Bill Introduced To Abolish Electoral College

#502
#502
luthervol said:
A majority of the national vote can amend the document?
Click to expand...

Is that what is says ? Don’t put words in the FFs mouths because apparently they knew exactly what they were doing to keep the masses honest and not allow mob rule or a true democracy from taking over our great country .
 
#503
#503
GordonC said:
The answer may very well be no.

Maybe the proponents of broadening democracy got it wrong, which would make the founding fathers right. Maybe the 17th Amendment got it wrong. Maybe maybe maybe

Why do you have to bring Trump into everything? Maybe the "Trumpers," as you put it, aren't the minority. I mean, I loathe him, but all this maybe maybe maybe and trying to play like it's ok in a republican government for the ends to justify the means is over-the-top insanity, dude.

If Trump winds up winning the popular vote, a lot of people are going to look like pure damned fools.
Click to expand...
Undoubtedly, the majority would then look like damned fools.
 
#505
#505
GordonC said:
The majority acting through their state legislatures can.
Damn.
Edit: Did he say a national vote?
This is either deliberate obtuseness/trolling or it's something pretty profound.
Click to expand...
Bound to be one of them.
 
#506
#506
0nelilreb said:
You can’t get it wrong when you literally give the majority a way to amend the document anytime it wants to . 😉
Click to expand...
luthervol said:
A majority of the national vote can amend the document?
Click to expand...
0nelilreb said:
Is that what is says ? Don’t put words in the FFs mouths because apparently they knew exactly what they were doing to keep the masses honest and not allow mob rule or a true democracy from taking over our great country .
Click to expand...
I was quoting you, not the FFs. It seems it was you putting words in their mouths.
 
#511
#511
OHvol40 said:
The skewing that is mind-blowingly anti-democratic is this:
“For example, in 2008, on average a state is awarded one electoral vote for every 565,166 people. However, Wyoming has three electoral votes and only 532,668 citizens (as of 2008 estimates). As a result each of Wyoming's three electoral votes corresponds to 177,556 people. Understood in one way, these people have 3.18 times as much clout in the Electoral College as an average American, or 318%”
Click to expand...
Too bad we arent democratic.

It's also anti-monarchy. Dang plebs in Wyoming think they are people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0nelilreb
#512
#512
OHvol40 said:
California isn’t a person. The people of California or Idaho or South Carolina should have the right to have their votes count equally. To ignore the inequality in this system of a country that was largely founded on the ideals of equality is thoughtless.
Click to expand...
And the system you proposed does nothing to actually fix inequality. It just shifts the inequality to something you prefer.

You have still yet to provide a reason why.
 
#514
#514
OHvol40 said:
I’m not being obtuse, I’m advocating for fairness. It’s fair for a citizen’s vote to count the same as another. That could actually be part of the definition for fairness.
Click to expand...
No it doesnt. If there is a winner after the vote that means the losers vote counts for less. All you are doing if shifting the inequality to something you like.
 
#515
#515
LouderVol said:
No it doesnt. If there is a winner after the vote that means the losers vote counts for less. All you are doing if shifting the inequality to something you like.
Click to expand...

A 1:1 vote per citizen is equality. You just want to ignore that because you don’t like it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tvolsfan
#516
#516
OHvol40 said:
If it were the best option don’t you think at least some of the people who advocated for it on a national level would implement it in their own states? I mean, 1 or 2 of the 50 states? If the concept is correct and states can experience the same majority rule problems, why not utilize the same concept?
Click to expand...
No. You are again being obtuse. The federal government was never intended to act like a state. Or vice versa. You see this in anything that scales. You dont run a mom and pop like you do a corporation. You dont play NFL games with peewee rules. You dont run a nation of individual states like a town council.

The FF never argued about how an individual state runs itself. They argued about how those states coming together to form a more perfect union, would run. Those are vastly different considerations. For precisely this reason. There was enough agreement that the citizens of the big states should not dictate life to citizens in the small states to see things get approved. The system allows for that difference between state and federal. That's the entire point of the Consistution to explain how the US government is different than the states. You cant run an impartial government formed in the aspect of NY when dealing with Wyoming. It just doesnt make sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77
#517
#517
OHvol40 said:
Like SCOTUS appointments for the bolded?


I don’t think the average Joe knows what’s good for him, and being in this forum only reinforces that... but that’s not the idea behind equality. They have the right to be wrong.

It sounds like you’re leaning toward the old English principle that “gentlemen” are required to decide for the masses what is best for them.
Click to expand...
Is a check on another branch a power? I guess it is. I never really thought of it that way.

The right to be wrong is why I was asking what you thought the role of government should be? Is it just to facilitate the whims of the people? If so why bother with elected officials. Just run votes on everything. The gentlemen in your scenario are still there, they are just elected. And you take issue with how one in particular is elected.
 
#518
#518
LouderVol said:
No. You are again being obtuse. The federal government was never intended to act like a state. Or vice versa. You see this in anything that scales. You dont run a mom and pop like you do a corporation. You dont play NFL games with peewee rules. You dont run a nation of individual states like a town council.

The FF never argued about how an individual state runs itself. They argued about how those states coming together to form a more perfect union, would run. Those are vastly different considerations. For precisely this reason. There was enough agreement that the citizens of the big states should not dictate life to citizens in the small states to see things get approved. The system allows for that difference between state and federal. That's the entire point of the Consistution to explain how the US government is different than the states. You cant run an impartial government formed in the aspect of NY when dealing with Wyoming. It just doesnt make sense.
Click to expand...


I’m starting to think the use of “obtuse” in this forum is a synonym for antagonistic.
 
#519
#519
For what it's worth OH it's not california and NY getting screwed. It's the states between 7 and 20 EC votes with the lowest representation.

Whose votes count the least in the Electoral College?

In fact the greatest determination of worth was actually voter turnout. Which is entirely voluntary.

Again what you rail against isnt actually a problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77, 0nelilreb and NorthDallas40
#520
#520
lawgator1 said:
He does now.

The rationale for the EC is long since obsolete. The Republicans depend on it as some sort of valuable balance of power from 220 years ago, to give them a chance, but they know its bogus now.

As time wears on and the margin of popular vote win increases for the Dems, this is just going to get worse
Click to expand...
Again we are just threading a needle at this moment in time. It will fix itself. No need to throw the baby out with the bath water.
 
#521
#521
OHvol40 said:
I’m starting to think the use of “obtuse” in this forum is a synonym for antagonistic.
Click to expand...
I am using it more in a "doesnt bring anything to the argument and is throwing a tantrum because he gets responses he doesnt like" way.
 
#523
#523
LouderVol said:
Is a check on another branch a power? I guess it is. I never really thought of it that way.

The right to be wrong is why I was asking what you thought the role of government should be? Is it just to facilitate the whims of the people? If so why bother with elected officials. Just run votes on everything. The gentlemen in your scenario are still there, they are just elected. And you take issue with how one in particular is elected.
Click to expand...

You’re right, I do take exception to the way the vote is conducted. Is representative democracy the best form of government... maybe... actually, probably. Does that make it infallible? Of course not. Examining and pointing out the faults as we see them is healthy. The problem we run into today is the lack of diversity in points of view and the unwillingness to have meaningful discussion about anything. The two party system grid locking us and infiltration of big money into politics are something the FF maybe didn’t have the foresight to address, but they are both lethal threats to our governmental system.
 
#524
#524
luthervol said:
I think the point was being made that it was not a unanimous decision. There was a passionate minority who disagreed. Maybe they were the ones who were correct. Trumpers are all about a passionate minority, it's his life blood.
Someone asked if the founding fathers got it wrong. The answer may very well be yes. Unless of course you believe the majority cannot be wrong.
Click to expand...
I know this is a strange thing to consider. But the EC may have been the perfect compromise. No one really pushing it. Couldnt agree on other measures. They still wanted America to work so they came up with the EC. Like the legislative branch it's a blend between state and population representation. The larger states still have more power than their smaller neighbors, but its weighted to present a possibility of equality between states, and not people. Again it's the United States Consitution. Not the individual person's Consitution.

The whole argument fails because you have to redefine the very object to state your case from the beginning. Instead of starting with where we are and working towards what you want it to be thru rational arguments.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top