Electoral College Question

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: schuyler

All states should be ignored in a presidential election, as it's not the states electing the president, but the people of one nation.

The argument that we still need the EC because it balances the power between small and large states is irrelevant, as it's not the states who should be considered as voters. The ONLY reason that it is important as to how a state votes is BECAUSE of the Electoral College--it doesn't alleviate that problem or concern, but exacerbates it.

We are a confederation of 50 sovereign States, not a singular nation.

We are also a representative Republic.

Both of your comments fly in the face of those principles and make you sound ignorant.

You have some reading to do on this country, its founding, and the reasoning behind it.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: schuyler

All states should be ignored in a presidential election, as it's not the states electing the president, but the people of one nation.

The argument that we still need the EC because it balances the power between small and large states is irrelevant, as it's not the states who should be considered as voters. The ONLY reason that it is important as to how a state votes is BECAUSE of the Electoral College--it doesn't alleviate that problem or concern, but exacerbates it.

Wrong. This is the United STATES of America, not the United PEOPLE of America. It's not just about people. If you will read my original thread on the Electoral College, you will see how and why this happened. If it were not for the Electoral College, most people in most states may as well not vote at all. The fly-over states would be completely irrelevant. Candidates could concentrate on both coasts and ignore everyone else. At east this way every state at least has the potential to be the key state in an election, even Wyoming. This forces the candidates to campaign in all states instead of just a few. Ironic, perhaps, but the Electoral College is more of a champion for the individual vote, especially in small states, ta anything else. Just treating the Electoral College superficially is just simplistic. Study this a bit instead of just emotionally react.

a reply to: cynicalheathen

Okay, if you say so, sir.

I don't have time to get into a pissing match with someone on here who is nothing but dismissive and vague. I've researched the reasoning behind and function of the electoral college for well more than a few election cycles now--I can disagree with the need for the EC at this point in our nation's history without being ignorant to the points that you noted (which, to be fair, have zero to do with my comments on the Electoral College).

You can disagree with my stance on the topic, but I'm far from ignorant on the subject--but if it makes you feel better to fling such insults my way, feel free. It matters not what your opinion of my knowledge and understanding is concerning the topic at hand.

Best regards.

And we are a singular nation--I'd love to hear your argument against that reality, other than just some drive-by comment and accusation of ignorance toward me.

a reply to: schuyler

I did read your thread to which you linked--and this isn't the first time I've looked at it, as evident by my comments on that exact thread at the time you wrote it.

I disagree with the need for the Electoral College, and I think that the argument about certain states of people not mattering if we didn't have the Electoral College is relatively insignificant--as it stands now, many states are irrelevant when it comes to electoral votes.

We don't live in a world where candidates NEED to fly into every state and pander directly to its citizens (hell, we all know 90% of a candidates claims and comments are pandering anyhow)--with all of our access to technology and video screen and ability to watch speeches and however else we get the information as to how a candidate would do what's best for the nation (not for the individual or for the individual state in which you live), there is absolutely zero place to argue that flying to and fro by candidates is even a necessity anymore. And as it stands, candidates skip many states already.

For the last time to you and others on here, I HAVE studied the E.C., and even wrote a paper on it in college (like I mentioned in your thread from 2015), coming to the conclusion that I think it is a unnecessary relic in the modern era--and that was 13 years ago. Advances in technology keep bolstering my conclusion every year.

You can disagree with the need for it all that you want, but that doesn't make my conclusion wrong, nor does it mean that, just because I came to a different conclusion than you, that I have not studied the E.C. in absolutely plenty of depth to intelligently form my conclusion and discuss the topic.

What is with you guys who think that, just because I would prefer the vote be left to the people, that I'm ignorant to the 'why' behind the creation and amending of the E.C.? Are you saying that no learned individual on the topic of the E.C. can come to the conclusion that the benefits of abolishing it outweigh the benefits of having it?

If so, that's an absolutely ridiculous notion.

For what it's worth, my opinion on the topic has not changed in the past 11 months since you started that other thread. The reason that this issue comes up every four years is because it's not as cut-and-dry as you are claiming/presenting it to be, and there are many, many people out there--very informed on the topic--who advocate ridding the election system of the E.C. altogether.

Again, just because that/my opinion differs from yours and others on here does not make it ill-informed, ignorant, or any other derogatory term that one wants to use. And for the record, yes, we are the United STATES of America, but the government which the president is a part of is one of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE, and for the PEOPLE. And you'll also note that the Constitution demands you be a PERSON to cast a ballot, not a state.

We can argue these semantics all day, but that part of the discussion will get us nowhere.

originally posted by: cynicalheathen

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: schuyler

All states should be ignored in a presidential election, as it's not the states electing the president, but the people of one nation.

The argument that we still need the EC because it balances the power between small and large states is irrelevant, as it's not the states who should be considered as voters. The ONLY reason that it is important as to how a state votes is BECAUSE of the Electoral College--it doesn't alleviate that problem or concern, but exacerbates it.

We are a confederation of 50 sovereign States, not a singular nation.

We are also a representative Republic.

"I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

The original Francis Bellamy pledge of allegiance, that's pretty clear...republic, one nation, the only bit that is controversial as it was back in the day, is 'Under God'
Even the Civil War consolidated the one nation theme.

The electoral college idea however was a bit sniffy of the plebs though. It was deemed for those not versed in the art of politique...in other words, fecking ignorant, but you do see the freedom of manipulation that allowed...tecnically still does in the main.

I will add that TV likes the electoral college setup, luvely jubbly$$$$$, but funny enough, I think Trump has trumped them this time round, a minimum of ads from him, he only needs to be somwhere and the news will follow, so will viewers, just to hear whatever comes out of his gub.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: cynicalheathen

Okay, if you say so, sir.

I don't have time to get into a pissing match with someone on here who is nothing but dismissive and vague. I've researched the reasoning behind and function of the electoral college for well more than a few election cycles now--I can disagree with the need for the EC at this point in our nation's history without being ignorant to the points that you noted (which, to be fair, have zero to do with my comments on the Electoral College).

You can disagree with my stance on the topic, but I'm far from ignorant on the subject--but if it makes you feel better to fling such insults my way, feel free. It matters not what your opinion of my knowledge and understanding is concerning the topic at hand.

Best regards.

And we are a singular nation--I'd love to hear your argument against that reality, other than just some drive-by comment and accusation of ignorance toward me.

Ignorance isn't an insult, it's something one is supposed to deny.

It is stated in our founding documents that we are a Union, can you have a Union of one thing? We are not a singular nation, we are a nation of confederated sovereign states. Why have state borders and individual state Constitutions ( a few of which reserve the right to leave the union ) if we are all one?

Words have meaning, as well as legal definitions.

Election by a simple majority is by definition a democracy, which the United States are not. The word doesn't appear anywhere in the Constitution, which is ( for now ) the Supreme Law of the Land. Democracy is tyranny of the majority, by the way. 51% of the population can force, by government coercion their opinion on the other 49% against their will. Hardly a place I'd like to live.

The words "Shall guarantee a republican form of government", however are in the Constitution. Therefore... We are a Constitutional representative Republic, not a democracy.

The electoral college, while not perfect, is a compromise to keep the more populated states from overruling the less populated, as others have stated.

If you want some other way to elect a President ( who is a figurehead and doesn't matter anyway ), there is a procedure outlined in the Constitution, and I suggest you follow it if you choose to proceed.

"It's not fair and I don't agree with it." doesn't fly when there are rules clearly laid out.

a reply to: cynicalheathen

Disagreeing with clearly laid-out rules is perfectly acceptable if one sees no need for something.

There are rules governing the PPACA, but I disagree with the scope of it and the need for it. There are many SCOTUS rulings with which I have issues, but does that mean that I have to agree with them and not call for them to be overturned when different justices are appointed?

If the it's-not-fair-and-I-don't-agree-with-it argument (your words, not mine) doesn't fly when rules are clearly laid out, why do we have a process for amending the constitution?

Tradition (e.g.: "Clearly laid-out rules") is not a logical foundation in and of itself for the basis of an argument; the there-are-rules-clearly-laid-out-already argument doesn't fly when the topic being discussed can be shown to be irrelevant, and over 200 years after the Electoral College was put into existence (and amended in 1804 with the ratification of the 12th amendment...even though there were clearly laid-out rules) have shown me that it is an unnecessary and antiquated system in a nation of 320-million citizens. To have 538 individuals (electors) choose our president is ridiculous when each individual of voting age has ready access to all of the information that they need in order to make an intelligent decision.

And when the majority of the 538 individuals are required by law to vote with the majority of each state (democracy, where the majority wins), arguing that democracy is not a fair way to vote is pretty ironic--dontcha think?

It's like ray-ee-aaaaain, on election, day...

I think that it should be this way:

That the electors and the votes they cast be based off of the percentages that a candidate gets. That means in say California, if Trump gets 30% of the vote then he should get 30 percent of the electoral votes at the end, and the same for Texas, if Clinton gets 30% of the popular vote in Texas, then 30 percent of that states electoral votes should go to her. It would be more closer to how a candidate does in a state than what the current system does.

Rural areas have a say, but candidates spend less time in them. Low population density doesn't make for efficient spending. The low electoral vote states actually provide more votes per person though. If anything, the Electoral College disproportionately favors rural areas which is a fair tradeoff considering they're the most costly to campaign in.

originally posted by: Edumakated
I don't understand why certain states have more votes than others. It seems antiquated and unfair. Each state should be entitled to one electoral college vote. This way more populous states don't have more say over more rural states. Also, it means politicians need to pay attention to the entire country, not just a handful of states.

Popular vote for President is dangerous. Particularly given how uneducated a lot of people are in this country. Mob rule is never good. Sometimes the minority is right.

So you believe the people of Montana, a state with 580,000 people should have the same say in their vote for President as California, a state with 40,000,000 people? That seems a little unfair to me.

Instead I think it would leave you with another problem. The least populous states like Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, and Alaska would become the most important states to carry because they would be the easiest/cheapest to win and all of (much larger) populations of New York, California, and so on would be ignored.

originally posted by: vor78
a reply to: Martin75

I absolutely agree with you 100%. I've been saying for years that the EVs need to be apportioned by Congressional district, as this would give political minority populations in many states a voice in presidential elections that they simply do not have right now.

Wouldn't this just make the problem of gerrymandering, and consequently the swing areas much more powerful? The logic behind gerrymandering is to group populations of like voting tendencies together. This way they can elect (in the primary) a representative that more people are happy with. If you based EV's on these districts you would simply lock in more of the vote and create a huge problem with redistricting is done, as the party in power could then choose the next president simply by making the districts favor themselves. Additionally, because more areas like cities and even rural areas would be locked in, the election would center entirely around the 20-30 districts that are actually up for grabs.

a reply to: Martin75
hey Martin75, like your thread for education purposes related to elections and exactly where we live, for it's NOT a democracy, where the public populus actually votes on absolutely everything. We actually live in a representative republic, and notice there that I don't employ the terms representative democracy: the reason for that is even when voting for whom will represent us, there is another method employed to delineate who participates in that, and their votes have the final say. That is what the electoral college represents.

Another factor in what you are searching answers about is how the districts are drawn and what figures into that, for this is the way that a particular number of delegates are named (and in this case, number is the most important factor to concentrate upon.) When the census comes out, and people are encouraged to respond, this is the way that important statistics about the populus of a certain area in a particular state are then compiled and represented by a statistical number of representational delegates, for purposes of electing the latter.

The real importance of understanding this, is then realizing how ephemeral and ambiguous, and just how many factors then can be used to influence the situation, imho. In other words, let's take Hurricane Katrina, in my area, as an example, or any disastrous climate effect, for that matter, that greatly influences the public enough to create a "diaspora" from one area to another, in order for people to save themselves from that which is beyond their control. Such an event can obviously create a "redrawing" of that particular voting district, influencing, then, how many delegates and what their particular political affiliation is, in large part, and how that area will then be represented in the electoral college. Population factors, belief systems, and climate come together in what I just described as a confluence of what seems like disparate events and facts, that all add up to exactly how the representatives will then be named and numbered to be chosen to represent where they come from. Understand? It's pretty complex, when viewed through that particular mind set, because then all kinds of parameters figure into how are representatives and delegates whose vote matters more than the general public vote in who then represents us later.....

regards,
tetra

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Why follow any laws when the rules don't matter anyway? That seems to be the argument you are making.

My point is that, if the Electoral College is so bad, then change it if you feel so strongly about it. The procedure to do so ( the Amendment process ) is clearly laid out in black and white.

Since rules don't matter, then surely you don't mind if your property is searched without a warrant or your free expression is curtailed, right? After all, that pesky Constitution is just a bunch of rules. Why should the government have to abide by it?

Your example of electors being required to vote with the popular vote is flawed. The people of that state had to agree with those rules and can change them if they see fit. They have determined as a sovereign state how they want to carry on their affairs. The system is still a representative Republic since the electors ( representatives ) can still be replaced by the population.

Assuming that the average individual is intelligent enough to make decisions about their government is laughable. Most people have no idea what their rights are, or even that the US is a Republic, not a democracy. Low Information voters comprise the vast majority of registered voters.

originally posted by: cynicalheathen
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Why follow any laws when the rules don't matter anyway? That seems to be the argument you are making.

That's not what I said at all--you're purposefully misinterpreting my comment to try and make it out to seem ridiculous.

My point in that entire comment to which you responded is that just because something is a law or an official procedure does not mean that a person (me, in this instance) can not disagree with it.

How you get that I'm advocating ignoring all laws because of that stance is beyond me...like I said, you're trying to make it seem like I'm some fringe anarchist or something, and that's utter nonsense.

My point is that, if the Electoral College is so bad, then change it if you feel so strongly about it. The procedure to do so ( the Amendment process ) is clearly laid out in black and white.

Did you even read my comment in full? I specifically mentioned that there are ways to amend the Constitution, and implied pretty heavily that this is proof that the idea of using the because-it's-a-law defense is asinine.

And for the record, I have already petitioned my congressman about numerous things, one of which being a hope that he sponsors a bill that will abolish the Electoral College.

Since rules don't matter, then surely you don't mind if your property is searched without a warrant or your free expression is curtailed, right? After all, that pesky Constitution is just a bunch of rules. Why should the government have to abide by it?

Again, I never said that rules don't matter, so please read what I actually write, not what you are anticipating or hoping that I'm saying. I'm a big advocate of following laws and rules that exist--but I'm also an advocate of petitioning for change when said laws and rules have become useless.

Your example of electors being required to vote with the popular vote is flawed. The people of that state had to agree with those rules and can change them if they see fit. They have determined as a sovereign state how they want to carry on their affairs. The system is still a representative Republic since the electors ( representatives ) can still be replaced by the population.

Just because a process exists to change the procedure of something that I dislike does not mean that pointing out the reality of the situation as it currently exists "is flawed." Again, that's utter nonsense.

Yes, people can advocate a change in procedure (as I have numerous times before), but until that happens, it's a non-reality, and therefore I will cite reality as I deem appropriate for the discussion at hand--the reality being that the majority of states in the U.S. have state laws (or some other official procedure) that dictates that electors MUST vote with the majority of the state. If that's a flawed assessment of the reality of the current situation in America, please prove it, otherwise quit trying to argue with me based on hypothetical scenarios.

Assuming that the average individual is intelligent enough to make decisions about their government is laughable. Most people have no idea what their rights are, or even that the US is a Republic, not a democracy. Low Information voters comprise the vast majority of registered voters.

Again, you have read what you wanted to see instead of what I actually wrote, which was, "To have 538 individuals (electors) choose our president is ridiculous when each individual of voting age has ready access to all of the information that they need in order to make an intelligent decision."

Note that I said that they have ready access to information in order to make an intelligent decision, not that I assumed that they are all intelligent enough to make informed voting choices. Hell, I'm the first one to argue that the majority of the American voters base their votes on ignorance and probably couldn't intelligently discuss that platform of any candidate, even the one(s) for which they are voting.

So, if you want continue this discussion, please correctly assess my comments and respond to what I actually say, not what you expect or assume that I'm saying. I'm discussing this as directly and clearly as possible specifically so that my stance on the topic is easily understood, but if all this is going to devolve into is me having to point out how incorrectly you are interpreting/reading my comments, then this discussion has become pointless.