Question: The Electoral College

[NationalTitles18]

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

Didn't you think an obstructionist Congress was abhorrent under Obama? What about when the ACA was passed? Did you whine and moan about how the Congress was not keeping a check on the president then? Get real, man. You change your stance based on your opinion of the action instead of on principles like enumerated powers, congressional authority, limits on presidential power, and the like. Get back to me when you aren't just being a crybaby and when you have some real convictions about government checks and balances.

 

[CharminTide]

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

Did I ever say the bias was insurmountable?

Look, if you don't see my point by now, we should probably just amicably disagree. I don't expect many here to agree with me, but I get the impression that 86 and NT16 at least get what I'm saying.

In 2016, I think the people's voice is the most important component in an election. Others think a state's vote takes precedence to ensure equal geographic representation, even if that means sacrificing a majority of the population in terms of numeric representation. I think that's a worldview that worked well in the 1700, where people traveled by horse and buggy, where it was inconceivable for most families to leave the part of the country in which they were born, and where the families who did travel 100 miles up the oregon trail ended up getting dysentary and dying. In that world, weighing geographic representation over numerical representation makes sense. In 2016, when I can get in a car and freely drive from coast to coast, where I can fly from nearly any two points in the country in less than 6 hours, I don't think geographic representation has the same importance it once did. And I certainly don't think it's good for the stability of the country to elect a president who lost to their opponent by 2 million votes and whose geographic support accounted for less than 40% of the country's economic output.

Ergo, I do not think the original intent of the EC remains nearly as relevant today as some here do. You will almost certainly disagree with that. And that's okay.

 

[CharminTide]

Didn't you think an obstructionist Congress was abhorrent under Obama? What about when the ACA was passed? Did you whine and moan about how the Congress was not keeping a check on the president then? Get real, man. You change your stance based on your opinion of the action instead of on principles like enumerated powers, congressional authority, limits on presidential power, and the like. Get back to me when you aren't just being a crybaby and when you have some real convictions about government checks and balances.

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

 

[92tide]

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

you must be new here

 

[81usaf92]

Did I ever say the bias was insurmountable?

Look, if you don't see my point by now, we should probably just amicably disagree. I don't expect many here to agree with me, but I get the impression that 86 and NT16 at least get what I'm saying.

In 2016, I think the people's voice is the most important component in an election. Others think a state's vote takes precedence to ensure equal geographic representation, even if that means sacrificing a majority of the population in terms of numeric representation. I think that's a worldview that worked well in the 1700, where people traveled by horse and buggy, where it was inconceivable for most families to leave the part of the country in which they were born, and where the families who did travel 100 miles up the oregon trail ended up getting dysentary and dying. In that world, weighing geographic representation over numerical representation makes sense. In 2016, when I can get in a car and freely drive from coast to coast, where I can fly from nearly any two points in the country in less than 6 hours, I don't think geographic representation has the same importance it once did. And I certainly don't think it's good for the stability country to elect a president who lost to their opponent by 2 million votes and whose geographic support accounted for less than 40% of the country's economic output.

Ergo, I do not think the original intent of the EC remains nearly as relevant today as some here do. You will almost certainly disagree with that. And that's okay.

Unless you want to get rid of states totally then I don't see your point. The EC is about state's representation, and without that then we would be on the verge of civil war. There are probably better alternatives to the EC, but going strictly on the popular vote is probably not one of them.

FWIW I'm for seeking alternatives, but I still see any alternative has to include something with regional or state representation.

 

[CharminTide]

Unless you want to get rid of states totally then I don't see your point. The EC is about state's representation, and without that then we would be on the verge of civil war. There are probably better alternatives to the EC, but going strictly on the popular vote is probably not one of them.

FWIW I'm for seeking alternatives, but I still see any alternative has to include something with regional or state representation.

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.

 

[TheAccountant]

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.

Sounds like an argument for limited federal government and more local state and municipal control based on the wants of their populace. Novel concept.

 

[Tide1986]

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.

It's disturbing how you laud diversity on one hand and show a lack of inclusivity in how the country is governed on the other. And it's even more disturbing how you apparently look down upon rural life and those living it. Your attitude is precisely what the EC was intended to provide some protection against.

 

[seebell]

Come on man!! Calling somebody a crybaby?

 

[CharminTide]

It's disturbing how you laud diversity on one hand and show a lack of inclusivity in how the country is governed on the other. And it's even more disturbing how you apparently look down upon rural life and those living it. Your attitude is precisely what the EC was intended to provide some protection against.

What? I do not look down on rural life, so please save your offense.

 

[MattinBama]

and where the families who did travel 100 miles up the oregon trail ended up getting dysentary and dying.

That's why I always named my party after people I didn't like so that I wouldn't care when they fell by the wayside.

 

[Tidewater]

What this debate reminds me of is fans of the defeated football team reminding the winners "Yeah, well we got more first downs than you."
"That's mildly interesting, but first downs is not how we determine who wins a football game."

 

[Tide1986]

Did I ever say the bias was insurmountable?

Look, if you don't see my point by now, we should probably just amicably disagree. I don't expect many here to agree with me, but I get the impression that 86 and NT16 at least get what I'm saying.

In 2016, I think the people's voice is the most important component in an election. Others think a state's vote takes precedence to ensure equal geographic representation, even if that means sacrificing a majority of the population in terms of numeric representation. I think that's a worldview that worked well in the 1700, where people traveled by horse and buggy, where it was inconceivable for most families to leave the part of the country in which they were born, and where the families who did travel 100 miles up the oregon trail ended up getting dysentary and dying. In that world, weighing geographic representation over numerical representation makes sense. In 2016, when I can get in a car and freely drive from coast to coast, where I can fly from nearly any two points in the country in less than 6 hours, I don't think geographic representation has the same importance it once did. And I certainly don't think it's good for the stability of the country to elect a president who lost to their opponent by 2 million votes and whose geographic support accounted for less than 40% of the country's economic output.

Ergo, I do not think the original intent of the EC remains nearly as relevant today as some here do. You will almost certainly disagree with that. And that's okay.

I think we do understand each other.

While we are a more connected country and freedom of movement is greater than ever, I have no desire to live a California or New York life much like you probably don't want to live an Alabama life. If we let the state system work as intended, we can be a country of greater diversity. One size does not fit all with respect to the communities that we want to live in. Maybe...just maybe...the urban majority will listen to the rest of the country a little more as a result of this election. Maybe not.

 

[CharminTide]

I think we do understand each other.

While we are a more connected country and freedom of movement is greater than ever, I have no desire to live a California or New York life much like you probably don't want to live an Alabama life. If we let the state system work as intended, we can be a country of greater diversity. One size does not fit all with respect to the communities that we want to live in. Maybe...just maybe...the urban majority will listen to the rest of the country a little more as a result of this election. Maybe not.

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.

 

[Bamaro]

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

They both campaigned to the EC, not to the people. And there's the rub.

 

[Bamaro]

What this debate reminds me of is fans of the defeated football team reminding the winners "Yeah, well we got more first downs than you."
"That's mildly interesting, but first downs is not how we determine who wins a football game."

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

 

[Tide1986]

What? I do not look down on rural life, so please save your offense.

I'm not personally offended because I don't live in rural America unless the entire state of Alabama qualifies as "rural". I was born and raised in the Birmingham metropolitan area. My forebears going back several generations were Alabama country folk. I do think their way of life deserves respect and even gratitude.

 

[CharminTide]

It would be more like we scored more points than you and still lost because the other team won the first three quarters.

FIFY

 

[Tide1986]

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

Actually, no. You're confused about what the points are.

 

[81usaf92]

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

Except you haven't explained how points will be counted correctly at day 14 of complaining about the score.