U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-13-2019, 11:28 AM
 
Location: Southern Oregon
2,890 posts, read 4,207,422 times
Reputation: 3098

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavePa View Post
ALL I'm reading is RHETERIC HERE. No REAL benefits of the EC But for Republicans last BIG HOPE to win the Presidency.

All it is. If the other way around ..... they would cry eliminate it.

I say GIVE US THE VIRTUES for keeping the EC? Not just Rhetoric and non-answers but for not to.
Dave, first, understand how our government is constructed, then you'll understand the virtues of the EC. I'll try and shed some light on this. The Executive Branch oversees the operation of the government it is the administrative part of the government, it has no legislative power at all, the role of the President is defined in Article 2 of the Constitution. The process of the electoral college was established to ensure that the person elected to be president of these United States would accurately represent the union as a whole, not favoring certain States while ignoring others. The President does not represent the people, so why should the POTUS be elected by popular vote? The POTUS representing the Union is the spokes person for the government, notice I said spokes person and not leader. The POTUS does not lead the government because we have 3 branches of government with equal power, so the Executive Branch, Legislative Branch and the Judical Branch all lead the country.

The People are represented by the House, this is why the Representatives are elected by popular vote. Before the 17th amendment, Senators were appointed by the State's legislators, this allowed the State to have a voice in the operation of the government.

The process of the electoral college was established for a specific reason. Because we have failed, for generations, to teach an accurate application of the Constitution, many people believe that the electoral college is “flawed and outdated," that the Electoral College does not fit the ‘We The People’ and ‘One person, one vote’ style of government. Those who believe this simply do not understand why the electoral college was established and how that process protects their individual liberty and the sovereignty of their State. They just don't understand that neither your State nor America are democracies, but instead are Constitutional Republics. The incessant push toward being ruled by majority opinion is supposed to be antithetical to the American character, unfortunately the dearth of real education in America has created an equal scarcity of understanding about America’s fundamental principles. Article IV, section 4, guarantees to every State in the Union a Republican form of government, it doesn't say a Democratic form of government.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-13-2019, 11:44 AM
 
Location: Jersey City
2,697 posts, read 989,876 times
Reputation: 1913
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty View Post
They should reform the Electoral College so votes are awarded proportionally. This prevent it from just being a popular vote, but also gets rid of the idiotic "winner take all" system that we have, which is decidedly undemocratic. This would also allow third parties a bit of attention, as I could see them winning a district or two, which could potentially lead to escalation in popularity.

Which means there will be no reform....
This notion is only a partial solution, and doesn't go far enough. First of all, I think it should be a national popular vote, and have not once encountered on here a convincing argument for why a popular vote is not the most fair method of electing President.

However, given the Constitutional barrier and thus unlikelihood of the system, I would agree with a compromise solution. Proportional representation is fine, and it gives Texas Democrats, as well as California and New York Republicans the opportunity to have a real say in who becomes President. However, that doesn't go far enough, and on its own doesn't solve the underlying problem, which is making votes in minority states count for far more than a vote from a large population state for no reason at all other than other than the mere difference in population. If we have proportional representation for the electoral college nationwide, then we also should remove the cap on the total number of total electors. It shouldn't be determined by total number of representatives in Congress. Make it one elector for every x amount of population.

That way it's popular vote-lite, which is a far more fair way of electing the President of the United States than having a Wyoming citizen be worth 4 Californians for no reason at all. The only response I ever see is "hurr durr we don't want those damn libruls in California in New York deciding everything hurr durr" (despite the fact that the votes counted from both states made up less than 15% of the total voting population and 40% of them voted for Trump! Funny how no one is every able to respond to that when I call them out.)

We're not voting in an election for POTUS as representatives of our States. We don't go into a voting booth saying "Welp this guy's gonna be great for Hawaii, therefore he's got my vote." That's what State and local elections are for! We're all voting for the person who is going to lead the NATION, and therefore we all deserve an equal say, regardless of our state citizenship. On election night, we shouldn't be watching a map for a horse race of which electors will be awarded to whom. It should be which person has the most support from this nation's citizens? Who do the people really want?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2019, 12:32 PM
 
Location: 15 months till retirement and I can leave the hell hole of New Yakistan
25,349 posts, read 14,059,178 times
Reputation: 6512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valhallian View Post
This notion is only a partial solution, and doesn't go far enough. First of all, I think it should be a national popular vote, and have not once encountered on here a convincing argument for why a popular vote is not the most fair method of electing President.

However, given the Constitutional barrier and thus unlikelihood of the system, I would agree with a compromise solution. Proportional representation is fine, and it gives Texas Democrats, as well as California and New York Republicans the opportunity to have a real say in who becomes President. However, that doesn't go far enough, and on its own doesn't solve the underlying problem, which is making votes in minority states count for far more than a vote from a large population state for no reason at all other than other than the mere difference in population. If we have proportional representation for the electoral college nationwide, then we also should remove the cap on the total number of total electors. It shouldn't be determined by total number of representatives in Congress. Make it one elector for every x amount of population.

That way it's popular vote-lite, which is a far more fair way of electing the President of the United States than having a Wyoming citizen be worth 4 Californians for no reason at all. The only response I ever see is "hurr durr we don't want those damn libruls in California in New York deciding everything hurr durr" (despite the fact that the votes counted from both states made up less than 15% of the total voting population and 40% of them voted for Trump! Funny how no one is every able to respond to that when I call them out.)

We're not voting in an election for POTUS as representatives of our States. We don't go into a voting booth saying "Welp this guy's gonna be great for Hawaii, therefore he's got my vote." That's what State and local elections are for! We're all voting for the person who is going to lead the NATION, and therefore we all deserve an equal say, regardless of our state citizenship. On election night, we shouldn't be watching a map for a horse race of which electors will be awarded to whom. It should be which person has the most support from this nation's citizens? Who do the people really want?
Wyoming only gets 3 EC..while California gets 55


Wyoming only contributes 1% to the 270 requirement(3/270=.0111), where as California contributes 20%(55/270=.2037)


so California is 20 times more "important" than Wyoming


do you really think that the one state of California should have more power or say, than the other 49 states???


the national popular vote is straight up communism
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2019, 12:40 PM
 
Location: Seattle, WA
621 posts, read 216,750 times
Reputation: 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valhallian View Post
This notion is only a partial solution, and doesn't go far enough. First of all, I think it should be a national popular vote, and have not once encountered on here a convincing argument for why a popular vote is not the most fair method of electing President.

However, given the Constitutional barrier and thus unlikelihood of the system, I would agree with a compromise solution. Proportional representation is fine, and it gives Texas Democrats, as well as California and New York Republicans the opportunity to have a real say in who becomes President. However, that doesn't go far enough, and on its own doesn't solve the underlying problem, which is making votes in minority states count for far more than a vote from a large population state for no reason at all other than other than the mere difference in population. If we have proportional representation for the electoral college nationwide, then we also should remove the cap on the total number of total electors. It shouldn't be determined by total number of representatives in Congress. Make it one elector for every x amount of population.

That way it's popular vote-lite, which is a far more fair way of electing the President of the United States than having a Wyoming citizen be worth 4 Californians for no reason at all. The only response I ever see is "hurr durr we don't want those damn libruls in California in New York deciding everything hurr durr" (despite the fact that the votes counted from both states made up less than 15% of the total voting population and 40% of them voted for Trump! Funny how no one is every able to respond to that when I call them out.)

We're not voting in an election for POTUS as representatives of our States. We don't go into a voting booth saying "Welp this guy's gonna be great for Hawaii, therefore he's got my vote." That's what State and local elections are for! We're all voting for the person who is going to lead the NATION, and therefore we all deserve an equal say, regardless of our state citizenship. On election night, we shouldn't be watching a map for a horse race of which electors will be awarded to whom. It should be which person has the most support from this nation's citizens? Who do the people really want?


National Popular Vote makes it so that 3 major liberal cities decide the election while the rest of the country is left in the dark. The EC ensures that every state has a voice cause we are a union of 50 STATES. States like North and South Dakotas would not have their voices heard if we went by popular vote.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2019, 04:31 PM
 
Location: Jersey City
2,697 posts, read 989,876 times
Reputation: 1913
Default Please explain how "3 liberal cities" would decide the election in a national popular vote

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boss1234 View Post
National Popular Vote makes it so that 3 major liberal cities decide the election while the rest of the country is left in the dark. The EC ensures that every state has a voice cause we are a union of 50 STATES. States like North and South Dakotas would not have their voices heard if we went by popular vote.
Explain this position, please. How do "3 liberal cities decide the election" in a popular vote system while "the rest of the country is left in the dark"? Be sure to name which liberal cities so I know what you're talking about. On CD, your response is by far the most common, so let's hear the basis for it. While I've addressed the issue plenty of times in my arguments on here, I have never received a rebuttal (at least not a competent one), and have yet to see an explanation for the position "x states or x cities would decide the election under the popular vote." Therefore, I'm going to take a different approach this time and seek to understand what your basis is for this position before replying. I refer you (or any other poster who cares to tackle this argument) back to the opening sentence of this post.

This isn't a gotcha I'm trying to set up, I'm perfectly open to a reasonable argument. For example, I was fairly convinced the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact was constitutional, but then BeerGeek40 (who I disagree with on many, if not most issues) raised a point that made me do extra digging into the issue myself and come to the realization that it may very well be unconstitutional. In fact, I'm persuaded that quite a high probability exists that the Compact will get tossed by the SCOTUS.

Edit:

workingclasshero, there's a reason I tend to ignore your replies on this specific issue. Your objections to my posts are always addressed in my original posts themselves so I don't bother rebutting them. On top of that your responses continue to refuse to address the fact of why a popular vote isn't fair. Lastly, your "communism" shtick, besides being ridiculous, doesn't add anything meaningful to the debate. I'm not going to give credence to bombastic right wing buzzwords.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2019, 08:08 PM
 
Location: Seattle, WA
621 posts, read 216,750 times
Reputation: 394
NYC, LA, and Chicago all have more people combined than most areas of the country. if we went based on popular vote, those cities could override everyone else and no one else would be able to have a voice. Yes, they could vote, but if they aren't in those cities, you can forget about having your voice heard. The EC protects people from that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2019, 08:48 PM
 
Location: Jersey City
2,697 posts, read 989,876 times
Reputation: 1913
Default You still have not provided an explanation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boss1234 View Post
NYC, LA, and Chicago all have more people combined than most areas of the country. if we went based on popular vote, those cities could override everyone else and no one else would be able to have a voice. Yes, they could vote, but if they aren't in those cities, you can forget about having your voice heard. The EC protects people from that.
1) The total population of NYC, LA and Chicago together make up only 4.7% of the U.S. population. 95% of the country after those cities still has to be won over. Therefore, I ask again, how do those cities possibly "override everyone else" and prevent them from having a voice in a national popular vote? So far, all you've managed to do is state a conclusion without an explanation.

2) What about the rural citizens of New York, California, and Illinois? I suppose they deserve to have their votes diluted simply because they reside in the same state as those large cities?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2019, 09:03 PM
 
Location: Seattle, WA
621 posts, read 216,750 times
Reputation: 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valhallian View Post
1) The total population of NYC, LA and Chicago together make up only 4.7% of the U.S. population. 95% of the country after those cities still has to be won over. Therefore, I ask again, how do those cities possibly "override everyone else" and prevent them from having a voice in a national popular vote? So far, all you've managed to do is state a conclusion without an explanation.

2) What about the rural citizens of New York, California, and Illinois? I suppose they deserve to have their votes diluted simply because they reside in the same state as those large cities?


https://www.investors.com/politics/c...om-california/



Why we have The EC.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2019, 11:17 PM
 
Location: 15 months till retirement and I can leave the hell hole of New Yakistan
25,349 posts, read 14,059,178 times
Reputation: 6512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valhallian View Post
Explain this position, please. How do "3 liberal cities decide the election" in a popular vote system while "the rest of the country is left in the dark"? Be sure to name which liberal cities so I know what you're talking about. On CD, your response is by far the most common, so let's hear the basis for it. While I've addressed the issue plenty of times in my arguments on here, I have never received a rebuttal (at least not a competent one), and have yet to see an explanation for the position "x states or x cities would decide the election under the popular vote." Therefore, I'm going to take a different approach this time and seek to understand what your basis is for this position before replying. I refer you (or any other poster who cares to tackle this argument) back to the opening sentence of this post.

This isn't a gotcha I'm trying to set up, I'm perfectly open to a reasonable argument. For example, I was fairly convinced the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact was constitutional, but then BeerGeek40 (who I disagree with on many, if not most issues) raised a point that made me do extra digging into the issue myself and come to the realization that it may very well be unconstitutional. In fact, I'm persuaded that quite a high probability exists that the Compact will get tossed by the SCOTUS.

Edit:

workingclasshero, there's a reason I tend to ignore your replies on this specific issue. Your objections to my posts are always addressed in my original posts themselves so I don't bother rebutting them. On top of that your responses continue to refuse to address the fact of why a popular vote isn't fair. Lastly, your "communism" shtick, besides being ridiculous, doesn't add anything meaningful to the debate. I'm not going to give credence to bombastic right wing buzzwords.
ight...so you CITY should ENSLAVE an entire state... how thoughtful of you



the whole idea is that the EC makes it equal for a nation of STATES... this is not the peoples democracy of America.. it is the united STATES of America...

the electorial college is NEEDED

New York city(the city not the state) has a bigger population than over 10 other states COMBINED

nyc population 8.3 million

Wyoming 544k
Vermont 621k
n. Dakota 640k
Alaska 690k
s. Dakota 821k
Delaware 885k
Montana 974k
Rhode island 1.01 million
Hawaii 1.2 million
Maine 1.3 million

total 7.8 million

10 states combined less than the population of NY CITY

repealing the electoral college would take away any say of the smaller rural states



look at Chicago...ok the population of Chicago (A CITY) is 2.7 million..the entire STATE of Nebraska is 1.8 million

should a city negate a whole state???

should a urban jungle of 2.6 million out weigh and entire state (of 1.8 million) of rural farms producing all the food for the urban jungle...should those 1.8 million not count just because the city of 2.6 million is more welfare babies

look at Phoenix...ok the population of Phoenix (A CITY) is 1.6 million..the entire STATE of Wyoming is 550k million

should a city negate a whole state???

should a urban jungle of 1.6 million out weigh an entire state of rural farms producing all the food for the urban jungle...should those 550k not count just because the city of 1.6 million says so...awfully fascist to think that way




the electoral college is there for a reason...


When establishing our federal government, smaller States like Rhode Island had feared they would have no voice, and therefore no protection, against the more populous States like New York or Massachusetts. Similarly, the sparsely populated agricultural regions feared an inability to protect their interests against the fishing and shipping industries dominant in the more populous coastal States. These concerns on how to preserve individual State voices and diverse regional interests caused the framers to establish a bi-cameral rather than a uni-cameral legislative system.

In that wise plan, one body preserved the will of the majority as determined by population and the other preserved the will of the majority as determined by the States. As Constitution signer James Madison confirmed:

The Constitution is nicely balanced with the federative and popular principles; the Senate are the guardians of the former, and the House of Representatives of the latter; and any attempts to destroy this balance, under whatever specious names or pretenses they may be presented, should be watched with a jealous eye.

The Founding Fathers considered all forms of government; thoughtfully, intellectually, historically and they debated and agonized and then they compromised, agreed and then pledged their lives their fortunes and their sacred honor to establish, protect and enable the government they had created. The education, the intellect and the faith of those men can not be underestimated. We can only bring poverty and unrest if we deign to ignore their wisdom and replace our Constitutional Republic, the rule of law, with a Democracy, rule by the mob.

The point is, undermining or ditching the Electoral Collage is a part of the plan to convert America to neo-Marxist mob rule with top-down control by the national (and global) ruling class....the simple fact is the national vote SCHEME is just that a scheme being pushed by the likes of George Soros and the fascist liberals looking to bring some hybrid of Marxism to the USA
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2019, 04:02 AM
 
Location: Pennsylvania
12,537 posts, read 4,238,327 times
Reputation: 9857
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
ight...so you CITY should ENSLAVE an entire state... how thoughtful of you



the whole idea is that the EC makes it equal for a nation of STATES... this is not the peoples democracy of America.. it is the united STATES of America...

the electorial college is NEEDED

New York city(the city not the state) has a bigger population than over 10 other states COMBINED

nyc population 8.3 million

Wyoming 544k
Vermont 621k
n. Dakota 640k
Alaska 690k
s. Dakota 821k
Delaware 885k
Montana 974k
Rhode island 1.01 million
Hawaii 1.2 million
Maine 1.3 million

total 7.8 million

10 states combined less than the population of NY CITY

repealing the electoral college would take away any say of the smaller rural states



look at Chicago...ok the population of Chicago (A CITY) is 2.7 million..the entire STATE of Nebraska is 1.8 million

should a city negate a whole state???

should a urban jungle of 2.6 million out weigh and entire state (of 1.8 million) of rural farms producing all the food for the urban jungle...should those 1.8 million not count just because the city of 2.6 million is more welfare babies

look at Phoenix...ok the population of Phoenix (A CITY) is 1.6 million..the entire STATE of Wyoming is 550k million

should a city negate a whole state???

should a urban jungle of 1.6 million out weigh an entire state of rural farms producing all the food for the urban jungle...should those 550k not count just because the city of 1.6 million says so...awfully fascist to think that way




the electoral college is there for a reason...


When establishing our federal government, smaller States like Rhode Island had feared they would have no voice, and therefore no protection, against the more populous States like New York or Massachusetts. Similarly, the sparsely populated agricultural regions feared an inability to protect their interests against the fishing and shipping industries dominant in the more populous coastal States. These concerns on how to preserve individual State voices and diverse regional interests caused the framers to establish a bi-cameral rather than a uni-cameral legislative system.

In that wise plan, one body preserved the will of the majority as determined by population and the other preserved the will of the majority as determined by the States. As Constitution signer James Madison confirmed:

The Constitution is nicely balanced with the federative and popular principles; the Senate are the guardians of the former, and the House of Representatives of the latter; and any attempts to destroy this balance, under whatever specious names or pretenses they may be presented, should be watched with a jealous eye.

The Founding Fathers considered all forms of government; thoughtfully, intellectually, historically and they debated and agonized and then they compromised, agreed and then pledged their lives their fortunes and their sacred honor to establish, protect and enable the government they had created. The education, the intellect and the faith of those men can not be underestimated. We can only bring poverty and unrest if we deign to ignore their wisdom and replace our Constitutional Republic, the rule of law, with a Democracy, rule by the mob.

The point is, undermining or ditching the Electoral Collage is a part of the plan to convert America to neo-Marxist mob rule with top-down control by the national (and global) ruling class....the simple fact is the national vote SCHEME is just that a scheme being pushed by the likes of George Soros and the fascist liberals looking to bring some hybrid of Marxism to the USA
Great post and people like us can keep posting all of the logical reasons why the EC exists -- but the other side won't listen. They want MOB RULE, they want it now and they don't care about anything else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top