Will the Electoral College screw up another election?
- Thread starter Lakhota
- Start date
Amazing, isn't it?
Missouri_Mike
Diamond Member
- Nov 5, 2012
- 29,623
- 23,481
- 2,405
LMAO! So after all that great work on the Bill of Rights and the Constitution they just got to the electing a president part and we’re like eh, **** it, close enough.The Electoral College is a dinosaur!
“It wasn’t like the Founders said, ‘Hey, what a great idea! This is the preferred way to select the chief executive, period,’” says Edwards. “They were tired, impatient, frustrated. They cobbled together this plan because they couldn’t agree on anything else.”
Why Was the Electoral College Created? | HISTORY
The Founding Fathers had to compromise when it came to devising a system to elect the president.www.history.com
Retard.
BluesLegend
Diamond Member
It PREVENTS politicians from ignoring half the country and funneling all the PORK to just a few states.It is a curse on democrats only. It prevents mob rule.
It prevents 2-3 states from determining the outcome of every election.
It gives a voice to every state and to all of us.
Only a communist would want to get rid of it. Don't hold your breath.
Look at the commie.
Missouri_Mike
Diamond Member
- Nov 5, 2012
- 29,623
- 23,481
- 2,405
Missouri_Mike
Diamond Member
- Nov 5, 2012
- 29,623
- 23,481
- 2,405
Missouri_Mike
Diamond Member
- Nov 5, 2012
- 29,623
- 23,481
- 2,405
He saw it in a dnc email once.
BluesLegend
Diamond Member
IF the shoe was on the other foot and the Republicans were able to muster more total votes then Dems would be screaming bloody murder if anyone suggested getting rid of the electoral college.
Missouri_Mike
Diamond Member
- Nov 5, 2012
- 29,623
- 23,481
- 2,405
It’s a pipe dream anyway. It would take a Constitutional amendment to get rid of it and that’s never going to happen.
James Madison grew up on a slave plantation. He whimpered about pure democracy. What a definition of a pure democracy. What a maroon!
Founders Online: The Federalist Number 10, [22 November] 1787
The Federalist Number 10, [22 November] 1787
From this view of the subject, it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society, consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert results from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is, that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized, and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure, and the efficacy which it must derive from the union.
The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic, are first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.
BluesLegend
Diamond Member
You assume Democrats obey the law and Constitution. Democrats pass unconstitutional laws, legislation and EO's all the time.
Missouri_Mike
Diamond Member
- Nov 5, 2012
- 29,623
- 23,481
- 2,405
True, that’s why they’re so upset about the SCOTUS.
No problem, I think it's very funny that the EC arrangement brings a presidential election down to seven states, ignoring the rest of the country while people wibble about representation.
It reinforces my preconceptions about slack jawed yokels.
The whole point is the EC does not deal in individuals.
candycorn
Diamond Member
Well, there used to be nine swing states. Now it may be 7. In 4 or 8 years with different candidates, maybe you have 11..maybe you have 5. There is some consolidation going on...true. I’d rather have the candidates showing up in medium sized cities than doing everything in the coastal mega cities only.
Not only is it geography, it’s a different worldview.
Good stuff.
I always knew that. I thought it was common knowledge.
Similar threads
