Question: The Electoral College

[81usaf92]

So you disagree with the idea that the EC is now just a ceremonial role, and believe it still represents a collection of wise men chosen by the states to judge and sometimes overturn the people's electoral will, if they deem it a dangerous path for the country?

No but it still serves its purpose of ensuring the rights of the states are protected from the will of the majority from some states.

 

[crimsonaudio]

The EC was neutered a long time ago.

Sounds like it happened about two weeks ago. I don't recall it being a pressing issue until this election. Again, don't recall anyone complains about its lack of fairness in 2008 or 2012.

 

[crimsonaudio]

This knee-jerk reaction is just like when people want to change the US Constitution after a mass shooting.

It's really not going to happen - if it were a real issue, we would have heard about it even when there wasn't an election (or when there hadn't been a recent mass shooting)...

I'm not even arguing for / against the EC, I'm just continuing to point out this is a knee-jerk reaction because one sides' team lost. And within 30 days no one will say a word other than as a 'yeah but' when losing an argument.

 

[92tide]

Nice try but illegals still dont vote no matter how many times statements like that are made.

you must be new here

 

[CharminTide]

I'm not even arguing for / against the EC, I'm just continuing to point out this is a knee-jerk reaction because one sides' team lost. And within 30 days no one will say a word other than as a 'yeah but' when losing an argument.

It's an issue that comes up once every 4 years, and is quickly forgotten during the interim. So nothing ever happens. My view of the EC has not changed since 2000, so labeling it a knee jerk reaction to the Dems losing feels a bit dismissive. I get that it might seem that way. But I'd argue instead that this issue only comes up when poular opinion and the EC tally are discordant, as as they were in a profound way this year. It's not mere happenstance that this discord always favors one side over the other.

But you're right that nothing at all will be changed. So this discussion is rather moot.

 

[NationalTitles18]

So you disagree with the idea that the EC is now just a ceremonial role, and believe it still represents a collection of wise men chosen by the states to judge and sometimes overturn the people's electoral will, if they deem it a dangerous path for the country?

It serves its primary purpose.

 

[CharminTide]

It serves its primary purpose.

No worries, we'll just have to disagree on this one.

 

[Displaced Bama Fan]

you must be new here

 

[BamaPokerplayer]

No dog in the EC fight, but I am curious if Trump's team was even concerned with the popular vote. It seems like any game theory or political model would place little to no value for winning the popular vote.

 

[81usaf92]

No worries, we'll just have to disagree on this one.

Disagree with what its primary purpose is now or what was back then?

 

[CharminTide]

Disagree with what its primary purpose is now or what was back then?

Disagree that certain precautions from 1700s remain relevant in 2016, given profound population shifts and changes to the EC's original purpose over the last 250 years. I don't expect that many here will agree.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

No dog in the EC fight, but I am curious if Trump's team was even concerned with the popular vote. It seems like any game theory or political model would place little to no value for winning the popular vote.

The popular vote is like the AP poll in college football. Once the playoff committee's poll comes out its irrelevant.

 

[Tide1986]

No dog in the EC fight, but I am curious if Trump's team was even concerned with the popular vote. It seems like any game theory or political model would place little to no value for winning the popular vote.

Looking at how they campaigned, Trump's team cared only about winning the EC. And of course, Hillary's team didn't care enough.

 

[Tide1986]

Disagree that certain precautions from 1700s remain relevant in 2016, given profound population shifts and changes to the EC's original purpose over the last 250 years. I don't expect that many here will agree.

The EC continues to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority, and it still provides some protection from the whims of the populace. Those are enduring protections in my opinion.

 

[CharminTide]

The EC continues to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority, and it still provides some protection from the whims of the populace. Those are enduring protections in my opinion.

Does it, though? It seems like all minority groups in this country fear for their future under a Trump regime, and crimes against minorities has sharply increased as Trump has risen in prominence.

 

[81usaf92]

Does it, though? It seems like all minority groups in this country fear for their future under a Trump regime, and crimes against minorities has sharply increased as Trump has risen in prominence.

I think He is more talking about big population states like NY controlling issues like gun rights for the entire country

 

[NationalTitles18]

Does it, though? It seems like all minority groups in this country fear for their future under a Trump regime, and crimes against minorities has sharply increased as Trump has risen in prominence.

That really goes to the real and perceived increase in power the president enjoys thanks in large part to the constitutional limits being ignored.

 

[CharminTide]

I think He is more talking about big population states like NY controlling issues like gun rights for the entire country

I don't think they're unrelated. The EC's intrinsic bias allows rural whites to dictate policies to more diverse and metropolitan states. It's the same concept, only targeting different groups.

 

[CharminTide]

That really goes to the real and perceived increase in power the president enjoys thanks in large part to the constitutional limits being ignored.

That and the legitimate worry that Congress will ignore it's duty to act as a counterbalance to presidential power.

 

[81usaf92]

I don't think they're unrelated. The EC's intrinsic bias allows rural whites to dictate policies to more diverse and metropolitan states. It's the same concept, only targeting different groups.

Yet Obama won handily twice by this system. So I don't see your argument.