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 real reason is that you can't think of anything to tell me is that there ISN'T anything to tell me. The current EC system is a blatant corruption of democratic electoral principles and processes. Its obvious flaws have been tolerated because it didn't screw things up very often, but now it has done so twice in sixteen years.
IT HAS TO GO.
In the spirit of the topic I offer these tid bits from the Founders. I doubt some of you will pay any attention or maybe even comprehend but I will make the attempt....
Firstly a few quotes....
"Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotisms." - Aristotle (384-322 BC)
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." Thomas Jefferson
"The ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation, to the prejudice and oppression of another, is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy. An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part is entitled to, and ought to enjoy." -- Benjamin Franklin
How can part of the Constitution be unconstitutional? Clearly it is an exception from "one man one vote."
When people say our president should be elected directly by the people with a simple plurality of the votes, they’re rejecting the republican system of government established by our founders. The framers of the Constitution soundly rejected the concept of a pure democracy where the people elect leaders directly. Such a system would lead to mob rule where the rights of the minority are crushed by the will of the majority. As Ben Franklin said, “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.” Is that the kind of country we want to live in? The founders certainly didn’t, and they rejected it.
If a majority of the voters in State W vote for the Republican Candidate, but the Democrat candidate gets more of the popular vote, then State W's electoral votes go to the Democrat. Correct? So State W's electoral votes are allocated NOT by the voters of State W, but instead by the voters in states other than State W? Talk about disenfranchisement on a massive level.
It must take a very peculiar liberal mind to believe that this is in any way fair and just.
In the spirit of the topic I offer these tid bits from the Founders. I doubt some of you will pay any attention or maybe even comprehend but I will make the attempt....
Firstly a few quotes....
"Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotisms." - Aristotle (384-322 BC)
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." Thomas Jefferson
"The ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation, to the prejudice and oppression of another, is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy. An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part is entitled to, and ought to enjoy." -- Benjamin Franklin
America in 1787 was a vastly differently country than it is today. For starters, a huge percentage of the population was illiterate. The idea of electing the President through a popular vote would have been extremely difficult because you had voters as far north as Vermont and New Hampshire. You also had them as far south as Georgia. There was no telegraph and no means of transmitting votes or the results of voting rapidly to a central location. Statewide elections were essential in such an environment. Next, your quotes are out of context. Franklin and Jefferson seem to be talking about the need for a Bill of Rights guaranteeing specific protections to individual Americans. It has no application to the method of electing the President. Aristotle is quoted by Plato in The Republic. He is talking in very general terms about what he knows about history before Christ.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa
How can part of the Constitution be unconstitutional? Clearly it is an exception from "one man one vote."
It isn't unconstitutional. However, it is outmoded and that's why a bunch of us would like to change it to a popular vote. Again, this discussion isn't about the tragedy that occurred this election. Its about preventing other such cataclysms from occurring.
Quote:
Originally Posted by my54ford
When people say our president should be elected directly by the people with a simple plurality of the votes, they’re rejecting the republican system of government established by our founders. The framers of the Constitution soundly rejected the concept of a pure democracy where the people elect leaders directly. Such a system would lead to mob rule where the rights of the minority are crushed by the will of the majority. As Ben Franklin said, “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.” Is that the kind of country we want to live in? The founders certainly didn’t, and they rejected it.
A Republic can be defined as a system where people elect representatives to make their laws for them. In fact, when you have any entity with more than a few thousand people a "democracy" where the people rule directly is pretty impossible. Every system I am aware of elects a Congress, a Parliament, a Knesset, or some sort of legislative body to make decisions for the people. No one is here advocating we abolish Congress or this system of making laws. Instead, we simply argue that all the citizens of this country ought to vote for the President and all votes should count equally. Its hardly radical and isn't going to lead to the end of mankind. The people in this country have always elected members of the House of Representatives by majority vote. Senators have been elected by the populace since about 1912 and since that has occurred, we have a fairer system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd
Just so I am clear on the whole NPV thing. . .
If a majority of the voters in State W vote for the Republican Candidate, but the Democrat candidate gets more of the popular vote, then State W's electoral votes go to the Democrat. Correct? So State W's electoral votes are allocated NOT by the voters of State W, but instead by the voters in states other than State W? Talk about disenfranchisement on a massive level.
It must take a very peculiar liberal mind to believe that this is in any way fair and just.
No, it takes a mind that believes that if more voters support one presidential candidate over another than the candidate with the most votes should win. I thought that was called an election. Its clearer and clearer to me though that a segment of people preaches about elections, but doesn't really believe in them.
Last edited by markg91359; 12-14-2016 at 04:52 PM..
No, it takes a mind that believes that if more voters support one presidential candidate over another than the candidate with the votes should win. I thought that was called an election. Its clearer and clearer to me though that a segment of people preaches about elections, but doesn't really believe in them.
So you are OK with the disenfranchisement that I described? You whine that in the current system, some votes weigh more heavily than others, but making potentially large numbers of votes weigh nothing is OK? That voters in California, New York, and Florida get to determine how Pennsylvania or Michigan's electoral votes will be cast? You are really OK with this absurdity?
If a majority of the voters in State W vote for the Republican Candidate, but the Democrat candidate gets more of the popular vote, then State W's electoral votes go to the Democrat. Correct? So State W's electoral votes are allocated NOT by the voters of State W, but instead by the voters in states other than State W? Talk about disenfranchisement on a massive level.
It must take a very peculiar liberal mind to believe that this is in any way fair and just.
It is just like the Electoral College - a compromise. Driven by the fact that the clause is not practically amendable. I can see no problem in law for it...the mechanism the state chooses is open ended. And I see no moral or social counter argument. It shouild be decided by popular vote.
The only defense of the EC is that it gives the right about a 35 EC vote advantage from the 20 smallest states. And that is where it support comes from.
So you are OK with the disenfranchisement that I described? You whine that in the current system, some votes weigh more heavily than others, but making potentially large numbers of votes weigh nothing is OK? That voters in California, New York, and Florida get to determine how Pennsylvania or Michigan's electoral votes will be cast? You are really OK with this absurdity?
No one is disenfranchised. All votes count with the same weight toward electing the President. The split in a particular governmental subdivision is of no consequences.
We want a President elected by "We the People". Not by some quirk left over from days long gone.
It is just like the Electoral College - a compromise. Driven by the fact that the clause is not practically amendable. I can see no problem in law for it...the mechanism the state chooses is open ended. And I see no moral or social counter argument. It shouild be decided by popular vote.
The only defense of the EC is that it gives the right about a 35 EC vote advantage from the 20 smallest states. And that is where it support comes from.
If the EC is to be changed, it needs to be done via the amendment process, and not through some backdoor process. The problem with the NPV is it could be seen as unconstitutional. This idea of one state acquiescing it's votes due to the votes in another state is nonsense. Since when in the history of this Republic have we seen such an action take place. Historically the states have always use the electoral vote system, and in the manner as the states have setup, to force a state to vote contrary to the general public vote of that state is not the Republic form of government as promised in the Constitution. Each State represents the residence of that State, and not the nation, so I do think that historical presidence would come into play in a court of law.
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.
