The 2012 Electoral College state of play
- Thread starter icedancer2theend
- Start date
Good Luck
New member
Why is that? Are you aware that the founders were quite deliberate in placing the electoral college between the office of President and the popular vote? Do you WANT NY, CA and other high population density areas to practically run this nation, while rural areas get the big blue pickle up the ass? The populists fucked things up bad enough when they put the Senate under the popular vote. Add in the presidency, and the republic turns into a democracy.
Try reading what the founders thought of a populist democracy.
Who gives a shit what the founders thought about popular election of the president? The electoral college is stupid and there is no good reason for it.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
and yet, for 200+ years it has worked splendidly......
Mr. T
Verified User
I use to think the same way when I was young and right out of school. But I am all for eliminating electronic voting.
Good Luck
New member
Anyone with a brain cares. Which, of course, excludes you. It is important to understand why the founders did what they did in order to better understand the system that they set up. They borrowed ideas from other systems, but put it in a package that has survived well over 200 years. Had they acted differently, it is doubtful we would have the liberty to be having this conversation. Our system has been so successful others around the world have been modeling their systems after it.
But you don't WANT to understand anything, do you? You simply want things your way (the way your political masters tell you) like a spoiled three year old. Which, I guess, fits, considering that is about your level of cognitive development.
The electoral college DOES have a good reason behind it. You are just to narrow mindedly stupid to have any chance of understanding. The office of president is not a representative job. It is an executive job. That is one reason for separating the selection of office from the popular vote. The second, and most important reason is the College assures that a winning president must have support from a wide area of the U.S. A popular election puts too much power in the high population centers. The President presides over the executive office, designed to be run in the best interests of all. By assuring that a winning president receive support from rural as well as urban areas, from western, mid, and eastern states, the system assures a sitting president cannot ignore the needs of one region over another - not if he wants to be reelected.
I would suggest you read up on your history, but you have already indicated you don't give a shit why we are what we are. Yea, Madison, Jefferson, Adams, etc. - they were all just simpltons, and you are the political genius.
LOL You're apathetic droon who wears donkey rectums for headgear.
Well, it has always resulted in a president being elected so I guess it has "worked."
Before we move along, name one other country in the world that has an electoral college modeled after ours.
Good Luck
New member
Electronic voting is all but necessary with the size of this nation. But electronic machines should have a paper backup which is ALWAYS used to audit the machine results, not just when someone questions a close race. Knowing that a direct-comparison audit will always take place would eliminate any practices of false programming. No use committing a crime if you KNOW you'll get caught at it.
What I envision is the voting machine that prints out the results to each voter, so they can verify the printout matches their vote. Then they put the printout in a ballot box to be counted later and compared to the machine results.
Name one that has a constitution modeled after ours.
I mean, seriously... Should we scrap everything that we do that has no "other country" copying it? That would be foolish. That you don't like this part of the constitution doesn't mean that it isn't an amazing document written by men who exhibited far more genius than you.
We are discussing the Electoral College. And the fact that the Constitution is an amazing document written by geniuses does not mean that every single part of it is genius and amazing. It wasn't a perfect document. One of the imperfections is the establishment of the electoral college.
And while the founders may have been smart fellows, as products of their time their views on voting rights were not exactly progressive.
And I am discussing your assertion that since "no other country" has copied that one part that means it is worthless. I notice you can't name another country with a constitution copied from ours...
It's likely that the suggestion that since "no other country" has copied it we need to scrap it that you inferred was an ill informed inference, and when brought to its logical conclusion (that only things that other nations copy are worthwhile to keep) we find that we'd wind up scrapping pretty much everything....
Do you have a better reason than, "No other country copied this one piece of this amazing document written by geniuses"? Considering that no other nation has copied all the things you determine to be "good bits" either it was a silly bit of nonsense to use to argue your position.
Good Luck
New member
Modeled after ours, none that I know of. However, the concept of choosing the executive via means other than popular vote is not uncommon. The most common form is by having parliament choose their executive, a method of which a large number of nations follow. That method was seriously discussed in the Constitutional Convention - having Congress choose a president, one house or the other or some combination of both. The idea was rejected for a number of reasons. You can read about it if you care to, (which you obviously do not. It might take brain power, for which you have demonstrated a complete lack.)
Some nations using the parliamentary selection system also have a popular election, but the parliament still makes the final determination, which in the end is not too dissimilar from our system. Pakistan comes closest to our system, in which their president is selected through a combination of parliament and local provincial assemblies.
Bottom line: the idea of a nation's top executive position being selected through means other than a direct popular vote is NOT unheard of - not by a LONG shot. MOST top executives of republics are selected through means other than direct election, while very few are subject to a direct popular vote. We do it through a delegate system, others through parliament, but both refuse the idea of a direct popular vote.
Last edited:
GL appeared to argue that the fact that other countries have modeled their systems after ours is evidence of the greatness of our system. The problem with that argument is that no other country has adopted the electoral college as a means of electing their president. So, I think you have it a bit backwards. I'm not arguing that the fact that no one else has an electoral college means it suck (though it is indicative of its suckiness).
I'm just arguing that its stupid and serves no good purpose. The fact that it hasn't devolved into chaos is a testament to the wisdom of state legislatures, but I'm afraid time may have run out on that score.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Dubious claims by a rightie are irrelevant?
Good Suck appears to be claiming that our Electoral College is copied elsewhere.
Inquiring minds want to know. Where?
Good Suck appears to be claiming that our Electoral College is copied elsewhere.
Inquiring minds want to know. Where?
Your description of the parliamentary process for selecting a prime minister isn't all that accurate. The party leader of the party receiving the most popular votes becomes prime minister (coallition governments are formed a bit differently, but not much, as the leader of the party receiving the most votes is typically prime minister). Hence, the leader is chosen by popular vote.
Choosing a president by the process we use is unheard of in the rest of the world. It doesn't happen that way.
And you can save the ad homs and lectures. Try being a normal person engaged in a normal conversation. Or are you a dickhead in real life, too?
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
I wonder what is fueling the Rights' current obsession with monkeying with the electoral process?
Could it be that they think Rick Perry can't win without a lil' help?
Could it be that they think Rick Perry can't win without a lil' help?
Interesting. Almost no nation uses a popular vote to elect their executive. Does this mean that we should ignore your suggestion?
BTW - The electoral college is constitutional, how it is applied by the states is not. The states have the power to choose to delegate their electoral college votes as they choose. I do think that there is some argument of "no representation" for states that would use other means than their state election (such as the national popular vote) to delegate their electoral college, but we'll see that when and if it ever comes into effect to use that determining factor.