An Alternative To The Elector College

IBDaMann said:
To hell with everyone being equal under the law, right?


... as long as you divide the number of votes allotted by the number of people in each tax bracket.


... and the reason successful people should be punished for being successful is ...?


... you mean to say that additional votes are to be allotted if you have been indoctrinated into Leftist/Marxist ideology at a university of zero tolerance for intellectual diversity?


There's a word for your plan ... I forget what that word is exactly at the moment.
Click to expand...

In the beginning, only white landowners could vote.

In our current system, something as arbitrary as location determines how much say you have in an election. The Electoral College was devised to solve issues that no longer exist.
 
Michael_Panetta said:
No. Under my system, those with both the least money and the highest education would have the most voting power.
Click to expand...

Right. I gave two useless products of society, one that just got very very poor by quitting school and having babies and another who got very poor by taking underwater BB stacking to the doctorate level. Neither can get a job, both are poor and they are clearly not ready to make decisions for themselves, let alone the rest of a nation yet your system lets those two idiots select the King. It's just plain the stupidest idea ever.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
simple. let me show you the basic steps of being American.

1. supporting the constitution of the united states
2. democrats don't believe in the constitution of the united states
3. republicans don't believe in the constitution of the united states
4. anyone who votes democrat or republican are voting against the constitution of the united states

see how simple that was?
Click to expand...

Oh. I see.







You're dumb.
 
Michael_Panetta said:
In the beginning, only white landowners could vote.
Click to expand...
Allow me to make you the wisest Leftist on the internet by teaching you something that Leftists simply don't understand: the past is not the present. I know, that's totally wild, right? All leftists are taught to assume that the past is the present but now you are so much smarter than all of your contemporaries. While other leftists are repeatedly obligated to change the subject to how the KKK is lynching blacks nationwide, you can point out that the KKK is (i.e. present tense) merely a peaceful segregationist organization of approximately double-digit membership. Of course that type of saavy understanding isn't popular among your ilk but that's the price of being smarter than all the other Leftists.

The past limitations on who could vote "in the beginning" is totally irrelevant to any and all contemporary discussions.

Michael_Panetta said:
In our current system, something as arbitrary as location determines how much say you have in an election.
Click to expand...
Nope. Everybody gets only one vote. Nobody gets to buy a second vote. There are no districts that afford one more votes than other districts. Your mistaken impression that money can change how much say one gets is absurd.

Michael_Panetta said:
The Electoral College was devised to solve issues that no longer exist.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. Those issues still exist and are more relevant and threatening than ever. We need the electoral college more than ever.
 
Arks&sparka said:
Winning the popular vote is like winning at the claw machine. Your prize isn't that great and it's probably something you could purchase cheaper than it cost you to operate the claw machine to win It, but you're going to brag about it and make a big deal about how significant it is.

I always thought that was a funny analogy.
Click to expand...

Since there is no popular vote count to win, as nationwide popular vote doesn't mean anything, there isn't a prize to be had.
 
IBDaMann said:
Allow me to make you the wisest Leftist on the internet by teaching you something that Leftists simply don't understand: the past is not the present. I know, that's totally wild, right? All leftists are taught to assume that the past is the present but now you are so much smarter than all of your contemporaries. While other leftists are repeatedly obligated to change the subject to how the KKK is lynching blacks nationwide, you can point out that the KKK is (i.e. present tense) merely a peaceful segregationist organization of approximately double-digit membership. Of course that type of saavy understanding isn't popular among your ilk but that's the price of being smarter than all the other Leftists.

The past limitations on who could vote "in the beginning" is totally irrelevant to any and all contemporary discussions.


Nope. Everybody gets only one vote. Nobody gets to buy a second vote. There are no districts that afford one more votes than other districts. Your mistaken impression that money can change how much say one gets is absurd.


Incorrect. Those issues still exist and are more relevant and threatening than ever. We need the electoral college more than ever.
Click to expand...

I was making a point that, again, went over your head.
 
Michael_Panetta said:
In the beginning, only white landowners could vote.

In our current system, something as arbitrary as location determines how much say you have in an election. The Electoral College was devised to solve issues that no longer exist.
Click to expand...

The Electoral College was devised to solve the issue of how to choose the president. That issue still exists.
 
CFM said:
That's one of the main reasons the system was created. It meant the winner had to appeal to a wider area not just the highly populated areas.
Click to expand...

Highly populated areas would not have been a factor in the electoral college's construction because there are no popular votes included in the plan (then or now).

I guess they could have considered more highly populated states rather than cities/regions.
 
The only thing really needed to fix the electoral college is getting rid of "winner takes all" in the process. Since the college is based more or less on house districts and each state having two senators, you get the two senatorial votes based on the state's popular vote while the house votes are divided up by who wins in that district. Thus, popular vote plays a role as well as having most states (I think there are still a few with one House seat) divvy up their votes by who wins where in the state. That would give both each locality and each state a role in determining the Presidency.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
1. that totally destroys the reason for the electoral college
2. its probably a moot point anyway because democrats destroyed this country with the 17th Amendment
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. It means states with large populations like California, Texas, or New York, can no longer dominate an election. Instead of California getting 55 Democrat electors the result would be more like 33 - 40 Democrat electors and 15 to 22 Republican ones. It removes the tyranny of the popular vote.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
No, it doesn't. It means states with large populations like California, Texas, or New York, can no longer dominate an election. Instead of California getting 55 Democrat electors the result would be more like 33 - 40 Democrat electors and 15 to 22 Republican ones. It removes the tyranny of the popular vote.
Click to expand...

the electoral college has never been dominated by popular vote, obviously. and if CA, TX, and NY are dominant, why are they always looking at PA, IA, WI, and OH?????

no, there was a reason why the electoral college was used for presidential votes and why US Senators were selected by state legislators, until the 17th Amendment, and that was proportional representation among all 3 entities.........
 
SmarterthanYou said:
the electoral college has never been dominated by popular vote, obviously. and if CA, TX, and NY are dominant, why are they always looking at PA, IA, WI, and OH?????

no, there was a reason why the electoral college was used for presidential votes and why US Senators were selected by state legislators, until the 17th Amendment, and that was proportional representation among all 3 entities.........
Click to expand...

It does by state if it's winner take all. One side gets say 51% of the vote and disenfranchises the other 49% by getting all of the state's delegates. If the delegates were apportioned by the vote, that wouldn't happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top