Bill Introduced To Abolish Electoral College

#353
#353
OHvol40 said:
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.
Click to expand...

You have yet to provide a reason why it would need to be changed or the benefits from changing it. How would you ensure that the less populated states were not ignored?
 
#356
#356
0nelilreb said:
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 .
Click to expand...

Not when it requires minority states to vote with the majority to change it.
 
#358
#358
OHvol40 said:
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.
Click to expand...
If it's not objectively definable why is the government seeking to provide it? If it's down to that much subjectivity leave it to individuals. You are pointing out the flaws in a centralized government.

If you want to be obtuse and say the government should provide subjectivity I will be obtuse and point out that "better" is objectively provable any number of ways. We have one fewer parts per trillion of CO2 in the air. Air quality is "better". One less person got shot by the cops that is better.

The subjectivity of it all is why the masses shouldnt be trusted. As I stated it changes, constantly and not always for the better.

Where did I say that minority rule wasnt tyrannical? Unless you have a pure 100% agreement there is some form of tyranny being done. The point I was making was purely mathematical. If the 60 million majority want X they force the 40 million minority to pay for it. With fewer people sharing the "tryanny" load they are more effected than IF it was 60 paying for the 40. Assuming a 1:1 wealth distribution.

Once you dive into any of the divisions beyond voting you will see how many more ways the majority could be defined.

Our FF designed a system that allowed freedom of choice within the system. Freedom of religion is also freedom from religion. Right to vote instead of requirement to vote, or no vote. Right to own a gun vs having to own a gun or not being allowed at all. They allowed the system to accept that subjectivity by passing it on to the people where it belongs.

If you put it in the governments hands you have taken away freedom and increased tyranny. By whatever factor.

As to the specifics what preferences does the president actually get to push. Before the ever expanding pen and phone powers the ability to influence the majority by the minority was impossible. Congress writes and passes laws. President can only sign them into effect or not. While the completely unelected get to determine what those laws then mean.

I dont think me, hog, or ND40 would mind having the EO powers reigned in or cut off.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77 and hog88
#359
#359
OHvol40 said:
Not when it requires minority states to vote with the majority to change it.
Click to expand...

You just got to sell it. So you might want to start by explaining how doing away with the EC will be beneficial to the country.
 
#360
#360
NorthDallas40 said:
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.
Click to expand...

So why don’t we have the same system implemented for gubernatorial races divided by counties, parishes, or boroughs?
 
#362
#362
OHvol40 said:
Not when it requires minority states to vote with the majority to change it.
Click to expand...

Now after all day of nonsense we are getting to the crux of the problem . You just don’t want the minority states to be able to have a fair say while abiding by the very document everyone else has to abide by . That’s ok , in a democracy the minority opinions always suffer .
 
#363
#363
hog88 said:
You have yet to provide a reason why it would need to be changed or the benefits from changing it. How would you ensure that the less populated states were not ignored?
Click to expand...
Yes I did. Nobody has explained to me why arbitrary lines drawn centuries ago dictate whose vote counts more.
 
#365
#365
OHvol40 said:
Yes I did. Nobody has explained to me why arbitrary lines drawn centuries ago dictate whose vote counts more.
Click to expand...

All you have said is not all votes are equal and elections should be equal and fair. So explain to me what benefits the country will se with doing away with the EC?
 
#367
#367
LouderVol said:
If it's not objectively definable why is the government seeking to provide it? If it's down to that much subjectivity leave it to individuals. You are pointing out the flaws in a centralized government.

If you want to be obtuse and say the government should provide subjectivity I will be obtuse and point out that "better" is objectively provable any number of ways. We have one fewer parts per trillion of CO2 in the air. Air quality is "better". One less person got shot by the cops that is better.

The subjectivity of it all is why the masses shouldnt be trusted. As I stated it changes, constantly and not always for the better.

Where did I say that minority rule wasnt tyrannical? Unless you have a pure 100% agreement there is some form of tyranny being done. The point I was making was purely mathematical. If the 60 million majority want X they force the 40 million minority to pay for it. With fewer people sharing the "tryanny" load they are more effected than IF it was 60 paying for the 40. Assuming a 1:1 wealth distribution.

Once you dive into any of the divisions beyond voting you will see how many more ways the majority could be defined.

Our FF designed a system that allowed freedom of choice within the system. Freedom of religion is also freedom from religion. Right to vote instead of requirement to vote, or no vote. Right to own a gun vs having to own a gun or not being allowed at all. They allowed the system to accept that subjectivity by passing it on to the people where it belongs.

If you put it in the governments hands you have taken away freedom and increased tyranny. By whatever factor.

As to the specifics what preferences does the president actually get to push. Before the ever expanding pen and phone powers the ability to influence the majority by the minority was impossible. Congress writes and passes laws. President can only sign them into effect or not. While the completely unelected get to determine what those laws then mean.

I dont think me, hog, or ND40 would mind having the EO powers reigned in or cut off.
Click to expand...

The problem is we do have a system where people’s choices are handed over to the people they elect, we don’t have any national popular vote referendums on anything... and we all recognize how rife for corruption this system has become. It thrives on it now. That is why it was necessary for a few brave, just people to break up monopolies during the height of the industrial revolution.

Not to mention we are currently in a system where it’s entirely possible that 70% of the senate represents 30% of the population. I would say any objective person can see the flaw in that.
 
#368
#368
0nelilreb said:
Now after all day of nonsense we are getting to the crux of the problem . You just don’t want the minority states to be able to have a fair say while abiding by the very document everyone else has to abide by . That’s ok , in a democracy the minority opinions always suffer .
Click to expand...

No, I’m saying that I don’t want minority states to have an unfair say.
 
#369
#369
hog88 said:
All you have said is not all votes are equal and elections should be equal and fair. So explain to me what benefits the country will se with doing away with the EC?
Click to expand...

I’ve covered it ad nauseam with LouderVol
 
#370
#370
OHvol40 said:
No, I’m saying that I don’t want minority states to have an unfair say.
Click to expand...

In order to ratify an amendment they have to have the say say as any other state . There’s no way around that .
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top