Bill Introduced To Abolish Electoral College

[C-south]

Democratic ideals are based around majority rule and minority rights, not the other way around.

Any argument you think you have is exactly why the founding fathers did things the way they did.

 

[OHvol40]

You must not understand how the EC works.

Explain to me how my vote in PA equates to the same as a vote in MT.

 

[LouderVol]

The campaigning would be completely different that anything before if we went to a popular vote.

I think a modest revision to the EC is all that's needed. Divide them up like Maine and Nebraska. Winner of the popular takes the rounding. So that in a state with 3 ECs and the divide is 55/45. The winner gets 2, loser gets 1.

It doesnt equal out the votes, but it's a lot more even. And much more representative.

 

[LouderVol]

There is a theory that lots of Republicans who live in large cities on the West Coast and in the Northeast do not bother to vote because it's a fait accompli. Probably some Democrats who live in heavily Republican areas who do the same. It's hard to know what the real numbers are without compulsory voting.

You could have the same issue in reverse. Many of the favored party may not vote because they know it's already decided and not worth the effort.

 

[ajvol01]

This was a legitimate and contentious discussion amongst the founders. If you prefer not to have that discussion, that’s your prerogative.

So the founders got it wrong in your opinion?

 

[OHvol40]

You: I don’t like the current system because I think my vote counts less than a vote in less populated states

All of Us: it’s working exactly the way it was designed.

You: but I don’t like it

All of Us: convince us why the original method isn’t working as intended.

You: because my vote counts less.

All of us: it counts in exactly the fashion the founding fathers convinced us it should.

You: but I don’t like it.

All of us: make a compelling argument why we should change it.

Rinse repeat as nauseam

I posted information about several dissenting opinions about the EC from founding fathers. It wasn’t a unanimous decision.

 

[OHvol40]

Any argument you think you have is exactly why the founding fathers did things the way they did.

Was the EC unanimous during the Constitutional Convention? If not, why?

 

[NorthDallas40]

I posted information about several dissenting opinions about the EC from founding fathers. It wasn’t a unanimous decision.

I don’t find that to a compelling argument to change the method. Like I’ve pointed out how many damn times now?!

 

[C-south]

Was the EC unanimous during the Constitutional Convention? If not, why?

Do you think a vote to change it will be?

 

[NorthDallas40]

Was the EC unanimous during the Constitutional Convention? If not, why?

Where is there a requirement that it must be unanimous? That’s ridiculous as hell.

 

[OHvol40]

So the founders got it wrong in your opinion?

Maybe. Maybe they didn’t have the foresight to see problems with the system they create 250 years down the road.

 

[OHvol40]

I don’t find that to a compelling argument to change the method. Like I’ve pointed out how many damn times now?!

If that’s your excuse to side step the discussion completely, so be it. I’ll catch you on one you prefer to contribute to.

 

[OHvol40]

Do you think a vote to change it will be?

No

 

[NorthDallas40]

I think a modest revision to the EC is all that's needed. Divide them up like Maine and Nebraska. Winner of the popular takes the rounding. So that in a state with 3 ECs and the divide is 55/45. The winner gets 2, loser gets 1.

It doesnt equal out the votes, but it's a lot more even. And much more representative.

Each state has the prerogative to do that today without a constitutional ammendment. The constitution leaves the allocation of EC votes up to the state’s as they should.

 

[NorthDallas40]

If that’s your excuse to side step the discussion completely, so be it. I’ll catch you on one you prefer to contribute to.

I’m not side stepping it. You are. I said make a compelling argument you have yet to do so.

 

[OHvol40]

Where is there a requirement that it must be unanimous? That’s ridiculous as hell.

Did I say it was a requirement? Obviously not. His point was the founding fathers created it this way so deal with it. My point is they were far from agreeing on the issue, and for good reason. Nobody here wants to hear that though.

 

[NorthDallas40]

No

Then why impose that on the origination vote FFS!

 

[NorthDallas40]

Did I say it was a requirement? Obviously not. His point was the founding fathers created it this way so deal with it. My point is they were far from agreeing on the issue, and for good reason. Nobody here wants to hear that though.

Your point is lousy. Make better arguments

 

[LouderVol]

I’m not an advocate of absolute majority rule, but nobody seems to want to delve into the topic. I will say, though, that a basic understanding of the value of the majority is understood as children by taking straw polls for contended decisions and everyone agreeing to agree to the side with the most votes.

That idea extends all the way up to our legislative processes where majorities carry every decision every made. I’m tired of people playing dumb like they don’t understand the importance of the majority.

It's only important if you value the majority over being correct or better.

The government is supposed to provide for the general betterment of the country. I can guarantee you that betterment doesnt look like what you, I, or either party actually wants.

There are any number of examples/stories/anecdotes that point of the frivolous nature of the majority concern. It is by its nature fleeting, contradictory, and self aggrandizing.

Even you, the arbiter of majority, have nothing to provide beyond "even kids do it". They do it because its easiest thing they can grasp. Not because it's good or better than anything else. It's the simplest way to appease the masses while ensuring no real change happens. You even defend it with the lamest of defenses, 'it's what we have always done' bit that offers no context or explanation of why what we are doing is so good or right.

Explain the objective importance of majority rule.

 

[OHvol40]

I’m not side stepping it. You are. I said make a compelling argument you have yet to do so.

I’m rubber you’re glue? I recognize that mentality, I have young children.

 

[OHvol40]

Your point is lousy. Make better arguments

That’s all you’ve got. Let me know when you can form scholarly thoughts on the matter.

 

[Wireless1]

No, it's not going to change and it shouldn't. It's a good system that emphasizes that the most important states to win, will always be the most moderate states (or battleground states, that could go either way). In turn, that is where all of the campaigning is done. It is a system that appeals to the middle. That should be what we all want, not extremism.

Actually the only thing that makes a state a battleground state is the proportionality and enthusiasm of the voters. When was the last time that any candidate party run on a true centralist platform courting the middle? Battleground states or districts are created by traditional voter apathy where a candidate feels they can energize enough people, when combined with their base to create a majority. AOC won with 17K votes ousting an incumbent because he decided to take a nap and didn't energize his base.
The only reason FLA is a battleground state is because of southern migration of tax weary New Englanders.

 

[BisonVol]

Was the EC unanimous during the Constitutional Convention? If not, why?

Does it have to be unanimous? I thought you loved majority rule?

 

[luthervol]

Where is there a requirement that it must be unanimous? That’s ridiculous as hell.

What are you saying? That majority should rule?

 

[LouderVol]

If that’s your excuse to side step the discussion completely, so be it. I’ll catch you on one you prefer to contribute to.

You havent brought ANYTHING to the discussion. You still refuse to do what I have been asking this entire time. Explain why majority rule matters or is better. Actually explain it. If it's as simple as you believe you would be able to do so here.

You arent having a debate. You are doing exactly what you are accusing ND40 and hog of. You sit there with your head in the sand and refuse to even start the narrative.