Question: The Electoral College

[Crimson1967]

But people in parliamentary governments aren't designed like us. So they can find it incomprehensible all they want.

Maybe we should go to a parliamentary government. All hail Prime Minister Paul Ryan!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[chanson78]

The communication needs to go in both directions. And I hope it does. If our country is to function, it needs two parties willing to talk, meet in the middle, and ultimately compromise. Over the past two decades, that middle ground seems to have disappeared. We have to find it again.

Scrapping the EC wouldn't fix this issue, if this is the one you are concerned most about. The republicans have been kicking democratic tail for the past 20 years where it matters, in the state legislatures. If you want to rail on a political system that is fundamentally broken and that has led to more polarization than any other, look at the redistricting process every 10 years. Both sides use it to their advantage, and what it does is end up screwing the populace.

 

[crimsonaudio]

It would be more like we scored more points than you and still lost.

Only if it was determined before the game was ever played that points were not how it was to be decided who won the game. This is why the 'first down' analogy makes sense.

 

[81usaf92]

Maybe we should go to a parliamentary government. All hail Prime Minister Paul Ryan!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Blue font right.

 

[NationalTitles18]

Sorry, but outright partisan obstructionism resulting in repeated near economic collapse is not the same as responsible governing through checks and balances.

Because the president couldn't budge either, huh? His hands were completely tied, weren't they? And if you actually believe that....

 

[NationalTitles18]

I don't want to get rid of states. And I'm not opposed to the EC in principle, but I am opposed to its current form. If it more accurately accounted for the concentration of voters in large cities and eliminated the rural bias, I think it would be a fine and practical system.

Yeah, we need to work on getting rid of the city bias in CA so until then...

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Scrapping the EC wouldn't fix this issue, if this is the one you are concerned most about. The republicans have been kicking democratic tail for the past 20 years where it matters, in the state legislatures.

I'm trying to figure out how this can possibly be what with all the stories of the death of the GOP and it's all white base (we'll set aside the Tim Scotts and Jodi Ernsts that overturn that ridiculous claim by the press).

If you want to rail on a political system that is fundamentally broken and that has led to more polarization than any other, look at the redistricting process every 10 years. Both sides use it to their advantage, and what it does is end up screwing the populace.

This.....right....here........kudoes to you.

 

[BamaFlum]

The elephant in the room for this election (in reaction to Trumps losing popular vote by 2 MIL) is how differently would the candidates campaign with a popular vote? I'm getting tired of the protesters protesting after the fact. It's like protesting a rule you don't like after losing a game. I don't particular care for Trump but he won based on our current laws utilizing the EC. Don't like it? Use the rules, i.e. the Constitution, to change the election rules before the next election.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CharminTide]

Scrapping the EC wouldn't fix this issue, if this is the one you are concerned most about. The republicans have been kicking democratic tail for the past 20 years where it matters, in the state legislatures. If you want to rail on a political system that is fundamentally broken and that has led to more polarization than any other, look at the redistricting process every 10 years. Both sides use it to their advantage, and what it does is end up screwing the populace.

I completely agree with this. There are several gerrymandering cases in the court system right now. Call me cynical, but I have low confidence that SCOTUS will magically fix the issue.

 

[CharminTide]

Because the president couldn't budge either, huh? His hands were completely tied, weren't they? And if you actually believe that....

Congress was dead set on opposing anything Obama wanted to get done, including issues for which the GOP had previously voiced support; it was obstructionism for pure political gain. That's on the Republicans. Obama responded by acting unilaterally and expanding executive authority in ways that have made many, including myself, very uncomfortable. That's on him.

But hey, if you want to blame it all on Obama, that's your right.

 

[NationalTitles18]

Congress was dead set on opposing anything Obama wanted to get done, including issues for which the GOP had previously voiced support; it was obstructionism for pure political gain. That's on the Republicans. Obama responded by acting unilaterally and expanding executive authority in ways that have made many, including myself, very uncomfortable. That's on him.

But hey, if you want to blame it all on Obama, that's your right.

Your previous statement seemed to put it all on Congress. Perhaps that wasn't your intent. My position is that neither was blameless.

 

[CharminTide]

Your previous statement seemed to put it all on Congress. Perhaps that wasn't your intent. My position is that neither was blameless.

Then we agree.

I do feel that some here take their adoration of gridlock too far. One of the compromises of our political system is that the president and congress are separately elected, often at different times and with different mandates. One result is that less typically gets done due to conflict between the branches. But the supposed benefit is that checks and balances exist to ensure that neither side oversteps authority. I firmly believe that our political system cannot function without two sides willing to compromise, and that has seemed increasingly unattainable over the past few decades, reaching a climax during Obama's presidency. That's a big problem.

It now falls on congressional Republicans to check the authority of Trump, thoroughly vet his appointments, and scrutinize the emerging conflicts of interest between the president-elect and his business holdings. I'm not holding my breath.

 

[NationalTitles18]

Then we agree.

I do feel that some here take their adoration of gridlock too far. One of the compromises of our political system is that the president and congress are separately elected, often at different times and with different mandates. One result is that less typically gets done due to conflict between the branches. But the supposed benefit is that checks and balances exist to ensure that neither side oversteps authority. I firmly believe that our political system cannot function without two sides willing to compromise, and that has seemed increasingly unattainable over the past few decades, reaching a climax during Obama's presidency. That's a big problem.

It now falls on congressional Republicans to check the authority of Trump, thoroughly vet his appointments, and scrutinize the emerging conflicts of interest between the president-elect and his business holdings. I'm not holding my breath.

Good thing....

 

[Tide1986]

Then we agree.

I do feel that some here take their adoration of gridlock too far. One of the compromises of our political system is that the president and congress are separately elected, often at different times and with different mandates. One result is that less typically gets done due to conflict between the branches. But the supposed benefit is that checks and balances exist to ensure that neither side oversteps authority. I firmly believe that our political system cannot function without two sides willing to compromise, and that has seemed increasingly unattainable over the past few decades, reaching a climax during Obama's presidency. That's a big problem.

It now falls on congressional Republicans to check the authority of Trump, thoroughly vet his appointments, and scrutinize the emerging conflicts of interest between the president-elect and his business holdings. I'm not holding my breath.

Previously the Dems too would have been accountable for checking the president's power, but they absolved themselves of that responsibility with the nuclear option.

 

[CharminTide]

Previously the Dems too would have been accountable for checking the president's power, but they absolved themselves of that responsibility with the nuclear option.

Neither side is blameless, and weakening the fillibuster will certainly hurt them now.

Not to date myself, but I wasn't around in the 60s or 70s. Many have told me that, although the parties certainly had disagreements, the degree of polarization was not nearly as paralyzing as it is today. Compromise was possible, and things could get done without playing this zero sum political game.

Must have been nice.

 

[Bamaro]

Only if it was determined before the game was ever played that points were not how it was to be decided who won the game. This is why the 'first down' analogy makes sense.

Points generally decide who wins the game.
Votes generally decide who wins an election.

 

[Tide1986]

Points generally decide who wins the game.
Electoral College votes generally decide who wins a presidential election.
Having the most first downs in a game is equivalent to having the most popular votes in a presidential election. In other words, irrelevant.

FIFY

 

[81usaf92]

Points generally decide who wins the game.
Votes generally decide who wins an election.

So how do we know if the points have been accurately counted after 5 billion recounts? Still waiting....

 

[crimsonaudio]

Points generally decide who wins the game.
Votes generally decide who wins an election.

So what? Was anyone blindsided by the EC? Everyone knew the rules going into it. What you're suggesting is that this was somehow sprung on people - everyone and their mother knows the number 270 at this point and has for months, and that'a assuming they don't remember it from previous presidential elections.

 

[NationalTitles18]

Points generally decide who wins the game.
Votes generally decide who wins an election.

Votes in every state did decide who won the election, just like they have every single other presidential election. Each state holds an election which decides for whom state electors will cast their vote in the electoral college. You just seem to want to do away with the federal in our federal government.