Question: The Electoral College

While all y’all say let’s ditch the electoral college and it’s unfair to democrats, y’all are missing one thing... Both serious attempts to rid the EC came with a Democrat domination of both houses and had significant backing by Republicans. But yet both attempts failed miserably.

Meaning it’s almost useless to complain about it if the only thing you have to replace it is the idea of popular vote.

FWIW I’m more in favor of a parliamentary system of voting but I think we are too addicted to the two party system to allow it.

81usaf92 said:

While all y’all say let’s ditch the electoral college and it’s unfair to democrats, y’all are missing one thing... Both serious attempts to rid the EC came with a Democrat domination of both houses and had significant backing by Republicans. But yet both attempts failed miserably.

Meaning it’s almost useless to complain about it if the only thing you have to replace it is the idea of popular vote.

FWIW I’m more in favor of a parliamentary system of voting but I think we are too addicted to the two party system to allow it.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I imagine both parties would kill talk of that immediately. They are happy with the 2 party system. I think it would be the first time in a long time both parties agreed on something completely.

81usaf92 said:

While all y’all say let’s ditch the electoral college and it’s unfair to democrats, y’all are missing one thing... Both serious attempts to rid the EC came with a Democrat domination of both houses and had significant backing by Republicans. But yet both attempts failed miserably.

Click to expand...

To be clear, it was the Southern Democrats who killed every attempt at electoral reform in the 50s and 60s. The Democrats of that era (and Republicans of this one) won't give up their biased system without a fight, that much is very true.

CharminTide said:

To be clear, it was the Southern Democrats who killed every attempt at electoral reform in the 50s and 60s. The Democrats of that era (and Republicans of this one) won't give up their biased system without a fight, that much is very true.

Click to expand...

1969 was killed by a filibuster, but 1977was killed by a democrats who disagreed with the President. In both cases, Nixon and Carter gave their public support for bills to pass.

Even if the argument is “ well the south wouldn’t give up their biased system without a fight” then here is the obvious question(s)... “ what has changed and what makes this time more likely to succeed with a divided Congress while both times before where with a unified one?” Maybe y’all have forgotten that Ted Cruz is still there

It's odd that people think that the South should be the one to protect the EC system since the states with the lowest population technically benefit most. The 5 lowest population states are Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, Alaska, and South Dakota. Do any of the state's count as southern states?

I struggle with the logic of "small states would suffer" under the popular vote.

Does that mean small, less populated counties suffer in statewide elections? Or do small, less populated precincts suffer in citywide elections? The EC logic is probably the dumbest logic I've ever seen. And many really erstwhile intelligent people still believe this malarkey.

Its On A Slab said:

I struggle with the logic of "small states would suffer" under the popular vote.

.

Click to expand...

I think the biggest concern with popular vote is uncontrollable voter fraud and suppression, and not California and New York deciding the elections. The United States is just too big to have a true popular vote or direct election.


That is not saying I support the EC, but it is a far better idea than a true popular vote. I think we should go to a parliamentary system like most other western democracies, but I fear that BOTH parties will try to block any and every attempt to do so because any change to the EC is welcoming true third parties.

Its On A Slab said:

I struggle with the logic of "small states would suffer" under the popular vote.

Does that mean small, less populated counties suffer in statewide elections? Or do small, less populated precincts suffer in citywide elections? The EC logic is probably the dumbest logic I've ever seen. And many really erstwhile intelligent people still believe this malarkey.

Click to expand...

Yes, small and under populated areas do suffer under majority rule. Those voices are seldom, if ever heard, and usually ridiculed by the majority.

Ask any minority how it feels to live in anything other than in the majority. Yes, the less populated just don't mean as much to those (elected officials) that rely on the majority vote to keep their cushy jobs.

The minorities will provide your answer if asked. You could go to the ghettos, poor barrier islands, the lowest income area of your home town or the poor white areas and ask how they get along by being in the minority, while the majority rules.

This country and the electoral college was designed to preserve the rights of the smallest of minorities-- the individual and/or the individual state. We have greatly strayed from the principal that all men (or states) are created equal.

There is NO true democracy that has stood the test of time without declining into violent anarchy or tyranny.

Some see malarkey and some see fertilizer that makes the crops grow in abundance. The minority ignore the smell AND mess of the malarkey in order to survive those that care only for their majority.

Our system sucks but no one has designed a better one yet.

uafanataum said:

It's odd that people think that the South should be the one to protect the EC system since the states with the lowest population technically benefit most. The 5 lowest population states are Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, Alaska, and South Dakota. Do any of the state's count as southern states?

Click to expand...

South Dakota.

Actually Mississippi is the least populated southern state and it is ranked 34th nationally.

I think when they came up with the EC to decide who the president is they did not imagine it would be as important as it is now. I doubt they knew a president would end up an office that could pass legislation worth billions of dollars without approval from congress ( or anyone) just by calling it an executive order.

TIDE-HSV said:

If you study the history around the time, it's a certainty that an imperial presidency, such as we have now, was the furthest thing from what they had in mind...

Click to expand...

There is a reason that Article 1 refers to legislative powers.
There were members of the state conventions that wanted election to the House to be yearly and opposed the Constitution because the elections to the house were biennial.
The executive was to execute the decisions of Congress and command the armed forces.
We the people and Congress have allowed this to happen, to our eternal shame.
That is why I would rather put my garbage collector on a pension and give him a personal security detachment than my ex-president. At least my garbage man performs a valuable and unpleasant duty.

81usaf92 said:

New York, Illinois, and California outnumber the biggest conservative state by 43 million people. That's more or less a 4th of the population. So you are basically trading politically contested states that favor a 2 party system to who can win the most populated states which strongly favors liberal ideology. So yes those states control the election in your scenario.

Fwiw this is how revolutions and civil wars happen when power is strongly against the blue collar worker.

Click to expand...

If you don’t count illegal aliens those states would only outnumber Texas by maybe 25 million people.

BamaJama17 said:

If you don’t count illegal aliens those states would only outnumber Texas by maybe 25 million people.

Click to expand...

If I read your response correctly; you are saying that New York, Illinois, and California had 18 million illegal aliens vote in the 2016 election?

BamaJama17 said:

If you don’t count illegal aliens those states would only outnumber Texas by maybe 25 million people.

Click to expand...

What?

GrayTide said:

If I read your response correctly; you are saying that New York, Illinois, and California had 18 million illegal aliens vote in the 2016 election?

Click to expand...

What?? No... although I do believe illegal aliens did vote and have been for years of not decades. Those three states combined of roughly 72 million people and Texas has roughly a little over 29.2 million people which makes the difference of almost 43 million people as what 81 stated above. Between just those three states I would not be surprised if they had a combined total of 18 million aliens if not very close to it, most of them being in CA. Where on earth did you get the idea I said 18 million illegals voted??

81usaf92 said:

What?

Click to expand...

See response above.

BamaJama17 said:

What?? No... although I do believe illegal aliens did vote and have been for years of not decades. Those three states combined of roughly 72 million people and Texas has roughly a little over 29.2 million people which makes the difference of almost 43 million people as what 81 stated above. Between just those three states I would not be surprised if they had a combined total of 18 million aliens if not very close to it, most of them being in CA. Where on earth did you get the idea I said 18 million illegals voted??



See response above.

Click to expand...

Seeing how CA, NJ, FL, TX, NY, and IL together only make up 59% of illegal immigration, and high side of research on the size only hits at 22 million total, i seriously doubt the number of 3 states and the exclusion of 1 key state (Texas) brings the range down 18 million people in that comparison.

81usaf92 said:

Seeing how CA, NJ, FL, TX, NY, and IL together only make up 59% of illegal immigration, and high side of research on the size only hits at 22 million total, i seriously doubt the number of 3 states and the exclusion of 1 key state (Texas) brings the range down 18 million people in that comparison.

Click to expand...

Perhaps so but I also doubt it goes below 10-11 million people either which is why I also said close to it. Either way we don’t need 2-4 states controlling an election for the other 40+ states.

81usaf92 said:

Seeing how CA, NJ, FL, TX, NY, and IL together only make up 59% of illegal immigration, and high side of research on the size only hits at 22 million total, i seriously doubt the number of 3 states and the exclusion of 1 key state (Texas) brings the range down 18 million people in that comparison.

Click to expand...

I haven't looked at the data but Texas has got to be #1 right? or at least #2 next to Cali both in total number of illegal immigrants and %of each states population?

RollTide_HTTR said:

I haven't looked at the data but Texas has got to be #1 right? or at least #2 next to Cali both in total number of illegal immigrants and %of each states population?

Click to expand...

California is #1 and Texas is #2.