The Path to Achieve it..... is an undemocratic exercise in authoritarianism.
Because limiting the decision of changing the constitution to - 538 members of congress - is contrary to the democratic argument for a popular vote. - 1 person acting as president - is contrary to the democratic argument for a popular vote. - 9 justices on the court - is contrary to the democratic argument for a popular vote.
So, your only pathway to your vision of democracy requires the most dictatorial method to get there, Government Force. Which ironically give them the authority and power to suppress popular opinion in the process.
Effectively, those who move use toward a pure democracy run headlong into a tyranny of their creation.
I am not convinced that you have the "best argument" here against scrapping the electoral college.
The Constitution of the United States includes the ways that are available for "us" to enact Constitutional Amendments.
The Founding Fathers were not trying to stop the calendar from moving forwards beyond June 21, 1788, when New Hampshire made the Constitution the "law of the land" by becoming the ninth state to ratify.
Other states would ratify after New Hamphire, but New Hampshire was the state that "sealed the deal".
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-24-2016).]
The Constitution of the United States includes the ways that are available for "us" to enact Constitutional Amendments.
I guess the real question is in the definition of "us". since it will not be the people executing the amendment process. also, the Constitution leaves it in the hands of the elected representatives not the people directly.
The argument is that for it to be changed (scrapped) would require usage of the most undemocratic process available. Undemocratic because once they are in office, they do not need permission from us to amend the Constitution.
They could remove public participation from the electoral process altogether....
How would you like it , if , the president of the united states were chosen by the party holding a majority governorships.
I hope that some of the other Pennock's members will weigh in here, because I think I am on uncertain ground.
I believe that the electoral system could be changed to bring it more in line with the popular vote, without enacting a Constitutional Amendment, if all the state legislatures were to take it upon themselves and arrive at a common agreement about the electoral college system and whether and how the electors are bound to vote for a particular Presidential candidate.
I am thinking district by district. There's an elector for every Congressional district within each state. Let each elector be bound to the candidate who wins the popular vote within the one Congressional district that each elector represents.
Would that be a good change to the system?
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-24-2016).]
I don't like the idea that a state awards it's EC votes based on the winner of the national popular vote. That completely undercuts the intention of the EC.
I don't like the idea that a state awards it's EC votes based on the winner of the national popular vote. That completely undercuts the intention of the EC.
I'm inclined to agree but will need to consider the ramifications of such a change. But, the one thing that I do believe is faithless electors should not be allowed, regardless of who wins that district, county, city or state, the elector must be locked in or a change must be made of electors. When a person agrees to become an elector, that person agrees to go with the voter's choice regardless of their own agenda.
------------------ Ron
Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun....
You can't do much about the length of your life, so focus on the width and depth. When Life throws you a curve, lean into it and roll that throttle!!
If, you wish to piss off a Conservative, lie to him. If, you wish to piss off a Liberal, tell them the truth.
The original function of the Electoral College was to decide among themselves who would be elected President. The general public elected the electors, and trusted them to make the right decision. The whole purpose of the Electoral College was to have politically savvy people deciding who the next President would be, rather than the general public. Because the founding fathers understood that the general public, for the most part, is out of touch with the inner workings of the federal government.
This idea of the general public telling the electors who to vote for is something that came along later. The irony here is that we now have LESS control over the election process, because not only do we (the general public) not get to choose our electors, but those electors still are not required to follow our direction. Basically, the two major political parties have hijacked the Presidential election process. THEY choose the electors now. And THEY choose the candidates. We watch the popular vote tally on the TV, and foolishly think it means something, but it doesn't. That's just a dog and pony show... a diversion.
So my opinion is that we should reset the Electoral College back to its original function, rather than bastardizing it even further.
When you look at a map of who won which county, it is apparent that southern California and NYC were strong Hillary supporters, and eliminating the EC, those areas would have determined who "won". Hillary took for granted several states and did not bother to even campaign in those states. She lost.
Without the EC, candidates would just campaign in those population centers and ignore the rest of the country. The US has a very diverse population and the needs or desires of those in LA is much different than those in Wyoming or Utah.
Just think if the EC is eliminated and the same map of election were to be switched by party, the democrats would howl in that they lost because of how the votes are counted.
Face it the democrats are poor losers and will try to change the rules until that they win.
For those that may be too upset about their unexpected and massive loss to get the big picture.
There is/was NO popular vote contest other than in their own weak minds that desperately NEED to believe. This was a contest with set rules to win, Trump won the contest. Nobody was competing in this race for the popular vote........ well because that is not the game and means absolutely and quite literally nothing.
A popular vote would be a different contest and players would have exercised different strategies. Not to mention people that don't vote in Cali and other western states because it very very rarely makes any difference.
Get over it, lib's lost and lost in the most embarrassing way possible. Out spent, had the FULL support of big media, had an incumbent pres campaigning for them, cheated in the debates, lied and paid people to make false claims. AND STILL LOST!!!
Let me offer you my sympathies for your butt hurt. The Electoral College was designed to not allow a popular vote. It has worked well for 240 years.
Take away the popular vote of Kalifornia and New York City. Trump won the popular vote. We disposed of "king rule" in 1776.
My "butt hurt" exists entirely in your imagination, my good sir.
My post was offered as thoughtful discussion, for the sake of thoughtful discussion--and nothing more.
I am sure there are many sore losers, all across the country, who are talking about the electoral college system and butt-hurting about it at the same time.
Not one of them is posting messages online in this forum under the username of "rinselberg".
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-24-2016).]
All players in the election knew the rules before going in.
I find it funny that every time the Democrats lose, they demand the rules be changed so they can win next time...
I don't want California and New York deciding how I live my life. And that's exactly what would happen.
Brad
You mean like when Romney lost to Obama, and Trump thought Romney won the popular vote because California hadn't been counted yet? Even calling for a revolution.
But now that he "won" the 2016 election, he thinks the Electoral College is genius, despite his call to disband it at Romney's loss. Or do you mean changing the rules because they lost, like how the GOP in North Carolina did by covertly and quickly enacting legislation to strip the incoming Governor who is a Democrat, of any real power? Or constantly enacting laws to disenfranchise voters and re-district so that certain classes of voters end up having their vote not count as much?
And no, California and New York would not dictate how you live your life, in the exact same way that they don't today. Though it's amusing you think the rural states should apparently decide how people in California and New York should instead live their lives. You are free to lead your personal life in any way you want. However, when choices you make have an effect on others, then it is no longer your personal life. Any citizen's rights end, where another's begin.
I say you just bring in as many illegals as you can, get them to vote for your socialism by promising free crap to them and see how long until you have another Civil War on your hands.
It'll all work out as long as you can get them pesky rules changed.
It's gonna work out for President Obama's Executive Order push!
The change that I would like to see is to have electors apportioned according to the number of citizens, rather than the number of residents.
States like California and New York have a relatively high percentage of non-citizen residents and, in my opinion, carry more weight than they should. A vote in California is worth more than a vote in Montana because 13% of the California electoral vote represents those who otherwise are not entitled to vote.
The presidency should be decided by the citizens of the U.S.A.
The change that I would like to see is to have electors apportioned according to the number of citizens, rather than the number of residents.
States like California and New York have a relatively high percentage of non-citizen residents and, in my opinion, carry more weight than they should. A vote in California is worth more than a vote in Montana because 13% of the California electoral vote represents those who otherwise are not entitled to vote.
The presidency should be decided by the citizens of the U.S.A.
Something that gives illegals less power? Never going to happen if the Left has anything to say.
Not that I would agree with any scheme for scrapping the electoral college, this one has peaked my interest as a conversation piece.
Each state gets 100 electors that represent the "whole" population of their start state regardless of size.
Those 100 electors represent a 1% each for a total of 100%. Is reduced buy the percentage of their state that did not vote. So, if only 40% of the state turned out to vote, your state gets 40% of their electoral vote counted and 60% invalidate themselves by no show.
The idea is that regardless of the local tactics and fraud used, the effect would only affect the state it occurs in.
The electors would still vote, but their vote only counts for 1% of that states percentage.
Instead of having electoral votes getting tallied, each candidate's percentage is compared and the greater percentage captures the win.
this mathematically makes the electoral college proportional without forcing states to split their electoral votes.
As I said , I would not support a change, just a conversation on the thought.
[This message has been edited by jmclemore (edited 12-24-2016).]
Donald Trump calls for a Revolution in 2012, then uses the system against itself in 2016 to create a revolution.... Suddenly the Left cares about the things that Trump cares about. The Left (That's you Dobey) doesn't even see the irony here. Thanks for showing me once again that Mr. Trump is a man of his word and continues to do the things he promises to do. Get ready to learn a lot of little lessons over the next few years.
Donald Trump calls for a Revolution in 2012, then uses the system against itself in 2016 to create a revolution.... Suddenly the Left cares about the things that Trump cares about. The Left (That's you Dobey) doesn't even see the irony here. Thanks for showing me once again that Mr. Trump is a man of his word and continues to do the things he promises to do. Get ready to learn a lot of little lessons over the next few years.
No, I am not "The Left." I get that you don't agree with me, but that doesn't place me magically somewhere in a political spectrum.
If you think Trump is a man of his word, you are indeed going to learn a lot of little lessons, very soon.
Another best argument for keeping the electoral college
A pure majority vote strains out diversity of political representation.
Without the electoral college, never mind the argument that California and NY would perpetually elect the president, worse is the fact that it would produce a Commander and Chief inclined to pander to only the prevailing ideology.
It would eliminate the diversity of representation valued by those who would scrap the electoral college. (if they actually value diversity at all).
Electoral College produces a president who must respect and represent the people in the most diverse manner possible. (diverse representation)
Popular Vote produces a president who is aware of the majority who elected him, will only reward him with reelection if he narrows his representation to their issues. (selective representation)
Originally posted by dobey: If you think Trump is a man of his word, you are indeed going to learn a lot of little lessons, very soon.
Every lie that Trump tells is another opportunity for Hillary to lie that was denied her. Every day of the Trump administration starts off successful because he kept Hillary out of office.
with a popular vote citizens would have to wage a civil war among the each other to overthrow a tyrannical dictator. which would be perceived as installing our preferred dictator and thus a reason to perpetuation civil wars.
with the E.C. the citizens would have to rise up, overthrow and the restore to government. which allows us to collectively restore order and government.
The E.C. actually provides the only opportunity to unify against tyranny.....
with a popular vote citizens would have to wage a civil war among the each other to overthrow a tyrannical dictator. which would be perceived as installing our preferred dictator and thus a reason to perpetuation civil wars.
with the E.C. the citizens would have to rise up, overthrow and the restore to government. which allows us to collectively restore order and government.
The E.C. actually provides the only opportunity to unify against tyranny.....
I have often thought the EC goes hand in hand with the 2nd.
The EC and the 2nd are both a last check before something goes terribly wrong. The 2nd being the very last check of course.
Jill Stein requesting Loretta Lynch investigate the "susceptibility to malicious interference and poor performance" found in voting machines in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.
When will this women finally accept that her name on the ballot had more effect on the election than malfunctions and tampering. And still under performed Gary "whats Aleppo?" Johnson.....
Jill Stein requesting Loretta Lynch investigate the "susceptibility to malicious interference and poor performance" found in voting machines in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.
When will this women finally accept that her name on the ballot had more effect on the election than malfunctions and tampering. And still under performed Gary "whats Aleppo?" Johnson.....
The other possibility is that she can only pocket recent donation by remaining on the payroll. But for sure, the integrity of the election is the highest priority.....
No, I am not "The Left." I get that you don't agree with me, but that doesn't place me magically somewhere in a political spectrum.
If you think Trump is a man of his word, you are indeed going to learn a lot of little lessons, very soon.
Lessons I've learned so far:
1. You don't know what you are talking about.
You went on and on about all the things that were going to take Mr. Trump down. It didn't happen.
2. You think I'm a lower class of human because I voted for Mr. Trump.
You said yourself that anyone who voted for Mr. Trump was stupid.
3. You're consistently wrong, and lie to make your point, which leads me to believe you are in fact a shill for the Left wing. Whether you think you are or not.
If it walks like a Duck, Quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck... It's a Duck.
4. I learned not to stand up for you. And I still suspect you are a member that was banned in the past.
Would you like me to keep a list of the lessons I learn this next year? It could be a fun project.
You went on and on about all the things that were going to take Mr. Trump down. It didn't happen.
2. You think I'm a lower class of human because I voted for Mr. Trump.
You said yourself that anyone who voted for Mr. Trump was stupid.
3. You're consistently wrong, and lie to make your point, which leads me to believe you are in fact a shill for the Left wing. Whether you think you are or not.
If it walks like a Duck, Quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck... It's a Duck.
4. I learned not to stand up for you. And I still suspect you are a member that was banned in the past.
Would you like me to keep a list of the lessons I learn this next year? It could be a fun project.
Brad
The first reason alone is why I don't understand why anyone even tries to have conversation with this idiot.
Originally posted by Fats: Lessons I've learned so far:
1. You don't know what you are talking about.
You went on and on about all the things that were going to take Mr. Trump down. It didn't happen.
2. You think I'm a lower class of human because I voted for Mr. Trump.
You said yourself that anyone who voted for Mr. Trump was stupid.
3. You're consistently wrong, and lie to make your point, which leads me to believe you are in fact a shill for the Left wing. Whether you think you are or not.
If it walks like a Duck, Quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck... It's a Duck.
4. I learned not to stand up for you. And I still suspect you are a member that was banned in the past.
Would you like me to keep a list of the lessons I learn this next year? It could be a fun project.
Brad
1) No. I never said "all these things are going to take down Trump." I said "Trump is an idiot and should be nowhere near a government office of any kind." Those are very different things. I've listed many things which he's done far worse of, and you claim Hillary is an evil person for. But you're stuck in the binary tribal two-party system mindset of ignorance, claiming anyone who thinks all humans should be treated equally in terms of the most basic level of treatment, is a socialist lefty liberal <insert random string of pointless insults you and those like you continually make about those whom think differently>. Grow up. The world isn't left and right, red and blue, black and white.
2) Wow. Have you ever been on daytime TV as a mind reader? You seem to think you're very good at it, since you always claim to know what I think.
3) I'm very rarely wrong, and I never lie. You and others seem to love to deflect by calling people liars, and completely fail to prove anything they ever said, as lies. I hope you've never gone duck hunting. You'd probably shoot the dog.
4) It's pretty clear you're not good at standing up. Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about if you think I'm a member that has been banned before. You seem to fit better into that category. I mean, your join date is 2012, so much more opportunity for you to have been banned and then created another account.
Originally posted by Lambo nut: The first reason alone is why I don't understand why anyone even tries to have conversation with this idiot.
I think it's probably time for me to start ignoring his posts. I'd almost bet that whomever it is that he used to be on here was someone I had to do the same thing to before.
It's sad when people don't want a discussion. Sure, they pretend they want a discussion.... But all they really want is to hate for whatever reason. Probably mental illness of some sort.
Let's not forget it was the states (which were known as the colonies at the time) that created the federal government. The states came to an agreement on how the president would be elected, and that was by way of the EC. The EC was the compromise that smaller (population) states wanted so they would not be steamrolled by the larger (population) states.
Now there is all this talk from one side of the political aisle about abolishing the EC. We wouldn't have a country without it in the first place. The states with smaller populations back then wouldn't have gone along with the formation of the federal government without the EC, and they won't now.
Everybody on the left keeps talking about the popular vote. Hillary didn't win 50% of the popular vote. The 3 million or so more votes she got than Trump were undoubtedly cast illegally - (by illegal ballot stuffing in places like Detroit and millions of votes cast by ineligible voters). I maintain that if we threw out all of the illegal votes, Hillary would be found to NOT have gotten as many votes as Trump in the popular count.
Let's not forget it was the states (which were known as the colonies at the time) that created the federal government. The states came to an agreement on how the president would be elected, and that was by way of the EC. The EC was the compromise that smaller (population) states wanted so they would not be steamrolled by the larger (population) states.
Now there is all this talk from one side of the political aisle about abolishing the EC. We wouldn't have a country without it in the first place. The states with smaller populations back then wouldn't have gone along with the formation of the federal government without the EC, and they won't now.
Everybody on the left keeps talking about the popular vote. Hillary didn't win 50% of the popular vote. The 3 million or so more votes she got than Trump were undoubtedly cast illegally - (by illegal ballot stuffing in places like Detroit and millions of votes cast by ineligible voters). I maintain that if we threw out all of the illegal votes, Hillary would be found to NOT have gotten as many votes as Trump in the popular count.
Something that gets forgot a lot of the time is that we are a group of States that are banded together. Good post.
Originally posted by dobey: Or do you mean changing the rules because they lost, like how the GOP in North Carolina did by covertly and quickly enacting legislation to strip the incoming Governor who is a Democrat, of any real power?
Do you have a problem with using legal procedures ? Harry Reid changed voting tallies in the Senate to confirm Nobama appointments ? Harry Reid changed the Senate rules so as to allow the NobamaCare fight to pass on simple majority (popular) vote.
quote
Originally posted by dobey: Or constantly enacting laws to disenfranchise voters and re-district so that certain classes of voters end up having their vote not count as much?
, again with the legal use of laws ? The dumbs do it as much as the repulsives. What laws were enacted that disenfranchised voters ?
quote
Originally posted by dobey: And no, California and New York would not dictate how you live your life, in the exact same way that they don't today. Though it's amusing you think the rural states should apparently decide how people in California and New York should instead live their lives.
It is better than to be thought stupid, than open your mouth and removing all doubt.
quote
Originally posted by dobey: You are free to lead your personal life in any way you want. However, when choices you make have an effect on others, then it is no longer your personal life. Any citizen's rights end, where another's begin.
It is better than to be thought stupid, than open your mouth and removing all doubt.
There is such a thing as shared spaces. Why can one citizen complain about a cross on a Christmas tree and ruin it for the masses ?
One citizen's rights end where another's rights begin.
Oldest, most abusive, misleading and misused statement in America.
Rights do not diminish or terminate or yield to another person's rights. The law requires the 2 citizens to compromise for an equitable solution or the courts will do it for them.
The statement has been misused to advance a bias for one person over another in regards to individuals rights.
If your rights must yield to another person's rights, you have no rights. Only privileges.
Edited - Spelling corrections
[This message has been edited by jmclemore (edited 12-26-2016).]
Connecticut To Give Its Electoral College Votes To National Popular Vote Victor
HuffPost Dominique Mosbergen,HuffPost Mon, May 7 4:27 AM PDT
Connecticut's legislature has passed a bill that would give the state's
Connecticut’s legislature has passed a bill that would give the state’s Electoral College votes to the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote nationally.
The state Senate voted 21-14 on Saturday to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which includes 10 states and the District of Columbia. The state House passed the measure last week, 77 to 73.
The compact requires its members to cast their Electoral College ballots for the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote. The agreement goes into effect once states representing at least 270 electoral votes — the number needed for a candidate to win the presidency — signs the compact.
Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy (D) has promised to sign the legislation committing his state to the interstate agreement. Once he does so, the compact will have 172 electoral votes. California, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia have already signed the accord.
Malloy has described the current Electoral College voting system as “fundamentally unfair.”
“With the exception of the presidency, every elected office in the country, from city council, to United States senator, to governor, is awarded the candidate who receives the most votes,” the governor said, according to the Connecticut Mirror. “The vote of every American citizen should count equally, yet under the current system, voters from sparsely populated states are awarded significantly more power than those from states like Connecticut.”
In the 2016 presidential election, Donald Trump lost the popular vote by almost 3 million ballots, but won the electoral vote 304 to 227, thus clinching the presidency.
According to The Associated Press, Connecticut ― which cast its seven electoral votes for Hillary Clinton in 2016 ― will be the first state to join the National Popular Vote agreement since Trump’s victory.
State Rep. Matthew Lesser (D) said it’s taken a decade of lobbying to convince Connecticut lawmakers to join the compact.
Trump’s victory, Lesser told AP, appears to have given the issue “some renewed momentum.”
/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7465749/Screen_Shot_2016_11_14_at_11.08.29_AM.png)
, again with the legal use of laws ? The dumbs do it as much as the repulsives.
