Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The people on this forum on both sides are hypocrites and have short term memory, but on this subject, it is more so you republicans and conservatives
Both sides have said the electoral college is out of date, both have wanted to eliminate it and both have wanted to tweak it to their advantage.
The last time this forum had a major discussion about it was when a congressmen introduced the idea of awarding the Presidency like the GOP primary by giving the candidates electoral college points by them winning congressional districts(Specifically in Pennsylvania, and Michigan)
Many of the leftist in that forum then said that eliminating the electoral college would be better if it came to gerrymandered congressional districts choosing the president.
In another thread, Democrats wanted to make it wholly proportional, with the winning getting +1 for winning each states. so say if you won Arizona, 49-45, instead of getting all 11, both would get 5, and the winner would get the 11th electoral vote.
That's not true.
I've never said the electoral college was out of date.
And I've participated in many discussions about it, threads devoted to the discussion of the owrth of the electoral college.
Maybe you just haven't read enough threads on the topic.
im assuming you read the entity of my post did you not ????
Nope. I stopped when you accused everyone here of being a hypocrite and lacking memory capacity. An argument based on logic and fact has doesn't require such tactic. Hence, a waste of time to read.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 23 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,552 posts, read 16,542,682 times
Reputation: 6039
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty
Nope. I stopped when you accused everyone here of being a hypocrite and lacking memory capacity. An argument based on logic and fact has doesn't require such tactic. Hence, a waste of time to read.
Thanks for asking.
You have every right to that opinion(although i clearly didnt say everyone), but I answered your question in that post.
Now that you have heard of it, perhaps you should do some research. A little knowledge never hurt anyone.
I think if we aboslish the IRS (and thus any pork barrel spending in any given state) it would totally negate the need for any of this. The fed govt was suppose to fund only a very limited number of things (the navy being the main expense and these days I would also argue the air force), and not personel or pensions or the like but development and maintenance of equipment and armorys/ports and maybe a small number of eliet military members. If there was ever a major war then they draft.
The fed govt was suppose to pay for this with tarrifs. At that point the only tax money collected from any US citizen would be from the states and each state could only do what it could pay for. That's how it was suppose to be. That way Cali was never paying to keep an insolvent state afloat.
The president is only suppose to be an interface to other countries and the commander in chief in the event of war. The supreme court dealt with issues between the states and not on social issues, social issues were suppose to be handled by the states, don't like a states stance on a social issue then you simply move, its pretty easy to move to another state but now one side can lock down the entire nation and its pretty darn hard to leave the country and actually experience a step up in quality of life.
So I don't think getting rid of the EC is the answer, I think its another cobbled band aid on a wound that is not healing.
what this boils down too is control of the entire nation, it is a battle to extract as much money from all the states and control peoples lives leaving them very little realistic options.
If all people have to do is leave a state then failed economic or social polices can start having very stark and swift consequences, but if you can lock down the entire nation then you can make it unattractive to move out of a state and force people into much harder decisions like leaving the nation.
I think states like cali fear that if things went back to the old times all the business would leave.
The bottom line is that partisan Democrats believed the bulls#it that the "blue wall" would guarantee them the presidency for all time to come. They couldn't possibly foresee that they would lose MI, PA, & WI, and so they never complained about the Electoral College prior to Election Day.
I've personally had enough whining from the far-left about the Electoral College to last me a lifetime. Back in 2012, when Democrats thought they had a huge advantage in the Electoral College, left-wing websites published articles such as this:
And will the left please quit pretending that they actually believe that the person who receives the most votes should win. (The only reason why liberals believe that the popular vote winner in 2016 should be president is because their candidate won the popular vote.) As has been pointed out on this , Clinton received more votes than Obama in the 2008 Democratic primaries, yet the far-left was perfectly fine with their beloved Obama getting the nomination. Furthermore, left-wing loons repeatedly tried to deny the legitimacy of Bush's victory in 2004, despite the fact that he received 3 million more votes than Kerry. (If you recall, partisan Democrats claimed that "racist" Republicans stole the election in Ohio, which was a state that Bush won by 118,601 votes. Had some 60,000 votes shifted and Kerry won Ohio, he would have been the winner despite losing the popular vote.)
"The electoral college is an instrument of white supremacy and sexism." Man, good night.
Who the hell reads these websites? I mean seriously, who are these people? This stuff is bordering on Weekly World News territory, minus the goofy entertainment value.
I think if we aboslish the IRS (and thus any pork barrel spending in any given state) it would totally negate the need for any of this. The fed govt was suppose to fund only a very limited number of things (the navy being the main expense and these days I would also argue the air force), and not personel or pensions or the like but development and maintenance of equipment and armorys/ports and maybe a small number of eliet military members. If there was ever a major war then they draft.
The fed govt was suppose to pay for this with tarrifs. At that point the only tax money collected from any US citizen would be from the states and each state could only do what it could pay for. That's how it was suppose to be. That way Cali was never paying to keep an insolvent state afloat.
The president is only suppose to be an interface to other countries and the commander in chief in the event of war. The supreme court dealt with issues between the states and not on social issues, social issues were suppose to be handled by the states, don't like a states stance on a social issue then you simply move, its pretty easy to move to another state but now one side can lock down the entire nation and its pretty darn hard to leave the country and actually experience a step up in quality of life.
So I don't think getting rid of the EC is the answer, I think its another cobbled band aid on a wound that is not healing.
what this boils down too is control of the entire nation, it is a battle to extract as much money from all the states and control peoples lives leaving them very little realistic options.
If all people have to do is leave a state then failed economic or social polices can start having very stark and swift consequences, but if you can lock down the entire nation then you can make it unattractive to move out of a state and force people into much harder decisions like leaving the nation.
I think states like cali fear that if things went back to the old times all the business would leave.
Your ideas are interesting.
The Civil War changed everything. It was during the Civil War that the idea of an income tax was introduced. And it was the Civil War that cemented the power of the federal government.
However I don't think the EC is a 'cobbled band-aid on a wound that is not healing".
I do think that the EC is very badly skewed, both by the state laws that enforce winner-take-all assignments of the electors, and by the cap on the number of Representatives in the House. That cap is problematic because the citizens of this country aren't equally represented in the House, and that unequal representation is shifted into the electoral college.
If we could address these issues, we would have a more representative government. Which is what a Republic is.
The Civil War changed everything. It was during the Civil War that the idea of an income tax was introduced. And it was the Civil War that cemented the power of the federal government.
However I don't think the EC is a 'cobbled band-aid on a wound that is not healing".
I do think that the EC is very badly skewed, both by the state laws that enforce winner-take-all assignments of the electors, and by the cap on the number of Representatives in the House. That cap is problematic because the citizens of this country aren't equally represented in the House, and that unequal representation is shifted into the electoral college.
If we could address these issues, we would have a more representative government. Which is what a Republic is.
I think a big reason the civil war failed was a lack of forign support of the south. If a modern day civil war were to succeed it would require substantial forign support. Otherwise there is no way for a given state to build a war machine big enough to secede.
At this point, after the election date and Hillary Clinton ceding, it is still very possible that Donald Trump does not get enough electoral votes correct? I am disregarding the recount situation.
From what I understand, nothing really binds an electoral to vote the way the state voted. That is the whole point of the elector, otherwise there wouldn't be need for an actual electoral to go vote.
I saw this vid on youtube, so got me thinking, pretty out there but interesting
If 37 Republican electoral voters refuse to vote for him, it goes to the House and he can be denied the Presidency. You have higher odds of winning Powerball than that happening though.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Still possible Trump doesn't get enough votes?
