BREAKING: Democrats Introduce Bill To Eliminate Electoral College

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: narrator

The US isn't California or NY either, but if you went that route, we'd all effectively be governed by those people.

That's why we have the EC -- because the Founders already knew in those times that each state had its own distinct culture and way of life, and what worked for one was not necessarily going to work for another. To a certain extent, the EC protects that. It lets people who live in flyover be those people while it allows people who live on the coasts to be those people.

If I wanted to live like someone in Cali or New York, I'd live there, but I don't, and I certainly don't want to live under their idea of governance which is why the EC exists to attempt to ensure that our president is more representative of the nation as a whole than just the big urban cores where most people are lumped. As nice as that thought is, it isn't fully representative of every way of life in this country.

Have you been paying attention to the yellow vests in France? That's what happens when you have too much tyranny of the majority. The minority eventually has no other recourse. Those weren't hot-headed radicals. They were solid, blue collar providers who had no voice left other than what we all saw. The EC system helps to prevent that.

In a sense, you might say that Donald Trump is an ongoing yellow vest protest by a group of people who felt like no one listened to them. Now no one can ignore it. It's right there in your faces Tweeting.

To clarify, I feel that in this day and age, our government is very poorly set up to manage a country of our size and diversity. I'm very pro abolishing the EC, but I'm also very pro dividing the US into several different self-governed sections. I fully agree with you, I actively choose to not live in CA or NY, and I wouldn't want to be represented by them. On the flip side of that though, I wouldn't want to be represented by staunch Republicans either.

Different regions of the country have the exact opposite political values as other regions of the country. Why continue to compromise everyone's happiness? North Dakota shouldn't have to answer to country-wide governance when it comes to how to farm. Likewise, super liberal folks in Seattle shouldn't have to answer to the same governance that die-hard Mississippi conservatives love.
We all have different beliefs and values. Nowadays (in general, there are obvious exceptions) it tends to be split into regions. Why not let the regions govern themselves? The way our government is set up is a horribly inefficient way to govern a country of our size and diversity. SOMETHING needs to change, it's pretty obvious that we're losing the international race of "best country", as we continue to drop in almost every measurable way. We have a problem, let's fix it instead of being stubborn and obstinate.
This is just a suggestion, it's obviously way more complicated than what I'm writing.

a reply to: narrator

If that were truly the case, Clinton would be president, as she got about 3,000,000 more votes than Trump.

But, as we all know, she isn't (praise be to all higher powers). That means votes actually don't count the same, in the truest sense.

The popular vote applies only at the state and district level. So yes, votes do count the same.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: queenofswords
Man! I hope the next voting-age group smartens up regarding our Constitution and Government. There is a very basic reason we have an Electoral College and they need to understand it fully.

Here's the thing, if the 'next voting-age group' wants to abolish the Electoral College they can, they just need to follow one of the two processes for amending the Constitution.

The Original Poster is fretting over nothing, he could have posted a thread title stating 'Dems want trans unicorns to crap in kids lunchboxes' and it'd have as much chance of passing as these would.

Not quite the same. No representatives actually put forward a bill make it legal for trans unicorns to crap in kids lunchboxes.
Obviously the two bills have zero chance of passing, but it does however show just how unhinged the intent is. These are not crazies on street corners calling for this - they are elected representatives weilding significant power.

I think the point is more along the lines of "so what?" because we all know there's a snowball's chance of this passing.

Very few of Trump's supporters cared in the slightest when he said "I like taking the guns first and worrying about due process later." You'll have to excuse some of the rest of us for not getting worked up over this complete non-starter of a bill.

originally posted by: narrator
I'm 100% for abolishing the EC.

So you wish to abolish the Senate also?

Simply, an idiotic attempt to appease the extreme left that they at least tried.

This has about as much chance of passing as Tufts getting into the final 4. Well, Tufts has a basketball team, so that might not be a fair comparison.



This is a newbee, trying to garner attention.

Fred..

Basically, if you get rid of the Electoral College, you'd have to get rid of the Senate because if you are for equal representation and one person/one vote then you'd have to be for eliminating the Senate because individual senators represent a disproportionate population.

originally posted by: fredrodgers1960
Simply, an idiotic attempt to appease the extreme left that they at least tried.

This has about as much chance of passing as Tufts getting into the final 4. Well, Tufts has a basketball team, so that might not be a fair comparison.

This is a newbee, trying to garner attention.

Fred..

That's exactly what it is, no more and no less. I'd bet it was a campaign platform, now that box is ticked, and they can go back to trying to get those Big Pharma "donations."

"Orange Man Bad!"...
"Orange Man Win Electoral College!"...

"Electoral College Bad!"

originally posted by: narrator
I'm 100% for abolishing the EC. Power to the people and all that good stuff. If we're all for a smaller government, shouldn't we want the government to not be involved in how the country votes? One man one vote, equal representation, etc. etc.

Let every vote count the same. Whichever side gets the majority of the votes, wins. Any other way makes zero sense to me.

To head off the inevitable, ridiculous reply at the pass: Yes, a majority used to be in favor of slavery. But voting for a politician can not be compared to voting to violate human rights. Don't sully your argument by comparing the two.

Same with saying, "go talk to (insert middle eastern country) and see how they like majority voting". The US isn't Syria, Afghanistan, etc. See my previous point, voting for politicians is not the same as voting to violate human rights.

Abolishing the EC will actually do the opposite of what you think. It will disenfranchise millions.

Its absolute idiocy to want to do a first past the post system. Pure idiocy.

Puts no power in the hands of the people. It takes power out of the hands of the people. If you cant understand that it's because either you dont want to or you want a couple populous states to run the country.

Not having the EC is stupid.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: narrator

You think a handful of large cities should have complete control over rural America then? You are for single party control?

Likewise, I don't think that small towns and farmers should have control over urban America. HOWEVER, at state and local levels, the urban areas have control over their policies and the rural areas have control of their own agenda.

Nationally, the public opinion should sway things. If the majority of America lives in small towns and farming areas then yes, they should control the agenda on a national level (which would include things like individual rights and so forth. But national policy isn't the same as local policy. You might not be in favor of marriage equality laws, but it's a social impact and not an economic one.

To conflate local and state laws with national laws is a mistake and a bad discourse tactic.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: narrator

You think a handful of large cities should have complete control over rural America then? You are for single party control?

I'd think the only reason to be opposed to the EC would be because a person thinks it would help them force their views on everyone, because they think it means their party would always win. Right?

I live in Alaska and what works for the huge, bloated messes like NYC or Los Angeles would fail miserably here and the only thing that gives us any say at all is the EC and having two Senators. Usually people who are opposed to the EC are also bothered by us having an equal number of Senators.

I think you need to take a look at the real reasons for the EC in today's America. Single party rule always leads to less freedom and more government control. The world has seen the results of that more than once and it ain't pretty.

For starters, I'm not a Democrat, so no, it isn't because "my party" would always win, because it isn't my party.

In actuality, you did a good job of outlining my broader view on how the country should be governed. Alaska should not be governed the same way as California, etc. The MAJORITY of Alaskans don't hold the same values as LA folks, so shouldn't Alaska be governed by how the majority of them want to be governed rather than having to deal with mainland rules that don't apply to y'all?

I've clarified in an earlier post: I'm pro abolishing the EC. But I'm more pro abolishing the American government as it currently stands, and dividing the country into several self-governed regions. The US is too big and too diverse to have one single government taking care of the needs of such a radically different population. 200 years ago it made sense, but we just have too many people and too many different strongly held beliefs for our government to make sense anymore.

The standard rebuttal I get to that is "well not everyone can get what they want"...and my answer then becomes "then who should get what they want? The...majority?" It's a complicated, cyclical argument, I know. But, splitting the US up is what makes the most sense to me, otherwise we'd be forever stuck in the above quoted not everyone/but then who loop.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
"Orange Man Bad!"...
"Orange Man Win Electoral College!"...

"Electoral College Bad!"

No one had a problem with the Electoral College until Hillary, The Evil Death Queen of Hell and Vomit, lost.

originally posted by: headorheart

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: narrator

Every vote does count the same under the existing election rules.

My vote has never counted towards a Presidential election.

Lol. You have clue what having your vote not counting actually means.

In Canada my vote is irrelevant by the time 2 provinces finish voting. Most times the polling stations aren't even open in my province and the election is over.

That's first past the post elections. That's what not having an EC means.

The last federal election the gun who is PM now didnt even come to my province. He didnt have to because he didnt need our votes.

That's what vote not counting really means. Something you've never experienced being an American.

a reply to: narrator

diversity. I'm very pro abolishing the EC, but I'm also very pro dividing the US into several different self-governed sections.

No.

Divide yourself.

originally posted by: Carcharadon

originally posted by: narrator
I'm 100% for abolishing the EC. Power to the people and all that good stuff. If we're all for a smaller government, shouldn't we want the government to not be involved in how the country votes? One man one vote, equal representation, etc. etc.

Let every vote count the same. Whichever side gets the majority of the votes, wins. Any other way makes zero sense to me.

To head off the inevitable, ridiculous reply at the pass: Yes, a majority used to be in favor of slavery. But voting for a politician can not be compared to voting to violate human rights. Don't sully your argument by comparing the two.

Same with saying, "go talk to (insert middle eastern country) and see how they like majority voting". The US isn't Syria, Afghanistan, etc. See my previous point, voting for politicians is not the same as voting to violate human rights.

Abolishing the EC will actually do the opposite of what you think. It will disenfranchise millions.

Its absolute idiocy to want to do a first past the post system. Pure idiocy.

Puts no power in the hands of the people. It takes power out of the hands of the people. If you cant understand that it's because either you dont want to or you want a couple populous states to run the country.

Not having the EC is stupid.

Or...you're just worried that the political party that you back would lose some of their power?
Disenfranchising millions is not the same as the people losing power over the government.
I fail to understand how giving complete voting power to the people would actually take that power away from the people. Care to explain that for me?

Also, read my replies to others in regards to this. My full position on the matter is way more complicated than "abolish the EC".

a reply to: narrator

The entire Constitution should be abolished, for 24hrs, then whoever is left standing can decide if the Constitution should be reinstated or re-written.

For 6 years on ATS Ive stated time and time again that the democrats are the party of 'lets change all the sh!t' and the republicans are the party of 'time for war' - they both go hand in hand, like the carrot & the stick.

Here would be a good compromise - every citizen gets a government issued voter ID - she's all linked in to the grand daddy database where alarm bells ring at the slightest instance of doubt. Now, once its established that only citizens vote, which might take 3-4 election cycles to verify, and it is streamlined where every citizen is satisfied that their vote was registered, and all registered votes = all registered citizens, then there will be no need to abolish the EC at all, but the bill/amendment can be reintroduced at that time, see if folks are still keen to get rid of the EC.

But - honest & ethical elections conducted with integrity and a rule of the law is paramount and sits as the most fundamental requirement in maintaining a free and safe nation - not deconstructing the Constitution as a means of maintaining political power.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: narrator

diversity. I'm very pro abolishing the EC, but I'm also very pro dividing the US into several different self-governed sections.

No.

A very well thought out reply. That's your opinion. I'm equally entitled to mine. Our opinions differ. But we both have the same right to them. i.e. equal representation. A pretty good example of how it'd work!

originally posted by: IAMTAT
"Orange Man Bad!"...
"Orange Man Win Electoral College!"...

"Electoral College Bad!"

So, I also am thoroughly amused at the even concept of eliminating the Senate and/or EC.

What these idiots fail to grasp is, they can't "wish" a change to the constitution. And there is no possible chance of that happening in this or many generations to come.

But, what I find most interesting is, the absolute only way for this to even be considered, would be these scenarios"

"The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. "

Ain't happening in our lifetimes.

Fred..

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: IAMTAT
"Orange Man Bad!"...
"Orange Man Win Electoral College!"...

"Electoral College Bad!"

No one had a problem with the Electoral College until Hillary, The Evil Death Queen of Hell and Vomit, lost.

That's just not true. I've held the same review in regards to the EC for almost two decades now. Also, for what it's worth, I most definitely didn't want Hillary to win.

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: IAMTAT
"Orange Man Bad!"...
"Orange Man Win Electoral College!"...

"Electoral College Bad!"

No one had a problem with the Electoral College until Hillary, The Evil Death Queen of Hell and Vomit, lost.

No idea why this didn't post.

Thank the lord that we shall never find out. Ain't happening.

Fred..

Thank God there isn't a chance in hell of that happening.

Fred..

That's just not true. I've held the same review in regards to the EC for almost two decades now. Also, for what it's worth, I most definitely didn't want Hillary to win.