Bill Introduced To Abolish Electoral College

[NorthDallas40]

Will you ever be able to undo the knot you have tied yourself into?

So is the minority opinion ever correct?

Keep trying looth. The majority already does determine the winner. The EC majority. But I am amenable to changing it. If we are a Republic of equal peer states I believe there should be an equal number of EC votes per state. I don’t care if it’s 1 or 50 but they should be equal per state. Then let each state apportion them however they see fit. It is their equal vote after all.

 

[NorthDallas40]

But we use it to pacify 5 year olds......

Oh I’d say they are anything but pacified at the moment

 

[LouderVol]

Oh I’d say they are anything but pacified at the moment

I just want a simple explanation of why in and of itself majority rule is a good thing.

I have asked any number of times from OH and never gotten a response.

 

[OHvol40]

What countries directly elect their President/Prime Minister?

There are some EU countries that do I believe. Switzerland, maybe France...

 

[luthervol]

Keep trying looth. The majority already does determine the winner. The EC majority. But I am amenable to changing it. If we are a Republic of equal peer states I believe there should be an equal number of EC votes per state. I don’t care if it’s 1 or 50 but they should be equal per state. Then let each state apportion them however they see fit. It is their equal vote after all.

So a minority of votes elected a majority of votes?
Hardly seems like the majority determined the winner.
Sometimes twisting just makes the knots tighter.

 

[OHvol40]

You are voting for an elector, the same as the people in Montana. In both states the electors are chosen by popular vote so they are equal.

See I told you that you didn't understand the process.

So does my elector represent as many voters as an elector in MT?

 

[NorthDallas40]

So a minority of votes elected a majority of votes?
Hardly seems like the majority determined the winner.
Sometimes twisting just makes the knots tighter.

The minority you’re trying to word twist has never mattered beyond the state boundary looth. If you want to change it you need to convince people why it’s a better method.

Our Republic was founded on equal peer states. I guess now that you’ve got the Republic formed you think they’re suckers and losers and will merely change the bargain they agreed to in forming? I’m not shocked about that from you I guess

 

[NorthDallas40]

So does my elector represent as many voters as an elector in MT?

Why are you comparing your vote beyond your state boundary? It has never counted beyond the state.

 

[NorthDallas40]

There are some EU countries that do I believe. Switzerland, maybe France...

France is a unitary government under strong central rule. We are a federalist state of equal peer states.

 

[hog88]

There are some EU countries that do I believe. Switzerland, maybe France...

Switzerland no. France directly elects it's President of the Republic but the Prime Minister who holds most of the domestic power is appointed.

 

[hog88]

So does my elector represent as many voters as an elector in MT?

No but your electors vote counts just as much as an elector from MT.

 

[OHvol40]

Slavery in this country. Maybe, big maybe but not going there. And only if you take the country as a whole during a certain time period. But not slavery in general. Slavery in general is the extension of majority rule. The rule of the majority makes them strong, the voice of the minority makes them a target.

In any system where you are imposing a standard you are doing so against people's will. And often to the determinant of the minority. While in most cases the majority would not actively be as inflicted as the minority is if they lost. You are placing the buderns of the majority upon the backs of the minority. And you do all of that injustice and you dont actually come out with a better system or result. It would be acceptable if we got good results, but we dont.

Two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. I like mutton, thankfully so does my fellow wolf. Sorry sheep, we won the vote. Fair is fair. Democracy in action.

Who is to determine what is the best results? That is inherently subjective. If results are poor, then the majority will adjust their views appropriately to accommodate better results for the most people.

The argument that majority rule is tyrannical and minority rule is not is counterintuitive. How is it better for more people making decisions that may not benefit a smaller number of people better than the minority making decisions that doesn’t benefit the larger number of people? That doesn’t make sense.

It especially doesn’t make sense in this specific instance. The minority group isn’t one that is religious in nature, or ethnic in nature, it’s a political ideology so the main difference between the two groups is priorities and values. It’s not a baseless point of view to say that the priorities of the minority should be forced on the majority through disproportionately weighted votes in favor of the minority.

 

[OHvol40]

There is no perfect form of government, all systems of government are flawed but what the founding fathers gave us was the most perfect ever devised.

Reflecting on potential flaws and using past examples to refine their methodology was what lead them to the creation of our government. To stop doing that is to not follow their example.

 

[OHvol40]

Why are you comparing your vote beyond your state boundary? It has never counted beyond the state.

Because you don’t want me to

 

[OHvol40]

No but your electors vote counts just as much as an elector from MT.

But they don’t represent the same amount of voters. Elections are meant to be inherently equal and fair.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Because you don’t want me to

Fair enough. I’ll treat it accordingly then.

 

[hog88]

Reflecting on potential flaws and using past examples to refine their methodology was what less them to the creation of our government. To stop doing that is to not follow their example.

I have no problems with tweaking the system through constitutional amendment. I posted my idea of what I would like to see.

 

[NorthDallas40]

But they don’t represent the same amount of voters. Election are meant to be inherently equal and fair.

You: why

Us: we’ve already explained it to you

You: but why

Us: because

You: but whyyyyyyyyyyyy

what’s next? Go to your room?

 

[NorthDallas40]

I have no problems with tweaking the system through constitutional amendment. I posted my idea of what I would like to see.

50 states, 50 x Y votes. No exceptions. Each state allocates them how they see fit.

 

[hog88]

But they don’t represent the same amount of voters. Election are meant to be inherently equal and fair.

No, sorry that is not how ours is set up.

 

[OHvol40]

No, sorry that is not how ours is set up.

That’s all I hear from those in the minority. Most of the time the reasoning is “it’s the best way” or “if you don’t like it, change it” or “why would we need to change it”? Which, of course, aren’t reasons at all.

I’m honestly not trying to be spiteful or resentful, I see a ideological crossroads and want to shine a light on it in a political discussion forum. That proves difficult here with so much palpable defensiveness.

 

[0nelilreb]

That’s all I hear from those in the minority. Most of the time the reasoning is “it’s the best way” or “if you don’t like it, change it” or “why would we need to change it”? Which, of course, aren’t reasons at all.

I’m honestly not trying to be spiteful or resentful, I see a ideological crossroads and want to shine a light on it in a political discussion forum. That proves difficult here with so much palpable defensiveness.

What are you talking about , you aren’t going to convince anyone that doesnt think it’s a problem just because you view it as one . If it’s the minority that’s the problem then there shouldn’t be any trouble changing it . That’s the great thing about the constitution, it can be adjusted or in your case “ fixed “ by a majority . The very thing you are for , majority rules .

 

[newyorkvol]

But they don’t represent the same amount of voters. Elections are meant to be inherently equal and fair.

Wait, sorry to chime in, but aren’t electors based on number of members of Congress?
2 electors for senators then an elector for each Representative. And Representatives are based on population through apportionment.

 

[NorthDallas40]

That’s all I hear from those in the minority. Most of the time the reasoning is “it’s the best way” or “if you don’t like it, change it” or “why would we need to change it”? Which, of course, aren’t reasons at all.

I’m honestly not trying to be spiteful or resentful, I see a ideological crossroads and want to shine a light on it in a political discussion forum. That proves difficult here with so much palpable defensiveness.

I reject your whole minority rule argument out right. I’ve made that clear it emphasizes that which the founding fathers wanted to emphasize, the states. If they got it wrong as far as I’m concerned it should be an equal number of votes per state. An individual citizens vote in this country has never counted on a national level. Because the only national elected officials we have are president and VP.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Wait, sorry to chime in, but aren’t electors based on number of members of Congress?
2 electors for senators then an elector for each Representative. And Representatives are based on population through apportionment.

Oh you’ve done it now..,