NY Times calls for end to Electoral College

Brain Food said:
Were you an instigator in kindergarten too?
Click to expand...

its where I learned to lie.....there was nap time and there was a little plastic truck on a chart that got moved forward one step every time you slept....when it reached the end you got to take your truck home.....every day the teacher asked if I had slept and I said yes.......I never did......but I got my truck.....
 
Rune said:
What a bunch of ignorant idiots.
The EC was created by white male literate land owners, the only legal voters at the time, a time when slavery and forcible wife raping was legal and blacks were not considered whole people.
The entire point of it was to maintain aristocratic control of the government.
It is both an anachronism and an aberation as well as an insult to modern Americans.
Of course you racist dingleberry twats like it.
May the ruination be on your empty heads.
Click to expand...

constitution has been ammended before. Change it.
 
Rune said:
What a bunch of ignorant idiots.
The EC was created by white male literate land owners, the only legal voters at the time, a time when slavery and forcible wife raping was legal and blacks were not considered whole people.
The entire point of it was to maintain aristocratic control of the government.
It is both an anachronism and an aberation as well as an insult to modern Americans.
Of course you racist dingleberry twats like it.
May the ruination be on your empty heads.
Click to expand...
the freaking Constitution was created by "white land owners"- so what?
while the 3/5th's compromise determined proportionality back then -it does not now. The CONSTANT is population along with State representation= the number of electors.

Do you have a problem with Congress as it's constituted? same thing for EC
 
cawacko said:
Ok. Why do we have the Constitution at all then?

Shouldn't Prop 8 and Prop 187 legally stand in California because they were voted on the majority of the people?
Click to expand...
Where did I say we shouldn't have a constitution?
Blacks are now whole people and can vote and can't be owned.
Women now have the right to control their own bodies, even against their husbands and can vote.
Tenants can vote, poll taxes have been ruled illegal.

All of these things were deemed wrong and changed. Why should the EC be inviolate, other than that it serves the will of the Aristocrats against the wishes of the population?
 
anatta said:
the freaking Constitution was created by "white land owners"- so what?
while the 3/5th's compromise determined proportionality back then -it does not now. The CONSTANT is population along with State representation= the number of electors.

Do you have a problem with Congress as it's constituted? same thing for EC
Click to expand...
Idiot, even the way senators are elected has changed to the popular vote. ASSHOLE
 
The Electoral College should be abolished.

States with more cows than people shouldn't have power over the WILL OF THE PEOPLE.
 
blackascoal said:
The Electoral College should be abolished.

States with more cows than people shouldn't have power over the WILL OF THE PEOPLE.
Click to expand...

Those of us who live in rural states would like not to be ruled by those who have no clue about our life as well. What is the answer? I ask this as a serious question. Is there no place for compromise?
 
leaningright said:
Those of us who live in rural states would like not to be ruled by those who have no clue about our life as well. What is the answer? I ask this as a serious question. Is there no place for compromise?
Click to expand...
You could have voted for Bernie. He understood your point.
 
Rune said:
Where did I say we shouldn't have a constitution?
Blacks are now whole people and can vote and can't be owned.
Women now have the right to control their own bodies, even against their husbands and can vote.
Tenants can vote, poll taxes have been ruled illegal.

All of these things were deemed wrong and changed. Why should the EC be inviolate, other than that it serves the will of the Aristocrats against the wishes of the population?
Click to expand...

The constitution can be changed. Pass an amendment to change the EC. But the reasons for the EC instead of the popular vote was about far more than just rich white men voting.
 
anatta said:
the freaking Constitution was created by "white land owners"- so what?
while the 3/5th's compromise determined proportionality back then -it does not now. The CONSTANT is population along with State representation= the number of electors.

Do you have a problem with Congress as it's constituted? same thing for EC
Click to expand...
If you are going to quote me do it accurately you fucking sleaze fest.

I said white male literate land owners, less than 5% of the population.
 
leaningright said:
Those of us who live in rural states would like not to be ruled by those who have no clue about our life as well. What is the answer? I ask this as a serious question. Is there no place for compromise?
Click to expand...

The EC was set up for that exact reason. The founders wrote about why they set the system up as they did and how popular vote would be a threat to the stability of the union.
 
cawacko said:
The EC was set up for that exact reason. The founders wrote about why they set the system up as they did and how popular vote would be a threat to the stability of the union.
Click to expand...

The Founders were wise enough to know that they were creating a living document .. one that would and should be changed.

Like Jefferson, I believe the Constitution has a shelf life and should be changed many times.
 
anatta said:
can't say obviously, it's a 2 edged sword. Some say the campaigns would expand -since every vote counts.
But others say only the large states would get campaigns.

The popular vote is a state by state vote now ( the aggregate total has no meaning). One disadvantage of only a popular vote
is any recounts would be nationwide ( instead of by state),,

for me I think the fact that Congress itself as well as elctoral college are both under the same design is the most compelling argument
for keeping it that way.
Also the over-influene of the big states would wipe out geographical diversity..but that all part of the same argument
Click to expand...

Over influence of big states and urban areas is exactly what they're after. Their pissing and moaning about the EC has nothing to do with fairness or democracy: it's about advancing the progressive agenda.

The Deplorables are in their way.
 
leaningright said:
Those of us who live in rural states would like not to be ruled by those who have no clue about our life as well. What is the answer? I ask this as a serious question. Is there no place for compromise?
Click to expand...

Help me understand how the elimination of the EC disenfranchises people in rural states.

They get the same one vote that everybody else does, and the totality of those votes elects a president.
 
cawacko said:
The EC was set up for that exact reason. The founders wrote about why they set the system up as they did and how popular vote would be a threat to the stability of the union.
Click to expand...

a union that needed people to populate all the states



its now no longer needed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top