NY Times calls for end to Electoral College

doctordog said:
The day California is solely responsibile for picking the President is the day I stop paying taxes and help start a revolt for the rest of the working class to do the same. At that time I dare them to send someone to collect a check.
Click to expand...

If Cal-exit happens you won't need to worry about it lol.

I'd give them 5 years and they'll want back in. But by then 'Mexi-fornia' won't be a punch line to a joke. Imagine the drugs coming into neighboring states. The Mexican drug cartels and etc.

We may have to build another wall.
 
Liberals dislike controls on government. We have 51 elections, Hillary only won 20. That's all there is to say really.
 
Damocles said:
Liberals dislike controls on government. We have 51 elections, Hillary only won 20. That's all there is to say really.
Click to expand...

I mean, you could take that to wild extremes to debunk the point. Some states are hardly what you would call populous.

But their area & the fact that they are their own state makes them more important than actual human beings, apparently.
 
Thing1 said:
I mean, you could take that to wild extremes to debunk the point. Some states are hardly what you would call populous.

But their area & the fact that they are their own state makes them more important than actual human beings, apparently.
Click to expand...
It allows those human beings in smaller states to have a voice.
 
Thing1 said:
I mean, you could take that to wild extremes to debunk the point. Some states are hardly what you would call populous.

But their area & the fact that they are their own state makes them more important than actual human beings, apparently.
Click to expand...

Or you could read the Federalist papers and find out that it pretty much worked exactly like it was supposed to. The constitution limits the Federal Government, this is just one more of the limitations that the liberals dislike. Larger states get a heftier say, but they can't be allowed to overcome the rest of the nation's states just by sake of population.

One state should not be able to overcome the rest of the nation. Take away just the count from one state and that is exactly what would be happening here if we simply "eliminated" the constitution.
 
Damocles said:
Or you could read the Federalist papers and find out that it pretty much worked exactly like it was supposed to. The constitution limits the Federal Government, this is just one more of the limitations that the liberals dislike. Larger states get a heftier say, but they can't be allowed to overcome the rest of the nation's states just by sake of population.

One state should not be able to overcome the rest of the nation. Take away just the count from one state and that is exactly what would be happening here if we simply "eliminated" the constitution.
Click to expand...

It's not limiting the power of the Federal government. It's limiting the power of the people.

Largely, I'm playing devil's advocate the past few days. I'm not totally anti-EC, and I get it for the most part.

But a few more elections like this - which are entirely possible (I actually wonder if the GOP will win another popular) - and it will be a much more robust debate than it is today.
 
Hamilton knew he could troll Desh even two hundred fifty years ago when it was his distrust of democracy that caused him to back the EC.
 
Thing1 said:
It's not limiting the power of the Federal government. It's limiting the power of the people.

Largely, I'm playing devil's advocate the past few days. I'm not totally anti-EC, and I get it for the most part.

But a few more elections like this - which are entirely possible (I actually wonder if the GOP will win another popular) - and it will be a much more robust debate than it is today.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. Just read the Federalist papers.

Shoot the founders actually thought it would be difficult to actually get the requisite number of electoral college votes and expected most of the elections to go to the Congress. The reality is they were terrified of the tyranny of the majority. This ensured that more populous states were not able to run over the rest of the states.

Too often people think of the Federal Government as one big state, it isn't. 50 states and the District of Columbia are represented.
 
Damocles said:
No, it isn't. Just read the Federalist papers.

Shoot the founders actually thought it would be difficult to actually get the requisite number of electoral college votes and expected most of the elections to go to the Congress. The reality is they were terrified of the tyranny of the majority. This ensured that more populous states were not able to run over the rest of the states.

Too often people think of the Federal Government as one big state, it isn't. 50 states and the District of Columbia are represented.
Click to expand...

It's funny - people keep bringing up the tyranny of the majority. I'm familiar w/ that, and agree w/ it to an extent.

But who would argue that as of January, we have a tyranny of the minority.
 
Damocles said:
Liberals dislike controls on government. We have 51 elections, Hillary only won 20. That's all there is to say really.
Click to expand...

Wake up. Get a fucking clue. So if you got 1,000 votes for dumb ass of the year award and Hillary Destroyer got 700, but doctordog got to choose and he chose Hillary Destroyer you can't tell me or Thing 1 you wouldn't be pissed. You would be.
 
Last edited:
Brain Food said:
Wake up. Get a fucking clue. So if you got 1,000 votes for dumb ass of the year award and Hillary Destroyer got 700, but doctordog got to choose and he chose Hillary Destroyer you can't tell me or Thing you wouldn't be pissed. You would be.
Click to expand...

has there been a law in place for over 200 years that says doctordog chooses our president?........
 
Brain Food said:
Wake up. Get a fucking clue. So if you got 1,000 votes for dumb ass of the year award and Hillary Destroyer got 700, but doctordog got to choose and he chose Hillary Destroyer you can't tell me or Thing 1 you wouldn't be pissed. You would be.
Click to expand...

Again I heartily wish your moniker actually described your posts.

This "popular vote" nonsense is a lot like saying...

The Cubs only scored 27 points during the world series to the Indians' 28 so really the Indians won the world series. Or that you "really won" the game of chess where you had 16 pieces left to your opponents 7, but he put you in checkmate...

The reality is, there were 51 games in this world series of politics, and HillBillary only won 20.

More reality: I voted for somebody who wasn't Hillary, but all the electoral votes in this state went to Hillary. Should I cry? Of course not.
 
blackascoal said:
WRONG

The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists
http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/
Click to expand...


The link is an opinion piece of regurgitated nonsense. "Some claim". Yes claims are made due to rational logic and fairmindedness. The claims are real and factual. The claims that having a couple of states choose a leader for all 50 states would not be truly representative. Remove California and New York and Trump wins by 3 million votes. Each state has a value based on population.
 
Why do liberal morons not understand the constitution?

Why are they so moronic.

If you want it changed you need an amendment, so start trying to get 2/3rds of congress to propose it, and 3/4 to ratify. Good luck! Get started now!
 
Damocles said:
No, it isn't. Just read the Federalist papers.

Shoot the founders actually thought it would be difficult to actually get the requisite number of electoral college votes and expected most of the elections to go to the Congress. The reality is they were terrified of the tyranny of the majority. This ensured that more populous states were not able to run over the rest of the states.

Too often people think of the Federal Government as one big state, it isn't. 50 states and the District of Columbia are represented.
Click to expand...

This is the actual reason for the EC. Slavery and the 2/5s rule. As well as the fear that communication was so poor that a more regional candidate would prevail.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.time...electoral-college-history-slavery/?source=dam
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top