Why Left Wingers HATE the Electoral College !!!

[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.

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.

The far leftists as are wrong on their French provincial theory as are the reactionaries to the extreme right on their elitist home rule theories. Both sides would rather have America fail than not get their way.

 

[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.

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....

Yep, just like CA, NY, FL and decide your election?

The Electoral College is not agonna be abolished because it represents fairly all Americans.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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?

The left is generally stupid.

When faced with a discussion of the structure of government, you respond with ad hominem and platitudes.

What I described is a structural divide between left and right. At the closest gap, the federalist verses anti-federalist ideals of the early nation. Obviously, the modern left is something even the most rabid federalist would have recoiled in horror at.

But the divide is between top down and bottom up government. Are the people the ultimate power in the nation? Or are the subjects to be ruled from afar?

You seek the latter, rulers in Washington who will detail your daily life and make sure that you get what you want.

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

I support liberty.

The federal government has no constitutional authority to dictate to the states the model of governance therein. It makes no difference what my feeling on Prop 8 are, the federal government usurping California law violates the social contract this nation is founded upon. It so violates not on law nor amendment, but on the dictate of the court under Marbury v. Madison.

It is what the famous anti-federalist and founder of the Republican party, Thomas Jefferson warned us of;

The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working underground to undermine our Constitution from a co-ordinate of a general and special government to a general supreme one alone. This will lay all things at their feet. … I will say, that “against this every man should raise his voice,” and, more, should uplift his arm … — Letter to Thomas Ritchie, Sept. 1820

You are but a leftist thug, drawn to the appeal of the hatemongers of ThinkProgress and other cesspools. You lack the wits to grasp the concepts at play, but the very structure of the nation is in play.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Uncensored is running around in the loony tune lands of strange extremist politics.

Go back and read the Constitution, out loud to yourself, please.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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...

Jillian is an ignorant child with an education derived from soap operas and legal dramas.

Yet even she is vastly beyond your level. Thus you turn to her as expert.

LOL

The lower the IQ, the further to the left....

 

[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....

Yep, just like CA, NY, FL and decide your election?

The Electoral College is not agonna be abolished because it represents fairly all Americans.

Well, it's not my election, it's yours...

That aside, I see two problems with the EC with regard to its lack of fairness:
1) In the real world, the proportion of votes given to those in Iowa supercedes those in NY or any other large state
2) No matter how many people voted for the guy who came in second their guy gets no votes, which is disinfranchising IMO...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Read our Constitution and you will find your worries are not based in reality, Dr. Grump.

And please understand that Uncensored is not even based in reality with his wacky extremist nonsense.

 

[Dr Grump]

The left is generally stupid.

When faced with a discussion of the structure of government, you respond with ad hominem and platitudes.

What I described is a structural divide between left and right. At the closest gap, the federalist verses anti-federalist ideals of the early nation. Obviously, the modern left is something even the most rabid federalist would have recoiled in horror at.

But the divide is between top down and bottom up government. Are the people the ultimate power in the nation? Or are the subjects to be ruled from afar?

You seek the latter, rulers in Washington who will detail your daily life and make sure that you get what you want.

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

I support liberty.

The federal government has no constitutional authority to dictate to the states the model of governance therein. It makes no difference what my feeling on Prop 8 are, the federal government usurping California law violates the social contract this nation is founded upon. It so violates not on law nor amendment, but on the dictate of the court under Marbury v. Madison.

It is what the famous anti-federalist and founder of the Republican party, Thomas Jefferson warned us of;

The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working underground to undermine our Constitution from a co-ordinate of a general and special government to a general supreme one alone. This will lay all things at their feet. … I will say, that “against this every man should raise his voice,” and, more, should uplift his arm … — Letter to Thomas Ritchie, Sept. 1820

You are but a leftist thug, drawn to the appeal of the hatemongers of ThinkProgress and other cesspools. You lack the wits to grasp the concepts at play, but the very structure of the nation is in play.

As one of our leftie politicians once said - he didn't care if people from his party left and joined the conservatives - it raised the IQ of both parties.

You're living proof that if you had to have an IQ test to vote, you'd be left out in the cold.

Only in neocon whackjob conservative land am I a leftie. To normal people, I'm a centrist. Unlike your silly political system, ours has at least seven parties in our Parliament repsenting a wide range of people.

The concepts of your system are easy - even sophmoric to grasp. What you get caught up in - and where your system fails - is the win. You guys will do anything for it, idealogy be damned.

And if the Fed left the states to their own devices you'd still have slavery and some women still wouldn't be able to vote.

I note that you didn't answer the question about the tyranny of the minority. I have yet to find a neocon whackjob who rants about the tyranny of the majority being able to answer it. Not because they can't, but because they don't like the answer..

 

[Dr Grump]

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...

Jillian is an ignorant child with an education derived from soap operas and legal dramas.

Yet even she is vastly beyond your level. Thus you turn to her as expert.

LOL

The lower the IQ, the further to the left....

Well, if you're the shining light of the right I wouldn't say it too loud. I've seen snails show more signs of intelligence....and they were on my dinner plate..

 

[Dr Grump]

Read our Constitution and you will find your worries are not based in reality, Dr. Grump.

And please understand that Uncensored is not even based in reality with his wacky extremist nonsense.

I have looked over parts of the Constitution. Interesting document, with flaws of course.

I know the reality, this is more an ideology debate.

I know. Sounds like he is one of Mani's many socks...

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

Each House district represents as close to 750,000 people as possible. Each House district counts for one electoral vote. Each state also gets two more electoral votes for each of it's US Senate seats. Therefore each bloc of that number of people is equally represented.
Where is the problem?

 

[Dr Grump]

As it stands 1 electorial college vote in Alaska represents 326,000 people of that state. 1 EC vote in NY represents 620000 people. Seems to me one person in Alaska are worth two in NY

 

[Uncensored2008]

As one of our leftie politicians once said - he didn't care if people from his party left and joined the conservatives - it raised the IQ of both parties.

Which one was that, sparky?

I notice that you're not one for citing your idiotic claims.

You're living proof that if you had to have an IQ test to vote, you'd be left out in the cold.

Yet I so easily defeat you in intellectual contests....

Only in neocon whackjob conservative land am I a leftie. To normal people, I'm a centrist. Unlike your silly political system, ours has at least seven parties in our Parliament repsenting a wide range of people.

Neocon...

ROFL

Morons toss about terms they don't grasp.

I'll clue you in stupid, just this once: what I posted are classical Libertarian views, of the Rothbard, Browne and Marrou schools of thought.

Don't strain yourself on attempting to find out who they are. You are of the Maddow and Stewart camp, a grasp of political philosophy is not to be had by you....

The concepts of your system are easy - even sophmoric to grasp. What you get caught up in - and where your system fails - is the win. You guys will do anything for it, idealogy be damned.

It's not my system, sparky. Men far smarter than I devised it. Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, Mason..

You've heard some of the names, but you have no grasp of their ideas. You turn to comedy central for your ideas...

And if the Fed left the states to their own devices you'd still have slavery and some women still wouldn't be able to vote.

The ramblings of the imbecile. We are a Republic. We are a constitutional Republic. Each state is bound by the constitution. A constitutional amendment is binding upon all states. Women's suffrage was legally passed and ratified, it is the law of the land.

I note that you didn't answer the question about the tyranny of the minority.

That's because you're a dolt.

I in fact DID answer it. I oppose tyranny in general.

I have yet to find a neocon whackjob who rants about the tyranny of the majority being able to answer it. Not because they can't, but because they don't like the answer..

Part of the reason for that is that you're far too stupid to know what a neocon is. You toss "neocon" as an epithet against any who hold other than the Maddow based views that you bleat.

You are a cretin.

 

[Uncensored2008]

As it stands 1 electorial college vote in Alaska represents 326,000 people of that state. 1 EC vote in NY represents 620000 people. Seems to me one person in Alaska are worth two in NY

That's because you have the equivalent intellect of a brine shrimp.

 

[Dr Grump]

As one of our leftie politicians once said - he didn't care if people from his party left and joined the conservatives - it raised the IQ of both parties.

Which one was that, sparky?

I notice that you're not one for citing your idiotic claims.

You're living proof that if you had to have an IQ test to vote, you'd be left out in the cold.

Yet I so easily defeat you in intellectual contests....



Neocon...

ROFL

Morons toss about terms they don't grasp.

I'll clue you in stupid, just this once: what I posted are classical Libertarian views, of the Rothbard, Browne and Marrou schools of thought.

Don't strain yourself on attempting to find out who they are. You are of the Maddow and Stewart camp, a grasp of political philosophy is not to be had by you....



It's not my system, sparky. Men far smarter than I devised it. Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, Mason..

You've heard some of the names, but you have no grasp of their ideas. You turn to comedy central for your ideas...



The ramblings of the imbecile. We are a Republic. We are a constitutional Republic. Each state is bound by the constitution. A constitutional amendment is binding upon all states. Women's suffrage was legally passed and ratified, it is the law of the land.

I note that you didn't answer the question about the tyranny of the minority.

That's because you're a dolt.

I in fact DID answer it. I oppose tyranny in general.

I have yet to find a neocon whackjob who rants about the tyranny of the majority being able to answer it. Not because they can't, but because they don't like the answer..

Part of the reason for that is that you're far too stupid to know what a neocon is. You toss "neocon" as an epithet against any who hold other than the Maddow based views that you bleat.

You are a cretin.

Blah, blah, blah ...cretin....blah blah blah dolt....blah, blah, blah

A lot of blather and not much substance. Why am I not surprised.

"Men far smarter than I devised it. Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, Mason.."

I would say most men are smarter than you - a lot of children are, too...

The word Communist has morphed into meaning something different these days.

You're one of these 'brilliant' people who think that the original meaning of the world neocon still stands, when it clearly doesn't. I'll say two words to you - Pearle, Wolfowitz - with regard to the meaning of neocon. And if you need me to explain it to you, you're even dumber than I thought - and believe me, you are thick as two short planks...

 

[Dr Grump]

As it stands 1 electorial college vote in Alaska represents 326,000 people of that state. 1 EC vote in NY represents 620000 people. Seems to me one person in Alaska are worth two in NY

That's because you have the equivalent intellect of a brine shrimp.

I note you can't prove me wrong, but then again I don't expect you to...

 

[JoeB131]

I can't speak for "left-wingers" or "Right-wingers" on this issue, but here's why I think it's a bad idea.

It distorts democracy. It allows a few swing states to have way too much say in the process.

NY, TX, IL, CA will all go one way or the other this next time. In fact, these states have been reliably red or blue since 1992. So instead of addressing the interests of Illinois, where a lot of people live, they will address the issues of Iowa because it's a swing state.

The reason why Republicans should be worried and seeking to end this system. because eventually, Texas is going to be a Blue state. The growth of the Hispanic population will flip it, probably by 2020. When that happens, there will be no way a Republican will be able to cobble together enough electors to win.

Obama starts this election with 217 electoral votes firmly in his camp. All he has to do is pick up 53 out of 140 up for grabs. That's it.

Why Republicans defend such an awful system is beyond me, but they've become idealogically wedded to it since 2000.

 

[JakeStarkey]

There is a rational answer for your point, Dr. Grump, but I guarantee the mentally limited Uncensored has no idea what the answer might be.

 

[thereisnospoon]

As it stands 1 electorial college vote in Alaska represents 326,000 people of that state. 1 EC vote in NY represents 620000 people. Seems to me one person in Alaska are worth two in NY

It is not a question of "worth". The issue is representation. Each state MUST have representation in the electoral process. Therefore each state that has one House Rep gets one electoral vote plus one each for US Senate seats.
I do not understand where the problem is.
Theoretically a presidential candidate could win a majority of the States but lose the electoral AND popular vote.
A straight popular vote would never work.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I can't speak for "left-wingers" or "Right-wingers" on this issue, but here's why I think it's a bad idea.

It distorts democracy. It allows a few swing states to have way too much say in the process.

NY, TX, IL, CA will all go one way or the other this next time. In fact, these states have been reliably red or blue since 1992. So instead of addressing the interests of Illinois, where a lot of people live, they will address the issues of Iowa because it's a swing state.

The reason why Republicans should be worried and seeking to end this system. because eventually, Texas is going to be a Blue state. The growth of the Hispanic population will flip it, probably by 2020. When that happens, there will be no way a Republican will be able to cobble together enough electors to win.

Obama starts this election with 217 electoral votes firmly in his camp. All he has to do is pick up 53 out of 140 up for grabs. That's it.

Why Republicans defend such an awful system is beyond me, but they've become idealogically wedded to it since 2000.

That is a blatantly racist point of view. You just threw out the well worn generalization that non-whites vote in lock step and always vote democrat.
You should ask you fellow libs why they oppose the EC.