Tbird19482
Verified User
PS as I said this would help the Republicans win more of NYs EC votes.
Should the Electoral College be preserved?
- Thread starter Diogenes
- Start date
Diogenes
1 account to rule them all
How?
Litmus
Verified User
no it should stay as Is.
it's called losing the election.
welcome to democracy.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
not only should it be preserved, the 17th Amendment should be repealed
Tbird19482
Verified User
Well for one thing a lot of UPSTATE NYs districts are deep red districts and the districts down around NYC aren't and with the winner takes all BS with over half on NYs population living in the NYC area what they want is what we get.
Having it go by Congressional district the red up state districts would have gone for Trump giving him a bigger win,
And the way it is now those red districts may have well not even voted.
Tbird19482
Verified User
And AGAIN it is the RED districts in states like NY that are losing out.
Litmus
Verified User
please stop repeating your nonsense.
popular support is important for true mandates.
welcome to democracy.
Diogenes
1 account to rule them all
So you say. With no visible evidence, I might add. Assertions aren't evidence.
Trump, Trump, Trump. Trump, Trump, Trump.
Your hatred has no place in this discussion.
You do understand the Electoral College has nothing to do with political parties, don't you?
Its purpose - clearly delineated - is to eliminate the tyranny of the majority based upon population, and avoid the possibility of endangering the separation of powers.
You don't know what the "tyranny of the majority based upon population" is, do you?
You don't know what the separation of powers is, do you?
You don't know how much debate and consideration the men who created our constitution engaged in before they hammered out the compromise that is the Electoral College, do you?
There were no political parties in America in 1787 when the Constitution was being devised. You didn't know that, either, did you?
No other nation that existed at the time had ever codified the selection of a chief executive in a constitutional republic, as far as I know.
You didn't know that, either, did you?
Not everything is an "us vs them" binary contest, like team sports.
Our nation's traditional motto and its meaning and significance are very likely mysteries to you, I suspect.
I don't expect a rational or pertinent answer from you, of course.
Constitutional Convention | History & Compromises | Britannica
Constitutional Convention, convention that drew up the U.S. Constitution. Stimulated by severe economic troubles, which produced radical political movements such as Shays’s Rebellion, the convention met in Philadelphia (May 25–September 17, 1787), ostensibly to amend the Articles of Confederation.
www.britannica.com
Tbird19482
Verified User
Okay so you don't want to see the Republicans be able to have more votes in the EC.
So be it.
Tbird19482
Verified User
SO you want peoples wishes for who becomes President to be taken away from them by the Winner take all BS.So you say. With no visible evidence, I might add. Assertions aren't evidence.
Trump, Trump, Trump. Trump, Trump, Trump.
Your hatred has no place in this discussion.
You do understand the Electoral College has nothing to do with political parties, don't you?
Its purpose - clearly delineated - is to eliminate the tyranny of the majority based upon population, and avoid the possibility of endangering the separation of powers.
You don't know what the "tyranny of the majority based upon population" is, do you?
You don't know what the separation of powers is, do you?
You don't know how much debate and consideration the men who created our constitution engaged in before they hammered out the compromise that is the Electoral College, do you?
There were no political parties in America in 1787 when the Constitution was being devised. You didn't know that, either, did you?
No other nation that existed at the time had ever codified the selection of a chief executive in a constitutional republic, as far as I know.
You didn't know that, either, did you?
Not everything is an "us vs them" binary contest, like team sports.
Our nation's traditional motto and its meaning and significance are very likely mysteries to you, I suspect.
I don't expect a rational or pertinent answer from you, of course.
Constitutional Convention | History & Compromises | Britannica
Constitutional Convention, convention that drew up the U.S. Constitution. Stimulated by severe economic troubles, which produced radical political movements such as Shays’s Rebellion, the convention met in Philadelphia (May 25–September 17, 1787), ostensibly to amend the Articles of Confederation.
As I said in states that has a large metro area like NYC that has over half the population on the state and controls how the delegates to the EC vote takes away the voice of the rest of that state.
Here in NY there ARE a LOT of upstate districts that might as well not even vote because IF NYC wants one candidate to win and they carry that candidate that candidate carries the state.
And the upstate / western NY votes do not matter.
taking away the winner BS would make their votes count, as it is now a lot of the time it doesn't matter.
And that could mean 10 or more votes for a Republican candidate and it would make EVERY BODIES VOTE count,
Diogenes
1 account to rule them all
Tbird19482
Verified User
And one more thing do you understand every Congressional district gets on vote in the EC?So you say. With no visible evidence, I might add. Assertions aren't evidence.
Trump, Trump, Trump. Trump, Trump, Trump.
Your hatred has no place in this discussion.
You do understand the Electoral College has nothing to do with political parties, don't you?
Its purpose - clearly delineated - is to eliminate the tyranny of the majority based upon population, and avoid the possibility of endangering the separation of powers.
You don't know what the "tyranny of the majority based upon population" is, do you?
You don't know what the separation of powers is, do you?
You don't know how much debate and consideration the men who created our constitution engaged in before they hammered out the compromise that is the Electoral College, do you?
There were no political parties in America in 1787 when the Constitution was being devised. You didn't know that, either, did you?
No other nation that existed at the time had ever codified the selection of a chief executive in a constitutional republic, as far as I know.
You didn't know that, either, did you?
Not everything is an "us vs them" binary contest, like team sports.
Our nation's traditional motto and its meaning and significance are very likely mysteries to you, I suspect.
I don't expect a rational or pertinent answer from you, of course.
Constitutional Convention | History & Compromises | Britannica
Constitutional Convention, convention that drew up the U.S. Constitution. Stimulated by severe economic troubles, which produced radical political movements such as Shays’s Rebellion, the convention met in Philadelphia (May 25–September 17, 1787), ostensibly to amend the Articles of Confederation.
and with winner take all some of those districts voices are NOT being heard,
NY has 28 districts and only about 12 or so are Upstate and in western NY , so IF NYC with their 15 or 16 districts says we want this candidate that is the candidate the whole state has to stand behind, and as I said upstate/ western NY might as well not have even bothered to vote.
Voting by Congressional districts is more fair to all voters because their voice would be heard.
Tbird19482
Verified User
IF you want to keep the winner take all BS then you want to take away some peoples vote.Any time I see T-Bird's response beginning with "So", I issue one of these:
Why don't we just let the state legislatures decide who gets all the states EC delegates?
It is in the CONSTITUTION that they can do that and none of us would have to vote then.
Litmus
Verified User
The popular votes also matters
Should not be preserved.
The Electoral College is an institution established under Article Two of the US Constitution that grants each state a given number of electors in proportion to the size of its congressional delegation. The Electoral College is constitutionally mandated, and abolishing it would require a constitutional amendment.
With 528 Electoral College votes available in total, a majority of 270 is required for a candidate to win the White House.
Senate Democrats now say they want to abolish it.
That would require an amendment to the Constitution, which requires the consent of two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states.
If the Electoral College was eliminated, the power to elect the President would rest solely in the hands of a few of the largest states and cities, greatly diminishing the voice of smaller populated states.
The U.S. is not a pure democracy. It is a constitutional republic that protects minority rights from the will of the majority.
Today's Electoral College vote moved President Trump another step toward officially becoming president again.
President Trump carried all seven key battleground states enroute to a 312 to 226 Electoral College victory over Vice President Harris.
President Trump also won the popular vote, scoring 77,300,739 ballots to 75,014,534 for Vice President Harris.
The electoral votes from the states will be certified on Jan. 6 during a joint session of Congress.
President Trump will be inaugurated two weeks later, on Jan. 20.
Should the Electoral College be preserved?
Your observation that the country "is not a pure democracy. It is a constitutional republic that protects minority rights from the will of the majority" is not relevant. There isn't a sound reason why a resident of Idaho, for example, should have a larger say than residents of other states in the election of a President. In fact, it is unfair, the President being a national leader. A state's equal interest with other states is a legislative interest and is protected in the election of Senate members. Nor was your rationale the basis for the EC in the first place. Rather, giving small states a larger per capita voice was necessary to get their ratification. The EC came into being as a kind of bribery.
Diogenes
1 account to rule them all
Yet it appears to be a fact. Doesn't it?
You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension. Makes discussion not possible with you.
Diogenes
1 account to rule them all
I'd have to conclude that your inability to be an effective persuader is responsible for your frustration.
That's a "you" problem.
The comment from which you extracted a single sentence corrected the misunderstanding of the EC in your post. Nothing more for you "to conclude."
Diogenes
1 account to rule them all
So you say.
If you can show that it's a "misunderstanding of the EC", why not do so, instead of dismissing it as "irrelevant"?