BREAKING: Democrats Introduce Bill To Eliminate Electoral College

a reply to: narrator

Let's put it on a scale you can understand then.

Let's say you are in a classroom of 25 kids and the teacher lets you decide most things by popular vote. Let's further say that there are two cliques in the room of 6 girls and 8 boys. They vote together all the time as a block of 6 and a block of 8. Further, let's say they agree almost 70% of the time on what the class should do. When that happens, it doesn't matter what you want, it only matters what they want. So effectively, those 14 kids will always rule what the class does. What you, personally, want won't ever matter unless you agree with those 14 kids.

In the US, California is the girls and New York is the boys.

a reply to: narrator

In my country as is, we have equal rights. In the one you want to make by destroying mine, I will not have equal rights.

So no. If it were up to me I would expel you just to protect my country as is. Even you like it but only to take a bite out of it that you didn't work for.

Over dead bodies.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: narrator

In my country as is, we have equal rights. In the one you want to make by destroying mine, I will not have equal rights.

So no. If it were up to me I would expel you just to protect my country as is. Even you like it but only to take a bite out of it that you didn't work for.

Over dead bodies not mine

How would it not be equal rights? I still don't understand. What is your country/which country do I want to destroy?

a reply to: narrator

Playing dumb with me to make me trip or give ammo is retarded.

Good luck with that.

Over dead bodies.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: narrator

Let's put it on a scale you can understand then.

Let's say you are in a classroom of 25 kids and the teacher lets you decide most things by popular vote. Let's further say that there are two cliques in the room of 6 girls and 8 boys. They vote together all the time as a block of 6 and a block of 8. Further, let's say they agree almost 70% of the time on what the class should do. When that happens, it doesn't matter what you want, it only matters what they want. So effectively, those 14 kids will always rule what the class does. What you, personally, want won't ever matter unless you agree with those 14 kids.

In the US, California is the girls and New York is the boys.

A scale I can understand? I fully understand it on the grand scale, thanks.

You should read my replies to other posts. Abolishing the EC is a small part of my full stance on the matter. I'm for splitting the US up into self-governed regions based on the needs of the region. Alaska shouldn't have to be governed the same way that Florida is. The conservative midwest shouldn't have to be governed the same way as the liberal Pacific coast.
So, using your classroom example, with my envisioned setup, Both groups would end up getting what they need, as it's clear the 2 groups have very different needs if they disagree every single time. So why should they have to be governed by one single "government"? Let them deal with their problems in the way that best suits them.

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.

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.

So why do you want the senate gone as well?

a reply to: narrator

The whole point of the Fed was to keep the states in line so they didn't prey on each other and to stand between the states and the rest of the world. It has taken on a far larger role than it ever should have.

You basically want to original system which was Federalism and what we have now. If the states don't have a larger body, then they go to war. What happens when your autonomous regions fight over water rights, for example?

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: narrator

Playing dumb with me to make me trip or give ammo is retarded.

Good luck with that.

Over dead bodies.

Sincerely, I'm not playing dumb with you. I genuinely do not understand what you're saying. I'm sorry, but I fear that something is being lost in translation.

How is what I'm proposing going to get rid of equal rights? I truly don't understand what you mean, I'm not trying to make you slip up or anything like that, I'm actually not trying to argue against you at all, as I'm just giving my opinion. I don't understand what you mean in your opinion, so I'm trying to understand.

If you don't want to further elaborate, that's fine. But please know that I'm not trying to catch you tripping up, I'm just trying to comprehend.

a reply to: narrator

What??? States already do that. They have a governor, a House, and a Senate, and they have cabinet members and Secys. They govern themselves already, except they can't pass laws that go against Federal laws.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

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.

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.

So why do you want the senate gone as well?

Because our government is horribly inefficient, and there has to be a better way to govern our gigantic, diverse country than a system that came into being when there were only about 2.5 million people in the entire country.

a reply to: narrator

Breaking the country apart would also remove the power we have in the world as The United States of America. Our diversity is part of what keeps us strong and prevents the larger issue of single party rule.

A pure democracy can not and would not work. It would remove any power minority opinions have in the system, creating a single party state where party outsiders would be second class citizens. Breaking us up is probably the worst thing that could happen to us.

This system everyone bitches about is the same system that led us to be the only remaining Superpower on Earth, where our poor are wealthier than half the population of the planet. Breaking it up would be madness.

a reply to: narrator

I'm for splitting the US up into self-governed regions based on the needs of the region.

That's all well and good but it doesn't change the fact that we aren't split up that way, so making changes geared towards a situation that lies entirely within fantasyland isn't going to get very far.

You're right, Kansas shouldn't have to be governed at a federal level the same way Florida is. But they are. Wyomingians don't want to be governed the way New York or California is. Getting rid of the EC will do nothing but ensure that the rest of the country is run by whoever those two states like best.

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: narrator

What??? States already do that. They have a governor, a House, and a Senate, and they have cabinet members and Secys. They govern themselves already, except they can't pass laws that go against Federal laws.

Exactly. Why do they have to listen to a federal law that has nothing to do with them, and could make the individual state worse off than another state?

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: narrator

I'm for splitting the US up into self-governed regions based on the needs of the region.

That's all well and good but it doesn't change the fact that we aren't split up that way, so making changes geared towards a situation that lies entirely within fantasyland isn't going to get very far.

You're right, Kansas shouldn't have to be governed at a federal level the same way Florida is. But they are. Wyomingians don't want to be governed the way New York or California is. Getting rid of the EC will do nothing but ensure that the rest of the country is run by whoever those two states like best.

It's a step in the right direction, in my opinion. One man One vote.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: narrator

The whole point of the Fed was to keep the states in line so they didn't prey on each other and to stand between the states and the rest of the world. It has taken on a far larger role than it ever should have.

You basically want to original system which was Federalism and what we have now. If the states don't have a larger body, then they go to war. What happens when your autonomous regions fight over water rights, for example?

I didn't say it's a simple solution. I just said it's my opinion. I'd imagine that they'd convene to draft a water trade agreement or something like that. Countries don't go to war every time they disagree with each other, why would states?

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: DBCowboy

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.

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.

So why do you want the senate gone as well?

Because our government is horribly inefficient, and there has to be a better way to govern our gigantic, diverse country than a system that came into being when there were only about 2.5 million people in the entire country.

Okay junior, reality check.

What makes you think that the government will EVER vote for restricting the power and control they yield?

Really.

They may "try" to eliminate the Electoral College but that's ONLY because it evens the playing field and allows equality.

a reply to: narrator

You know we already have the system you are describing. We have a centralized, elected federal government, but each State has a great deal of control over local matters. You're trying to reinvent what we already have.

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: narrator

I'm for splitting the US up into self-governed regions based on the needs of the region.

That's all well and good but it doesn't change the fact that we aren't split up that way, so making changes geared towards a situation that lies entirely within fantasyland isn't going to get very far.

You're right, Kansas shouldn't have to be governed at a federal level the same way Florida is. But they are. Wyomingians don't want to be governed the way New York or California is. Getting rid of the EC will do nothing but ensure that the rest of the country is run by whoever those two states like best.

It's a step in the right direction, in my opinion. One man One vote.

I'll pass on the "tyranny of the majority," thanks. Even if that risks upsetting people who live in two cities.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: amazing

So California and NY get elections. Everyone else gets to cheer them on without agency

But what's the difference now? NY and Cali get a huge electoral vote imbalance and all republican votes are nulled. Trust me it's better with popular vote.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: narrator

Breaking the country apart would also remove the power we have in the world as The United States of America. Our diversity is part of what keeps us strong and prevents the larger issue of single party rule.

A pure democracy can not and would not work. It would remove any power minority opinions have in the system, creating a single party state where party outsiders would be second class citizens. Breaking us up is probably the worst thing that could happen to us.

This system everyone bitches about is the same system that led us to be the only remaining Superpower on Earth, where our poor are wealthier than half the population of the planet. Breaking it up would be madness.

I know this is a very unpopular opinion here on ATS, but why does the US have to be THE superpower? In this day and age, we should be cooperating with countries rather than trying to reign supreme over them.

Also, it's becoming clear that we are no longer the only superpower, as the US is slipping in pretty much every measurable metric. Unless you're talking about the defense budget and incarceration percentage, we're killin' it in those metrics.
But, I don't want to be #1 in either of those metrics. War is dumb, and the vast majority of prisoners have no real business being in prison. Again, this is all IMO.