is a bullshit artificial dividing line that the Electoral College creates to split up and polarize this country.

 

[Boss]

So IF you convert the EC process to a simple microcosm of what that state's popular vote was --- then you have the same end result as a direct popular vote anyway...

No you wouldn't because the EC is not divided proportionally.

 

[Pogo]

I DON"T think "California determines every election", and there's no way to make that argument either.

Well no, they don't NOW because we have an Electoral College.

Why does it feel like I'm arguing with a bunch of 7-year-olds?

And they wouldn't without one either.

Go ahead --- try to prove me wrong instead of continuing to bleat the same thing over and over without justifying it.

 

[Boss]

No, not "bullshit" at all. The entire concepts of "red state", "blue state" and "swing state" are completely contrived by the Electoral College system. Without that process ------- there's no such thing. There are simply states. And some of the people in that state vote this way and other people in that state vote that way. There's no such thing as any state anywhere where EVERYBODY votes one way. ALL of that is a bullshit artificial dividing line that the Electoral College creates to split up and polarize this country.

No, there would be no states because states wouldn't matter. Only large cities would matter. The candidate who promised the most goodies to the big city folks would win every election by a landslide. Rural folks would have ZERO political influence.

Like I asked before and you didn't answer... should we disband the Senate?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Complete morons somehow diddle themselves into believing that 38 states will vote to disenfranchise themselves to make cities happy.

No.

The EC is here to stay.

 

[edthecynic]

Hey retard, we're a REPUBLIC. Not a democracy.

Do you mean like the R in USSR???

 

[Pogo]

No, not "bullshit" at all. The entire concepts of "red state", "blue state" and "swing state" are completely contrived by the Electoral College system. Without that process ------- there's no such thing. There are simply states. And some of the people in that state vote this way and other people in that state vote that way. There's no such thing as any state anywhere where EVERYBODY votes one way. ALL of that is a bullshit artificial dividing line that the Electoral College creates to split up and polarize this country.

No, there would be no states because states wouldn't matter. Only large cities would matter. The candidate who promised the most goodies to the big city folks would win every election by a landslide. Rural folks would have ZERO political influence.

Like I asked before and you didn't answer... should we disband the Senate?

Nobody asked me that, but no.

And this just in ---- even if "only large cities would matter" (which is not the case) guess what ---- there are large cities in both red and blue states. CITIES don't have electoral votes; STATES do. So the point is they would fan out to STATES that they currently ignore ----- whether that involved large cities or not.

This further just in --- we have mass electronic communication now. It even reaches into the hinterlands. Consequently a candy visiting Tilden Nebraska is going to reap some benefits not just in that Tilden Nebraska but in a lot of Tilden Nebraskas.

 

[Boss]

And they wouldn't without one either.

Go ahead --- try to prove me wrong instead of bleating the same thing over and over without justifying it.

I've already made my point. California is nearly 40 million people. That's nearly 9% of the US population. Kansas population is 3 million, so is Iowa. Oklahoma is 4 million. Alabama is 5 million. North Dakota is less than a million. Wyoming is just over a half a million. California and New York would simply determine every election if we went by popular vote.

 

[Boss]

Nobody asked me that, but no.

Why not? It's the SAME ARGUMENT!

 

[ptbw forever]

The Electorl College was created because the Framers were afraid of the "tyranny of the majority". As Alexander Hamilton writes in “The Federalist Papers,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications."

Well, Trump is the exact person that Hamilton was speaking of. It is ironic that he "won" the Electoral College and lost the popular vote "bigly". The Framers were afraid of such a person coming to power via the popular vote, but that is no reason the Electoral College can't perform the function it was created for. There are only minor financial penalties in some states for Electors who don't vote the way their states voted. In the other states Electors are unrestricted.

The Elector College should perform the duty it was created for as a check on an unrestrained demagogue and deny this dangerously conflicted man the office he will likely destroy.
I'm not saying they should elect Clinton, or even a Democrat, but most Americans who voted did not want Trump and he has already shown himself unfit for the office.

Otherwise the Electoral College should be abolished, if the Electors can't now do what they were empowered to do, then what is their purpose?

I disagree. HILLARY was who Hamilton was talking about. The electoral system is designed for the benefit of the states, so that smaller states have somewhat equal representation. If you didn't have the EC, politicians would simply focus on the needs and desires of city-dwellers because that's where the votes are. Rural people would simply be ignored because they wouldn't have the votes to do anything.

It's funny how much of a hypocritical position liberals have to take on this... just months ago, all we heard was how Trump couldn't win because Hillary had this impenetrable "Blue Wall" in the EC. If the scenario were reversed and Trump won the popular vote but Hillary won the most electors, you would have no problem whatsoever with the EC. It's ONLY because your bitch didn't win that you are complaining.

If we're going to dismantle the EC, why not dismantle the Senate? It's the same thing, right? Why should Wyoming get two senators like California?

Here's the thing you need to remember... We don't live in a Nation State. We are a nation of STATES. Each State is represented in our government. The fact that one state has millions and millions more people in it, doesn't negate the importance of all the states that don't have millions and millions.

Now... If we want to make a change, I would be okay with altering the EC so that states can split their EC votes between candidates. In other words, California's 55 electors would be divided between Trump and Hillary based on percentage of the popular vote. And... IF we make a change like this, we need to also mandate that no election results can be announced until all polls are closed nationwide, including Alaska and Hawaii.

As for this call for Electors to deny Trump the presidency... you've got to be out of your fucking mind. It's not going to happen, but even if it did, you'd start a fucking Civil War. Do you REALLY want to do that?

These fucking retards ultimately will dismantle states entirely if they get their way.

 

[ptbw forever]

And they wouldn't without one either.

Go ahead --- try to prove me wrong instead of bleating the same thing over and over without justifying it.

I've already made my point. California is nearly 40 million people. That's nearly 9% of the US population. Kansas population is 3 million, so is Iowa. Oklahoma is 4 million. Alabama is 5 million. North Dakota is less than a million. Wyoming is just over a half a million. California and New York would simply determine every election if we went by popular vote.

Democrats can't do math.

 

[Pogo]

Nobody asked me that, but no.

Why not? It's the SAME ARGUMENT!

No it isn't the same argument at all. Senators don't throw my vote into the trash.

 

[Pogo]

And they wouldn't without one either.

Go ahead --- try to prove me wrong instead of bleating the same thing over and over without justifying it.

I've already made my point. California is nearly 40 million people. That's nearly 9% of the US population. Kansas population is 3 million, so is Iowa. Oklahoma is 4 million. Alabama is 5 million. North Dakota is less than a million. Wyoming is just over a half a million. California and New York would simply determine every election if we went by popular vote.

Do you actually seriously believe that everybody in California ---- or any of those states ---- votes the same way?



Do you even understand simple math?

There are something like seven million voters in California and New York who voted for Rump. ALL of those seven million plus votes were discarded by the EC process. Every last one. Down the drain.

And if the EC weren't standing in the way of voter participation by discouraging those votes, he'd have even more.

 

[Boss]

Nobody asked me that, but no.

Why not? It's the SAME ARGUMENT!

No it isn't the same argument at all. Senators don't throw my vote into the trash.

It;'s exactly the same argument. You get only 2 senators for your state regardless of how many people live in it. So you get 2 senators for 40 million people in California and 2 senators for 500k people in Wyoming. That is exactly the imbalance you're protesting with the EC. If the EC is unfair, so is the Senate. In fact, it's even MORE unfair. California at least gets 55 electoral votes to Wyoming's 3. For that matter, the House of Representatives is equally unfair because California gets 53 representatives to Wyoming's one but they have 80x more population.

 

[Boss]

And they wouldn't without one either.

Go ahead --- try to prove me wrong instead of bleating the same thing over and over without justifying it.

I've already made my point. California is nearly 40 million people. That's nearly 9% of the US population. Kansas population is 3 million, so is Iowa. Oklahoma is 4 million. Alabama is 5 million. North Dakota is less than a million. Wyoming is just over a half a million. California and New York would simply determine every election if we went by popular vote.

Do you actually seriously believe that everybody in California ---- or any of those states ---- votes the same way?



Do you even understand simple math?

There are something like seven million voters in California and New York who voted for Rump. ALL of those seven million plus votes were discarded by the EC process. Every last one. Down the drain.

And if the EC weren't standing in the way of voter participation by discouraging those votes, he'd have even more.

Yep. Fully understand math. Like I just said... California is underrepresented in Congress. So you think we need to disband the Senate and give California 30 more representatives in the house to make things fair. But you see, the problem is... we don't live in a Nation State. We live in the United States. We have 51 states. Each state is afforded a certain number of representatives based on their population and two senators. This is so that each state has skin in the game and their voters have legitimacy in the political processes of the nation.

But you don't give a shit about states that aren't liberal. You would rather our nation operate by the wishes and wants of the highly-populated blue states and fuck the red states in flyover country because they don't support your liberal agenda. This is all about you wanting to hoard all the political power.

Now... Here is what you're going to have to do.... Amend the Constitution! You'll need to convince at least 38 states to give up their political power to your new Nation State government. Good fucking luck to you!

 

[Pogo]

Yep. Fully understand math. Like I just said... California is underrepresented in Congress. So you think we need to disband the Senate and give California 30 more representatives in the house to make things fair.

Actually that's another question you never asked but no, I don't think California is underrepresented any more than most states. 738, 531 people per Rep puts it right in the middle of the pack (27th to be exact). Now Montana, there's a state that's underrepresented, with over a million. Delaware is close behind. Those would be the next two states to deserve additional seats if anyone does.

What a weird idea to attribute to somebody you never even put the question to. But I understand it's not the last....

But you don't give a shit about states that aren't liberal.

You *STILL* don't get it. SMH.
States aren't "liberal" or "conservative". PEOPLE are. And while we're at it we should reiterate for you slow thinkers that states are also not "red" or "blue". Those are artificial bullshit divisions created solely by the Electrical College ---- without which process those terms simply would not exist.

You gotta get over this binary division thing. It's destructive.

You would rather our nation operate by the wishes and wants of the highly-populated blue states and fuck the red states in flyover country because they don't support your liberal agenda. This is all about you wanting to hoard all the political power.

A thought fascist, declaring what other people think. Amusing, if not original.

Now... Here is what you're going to have to do.... Amend the Constitution! You'll need to convince at least 38 states to give up their political power to your new Nation State government. Good fucking luck to you!

I know how the Amendment process works kid. As I've pointed out throughout this thread, that's not the only way to amend the process.

To reiterate that --- there's no Constitutional reason the states need to vote on a "winner take all" basis. That was only brought in when the slaveholding South saw a guy from Massachusetts get in the way of their unbroken string of slaveholder Presidents. Two states already exercise a variant of that "winner take all" bullshit, voting by Congressional district, which carries its own problems.

Actually all the Constitution calls for is for the states to designate however many electors they're entitled to, have them vote, and transmit those votes to Congress. That's it. But exacty HOW each state comes up with those electors, and how they're instructed to vote, is entirely up to each state. They don't even have to hold an election at all. They can split if they want, they can even vote for a non-candidate.

 

[Boss]

I know how the Amendment process works kid. As I've pointed out throughout this thread, that's not the only way to amend the process.

Yes, that's the only way to amend the Constitution... Sorry kid.

THE CONSTITUTION

Article II

Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

 

[Pogo]

I know how the Amendment process works kid. As I've pointed out throughout this thread, that's not the only way to amend the process.

Yes, that's the only way to amend the Constitution... Sorry kid.

THE CONSTITUTION

Article II

Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Another candidate for Remedial Reading.

What I posted was "that's not the only way to amend the process". Not the Constitution --- the process.

It's still sitting there in the original wording. It was even italicized so the reader would not miss the point. Yet --- you found a way.