|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 11, 2020, 07:36:40 am
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Process (Moderator: muon2)
  EC would be dismantled after GOP loss of TX and FL
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: EC would be dismantled after GOP loss of TX and FL  (Read 3999 times)
Jamison5
Rookie
**
Posts: 65


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: February 15, 2020, 09:59:07 am »

That's my prediction (based on current trends) of the whole case with Electoral College. After GOP candidates would be no longer able to win in Texas and/or Florida in presidential elections, they wouldn't be able to win federally, therefore Republicans will start to talk about a possibility of abolishing or reforming EC.



Texas is still red. Florida is trending red. By the time Texas flips, the entire Midwest except Illinois will be reliably red. The Northeast will be more competetive then.

The electoral college is absolutely necessary for this constitutional republic; it gives power to the individual states and guarantees that the president has a wide coalition. With a national popular vote, cheating and voter fraud would be drastically empowered. Some blue states are allowing non-citizens to vote and they have many dead people on voter rolls. The electoral college confines the effect of those unfair policies to only those areas and not the whole country. A national popular vote would also mean 140 million vote recounts, which would mean more fraud, more work for election workers, and more division and controversy.

The Democrats want the national popular vote because they are the ones who are struggling to build a winning coalition. The Democrats' plan of the national popular vote goes hand-in-hand with their plan to give more rights to illegal aliens (including voting). They just want more power and bigger government, they don't care about Americans.
Bull.
The main intent of the electoral college was to act as a safeguard against mob tyranny. Nowadays due to faithless electors being punished, it has no purpose and only puts power into a couple of swing states.

The electoral college makes a smoother process, preserves states' rights, requires a diverse coalition across the country, and it limits the power of voter fraud and misconduct. The national popular vote would embolden voter fraud and misconduct, give significant voting power to illegals in sanctuary states and cities (13% out of 22 million admit to voting, that's 3 million votes), and would result in nationwide recounts of 140+ million votes. Would you have wanted nationwide recounts in 1960, 1968, and 2000, perhaps going on for months?

I shall also point out the lies in your reply. You said that power is in the hands of a "couple of swing states." That is false and oversimplified. There are many swing states, swing states change, and they can swing dramatically. The parties' support in each state is dependant on the support of their policies. The safe states are not naturally safe; they are safe because a vast majority of the people in that state support a party's platform. West Virginia very quickly went from being a Dukakis state in 1988 to being one of the reddest states. This was because the Democrats alienated the blue collar workers, especially coal miners. The Democrats lost the South because they alienated the socially conservative Southern Democrats.

The original purpose was to give the states the power over who became president, requiring a broad coalition and not just one radical base. Democrats want to change the rules because they fail to win by the existing rules; that's all there is to it. The Democrats have pushed for illegals voting, ballot harvesting, later poll closing in their strongholds, and they use intimidation with groups like Antifa; that is why they want a national popular vote, it's all about power to themselves.

Absolutely wrong.  The Founders certainly did not envisage the winner-take-all partisan manner in which the electors have been largely chosen.  The reason for the Electoral College is two-fold.  First, in the context of 1787, they deemed it impossible for most of the electorate to know anything significant about most potential presidential candidates, so they wanted the voters (either directly as was specified for Representatives or indirectly via the State legislatures as was specified for Senators) to select people they knew and trusted to be the Electors. Second, while they could've done like many States did at the time and had the legislature select the executive, to emphasize separation of powers they chose to instead create a one-time special purpose legislature entirely separate from Congress (which is why members of Congress are barred from being Electors) for the sole purpose of electing the executive. The only reason Congress has any role at all is because the College does not meet all together due to the hardship then of forcing them to travel to the national capital to perform only one task, so some means had to be devised when the Electors, all meeting in their own States, fail to select the executive themselves.

Given the ease of travel today, if we wanted to update the Electoral College yet stay true to the Founders' intention, we'd have them all meet in Washington and have them deliberate until habemus presidentum. Perhaps even send up smoke signals from the Capitol dome. We might even have them reconvene whenever there is a vacancy in the executive branch.

You are now misrepresenting what I said. I know the founders did not make or anticipate a winner-take-all system. That's not the point. The point is that the states choose who they give their support to, and how they do it. Try again. If you think you're right, don't misrepresent me and make assumptions.
Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 39,139
United States


P

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: February 16, 2020, 04:34:13 am »

That's my prediction (based on current trends) of the whole case with Electoral College. After GOP candidates would be no longer able to win in Texas and/or Florida in presidential elections, they wouldn't be able to win federally, therefore Republicans will start to talk about a possibility of abolishing or reforming EC.



Texas is still red. Florida is trending red. By the time Texas flips, the entire Midwest except Illinois will be reliably red. The Northeast will be more competetive then.

The electoral college is absolutely necessary for this constitutional republic; it gives power to the individual states and guarantees that the president has a wide coalition. With a national popular vote, cheating and voter fraud would be drastically empowered. Some blue states are allowing non-citizens to vote and they have many dead people on voter rolls. The electoral college confines the effect of those unfair policies to only those areas and not the whole country. A national popular vote would also mean 140 million vote recounts, which would mean more fraud, more work for election workers, and more division and controversy.

The Democrats want the national popular vote because they are the ones who are struggling to build a winning coalition. The Democrats' plan of the national popular vote goes hand-in-hand with their plan to give more rights to illegal aliens (including voting). They just want more power and bigger government, they don't care about Americans.
Bull.
The main intent of the electoral college was to act as a safeguard against mob tyranny. Nowadays due to faithless electors being punished, it has no purpose and only puts power into a couple of swing states.

The electoral college makes a smoother process, preserves states' rights, requires a diverse coalition across the country, and it limits the power of voter fraud and misconduct. The national popular vote would embolden voter fraud and misconduct, give significant voting power to illegals in sanctuary states and cities (13% out of 22 million admit to voting, that's 3 million votes), and would result in nationwide recounts of 140+ million votes. Would you have wanted nationwide recounts in 1960, 1968, and 2000, perhaps going on for months?

I shall also point out the lies in your reply. You said that power is in the hands of a "couple of swing states." That is false and oversimplified. There are many swing states, swing states change, and they can swing dramatically. The parties' support in each state is dependant on the support of their policies. The safe states are not naturally safe; they are safe because a vast majority of the people in that state support a party's platform. West Virginia very quickly went from being a Dukakis state in 1988 to being one of the reddest states. This was because the Democrats alienated the blue collar workers, especially coal miners. The Democrats lost the South because they alienated the socially conservative Southern Democrats.

The original purpose was to give the states the power over who became president, requiring a broad coalition and not just one radical base. Democrats want to change the rules because they fail to win by the existing rules; that's all there is to it. The Democrats have pushed for illegals voting, ballot harvesting, later poll closing in their strongholds, and they use intimidation with groups like Antifa; that is why they want a national popular vote, it's all about power to themselves.

Absolutely wrong.  The Founders certainly did not envisage the winner-take-all partisan manner in which the electors have been largely chosen.  The reason for the Electoral College is two-fold.  First, in the context of 1787, they deemed it impossible for most of the electorate to know anything significant about most potential presidential candidates, so they wanted the voters (either directly as was specified for Representatives or indirectly via the State legislatures as was specified for Senators) to select people they knew and trusted to be the Electors. Second, while they could've done like many States did at the time and had the legislature select the executive, to emphasize separation of powers they chose to instead create a one-time special purpose legislature entirely separate from Congress (which is why members of Congress are barred from being Electors) for the sole purpose of electing the executive. The only reason Congress has any role at all is because the College does not meet all together due to the hardship then of forcing them to travel to the national capital to perform only one task, so some means had to be devised when the Electors, all meeting in their own States, fail to select the executive themselves.

Given the ease of travel today, if we wanted to update the Electoral College yet stay true to the Founders' intention, we'd have them all meet in Washington and have them deliberate until habemus presidentum. Perhaps even send up smoke signals from the Capitol dome. We might even have them reconvene whenever there is a vacancy in the executive branch.

You are now misrepresenting what I said. I know the founders did not make or anticipate a winner-take-all system. That's not the point. The point is that the states choose who they give their support to, and how they do it. Try again. If you think you're right, don't misrepresent me and make assumptions.

You're the one who said the purpose was to give States the power to select the President, which absolutely was not the intention. The purpose was get a bunch of local illuminaries, selected by the People, who would be knowledgeable about potential Presidents and make an informed choice.

To quote Federalist No. 68 "The Mode of Electing the President":

Quote
It was desirable, that the sense of the People should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preŽstablished body, but to men chosen by the People for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

It's quite clear that at the very least, Hamilton saw the People choosing the Electors, not the States.  The whole idea that the system was devised to give States a voice is utter hogwash used solely to justify how in our current system it can be desirable for the EV and PV winners to be different.

Note that in the original 1789 election, which most closely resembled how the Founders envisioned it would work, only four of the ten States voting had every single Elector who voted casting identical ballots. (Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire).
Logged
Jamison5
Rookie
**
Posts: 65


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: February 16, 2020, 03:01:33 pm »

That's my prediction (based on current trends) of the whole case with Electoral College. After GOP candidates would be no longer able to win in Texas and/or Florida in presidential elections, they wouldn't be able to win federally, therefore Republicans will start to talk about a possibility of abolishing or reforming EC.



Texas is still red. Florida is trending red. By the time Texas flips, the entire Midwest except Illinois will be reliably red. The Northeast will be more competetive then.

The electoral college is absolutely necessary for this constitutional republic; it gives power to the individual states and guarantees that the president has a wide coalition. With a national popular vote, cheating and voter fraud would be drastically empowered. Some blue states are allowing non-citizens to vote and they have many dead people on voter rolls. The electoral college confines the effect of those unfair policies to only those areas and not the whole country. A national popular vote would also mean 140 million vote recounts, which would mean more fraud, more work for election workers, and more division and controversy.

The Democrats want the national popular vote because they are the ones who are struggling to build a winning coalition. The Democrats' plan of the national popular vote goes hand-in-hand with their plan to give more rights to illegal aliens (including voting). They just want more power and bigger government, they don't care about Americans.
Bull.
The main intent of the electoral college was to act as a safeguard against mob tyranny. Nowadays due to faithless electors being punished, it has no purpose and only puts power into a couple of swing states.

The electoral college makes a smoother process, preserves states' rights, requires a diverse coalition across the country, and it limits the power of voter fraud and misconduct. The national popular vote would embolden voter fraud and misconduct, give significant voting power to illegals in sanctuary states and cities (13% out of 22 million admit to voting, that's 3 million votes), and would result in nationwide recounts of 140+ million votes. Would you have wanted nationwide recounts in 1960, 1968, and 2000, perhaps going on for months?

I shall also point out the lies in your reply. You said that power is in the hands of a "couple of swing states." That is false and oversimplified. There are many swing states, swing states change, and they can swing dramatically. The parties' support in each state is dependant on the support of their policies. The safe states are not naturally safe; they are safe because a vast majority of the people in that state support a party's platform. West Virginia very quickly went from being a Dukakis state in 1988 to being one of the reddest states. This was because the Democrats alienated the blue collar workers, especially coal miners. The Democrats lost the South because they alienated the socially conservative Southern Democrats.

The original purpose was to give the states the power over who became president, requiring a broad coalition and not just one radical base. Democrats want to change the rules because they fail to win by the existing rules; that's all there is to it. The Democrats have pushed for illegals voting, ballot harvesting, later poll closing in their strongholds, and they use intimidation with groups like Antifa; that is why they want a national popular vote, it's all about power to themselves.

Absolutely wrong.  The Founders certainly did not envisage the winner-take-all partisan manner in which the electors have been largely chosen.  The reason for the Electoral College is two-fold.  First, in the context of 1787, they deemed it impossible for most of the electorate to know anything significant about most potential presidential candidates, so they wanted the voters (either directly as was specified for Representatives or indirectly via the State legislatures as was specified for Senators) to select people they knew and trusted to be the Electors. Second, while they could've done like many States did at the time and had the legislature select the executive, to emphasize separation of powers they chose to instead create a one-time special purpose legislature entirely separate from Congress (which is why members of Congress are barred from being Electors) for the sole purpose of electing the executive. The only reason Congress has any role at all is because the College does not meet all together due to the hardship then of forcing them to travel to the national capital to perform only one task, so some means had to be devised when the Electors, all meeting in their own States, fail to select the executive themselves.

Given the ease of travel today, if we wanted to update the Electoral College yet stay true to the Founders' intention, we'd have them all meet in Washington and have them deliberate until habemus presidentum. Perhaps even send up smoke signals from the Capitol dome. We might even have them reconvene whenever there is a vacancy in the executive branch.

You are now misrepresenting what I said. I know the founders did not make or anticipate a winner-take-all system. That's not the point. The point is that the states choose who they give their support to, and how they do it. Try again. If you think you're right, don't misrepresent me and make assumptions.

You're the one who said the purpose was to give States the power to select the President, which absolutely was not the intention. The purpose was get a bunch of local illuminaries, selected by the People, who would be knowledgeable about potential Presidents and make an informed choice.

To quote Federalist No. 68 "The Mode of Electing the President":

Quote
It was desirable, that the sense of the People should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preŽstablished body, but to men chosen by the People for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

It's quite clear that at the very least, Hamilton saw the People choosing the Electors, not the States.  The whole idea that the system was devised to give States a voice is utter hogwash used solely to justify how in our current system it can be desirable for the EV and PV winners to be different.

Note that in the original 1789 election, which most closely resembled how the Founders envisioned it would work, only four of the ten States voting had every single Elector who voted casting identical ballots. (Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire).

You start by contradicting yourself from one sentence to the next, then you use one person's opinion to try to justify your position on its own. Your last paragraph only proves my point that different states might choose their electors differently, and that the electors' voting power is decided by the states.

Now please explain to me how alienating rural parts of the country, having 140 million+ vote recounts, and allowing one state's misconduct to be more likely to decide the election is a better system. I'll wait.
Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 39,139
United States


P

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: February 29, 2020, 09:40:33 pm »

That's my prediction (based on current trends) of the whole case with Electoral College. After GOP candidates would be no longer able to win in Texas and/or Florida in presidential elections, they wouldn't be able to win federally, therefore Republicans will start to talk about a possibility of abolishing or reforming EC.



Texas is still red. Florida is trending red. By the time Texas flips, the entire Midwest except Illinois will be reliably red. The Northeast will be more competetive then.

The electoral college is absolutely necessary for this constitutional republic; it gives power to the individual states and guarantees that the president has a wide coalition. With a national popular vote, cheating and voter fraud would be drastically empowered. Some blue states are allowing non-citizens to vote and they have many dead people on voter rolls. The electoral college confines the effect of those unfair policies to only those areas and not the whole country. A national popular vote would also mean 140 million vote recounts, which would mean more fraud, more work for election workers, and more division and controversy.

The Democrats want the national popular vote because they are the ones who are struggling to build a winning coalition. The Democrats' plan of the national popular vote goes hand-in-hand with their plan to give more rights to illegal aliens (including voting). They just want more power and bigger government, they don't care about Americans.
Bull.
The main intent of the electoral college was to act as a safeguard against mob tyranny. Nowadays due to faithless electors being punished, it has no purpose and only puts power into a couple of swing states.

The electoral college makes a smoother process, preserves states' rights, requires a diverse coalition across the country, and it limits the power of voter fraud and misconduct. The national popular vote would embolden voter fraud and misconduct, give significant voting power to illegals in sanctuary states and cities (13% out of 22 million admit to voting, that's 3 million votes), and would result in nationwide recounts of 140+ million votes. Would you have wanted nationwide recounts in 1960, 1968, and 2000, perhaps going on for months?

I shall also point out the lies in your reply. You said that power is in the hands of a "couple of swing states." That is false and oversimplified. There are many swing states, swing states change, and they can swing dramatically. The parties' support in each state is dependant on the support of their policies. The safe states are not naturally safe; they are safe because a vast majority of the people in that state support a party's platform. West Virginia very quickly went from being a Dukakis state in 1988 to being one of the reddest states. This was because the Democrats alienated the blue collar workers, especially coal miners. The Democrats lost the South because they alienated the socially conservative Southern Democrats.

The original purpose was to give the states the power over who became president, requiring a broad coalition and not just one radical base. Democrats want to change the rules because they fail to win by the existing rules; that's all there is to it. The Democrats have pushed for illegals voting, ballot harvesting, later poll closing in their strongholds, and they use intimidation with groups like Antifa; that is why they want a national popular vote, it's all about power to themselves.

Absolutely wrong.  The Founders certainly did not envisage the winner-take-all partisan manner in which the electors have been largely chosen.  The reason for the Electoral College is two-fold.  First, in the context of 1787, they deemed it impossible for most of the electorate to know anything significant about most potential presidential candidates, so they wanted the voters (either directly as was specified for Representatives or indirectly via the State legislatures as was specified for Senators) to select people they knew and trusted to be the Electors. Second, while they could've done like many States did at the time and had the legislature select the executive, to emphasize separation of powers they chose to instead create a one-time special purpose legislature entirely separate from Congress (which is why members of Congress are barred from being Electors) for the sole purpose of electing the executive. The only reason Congress has any role at all is because the College does not meet all together due to the hardship then of forcing them to travel to the national capital to perform only one task, so some means had to be devised when the Electors, all meeting in their own States, fail to select the executive themselves.

Given the ease of travel today, if we wanted to update the Electoral College yet stay true to the Founders' intention, we'd have them all meet in Washington and have them deliberate until habemus presidentum. Perhaps even send up smoke signals from the Capitol dome. We might even have them reconvene whenever there is a vacancy in the executive branch.

You are now misrepresenting what I said. I know the founders did not make or anticipate a winner-take-all system. That's not the point. The point is that the states choose who they give their support to, and how they do it. Try again. If you think you're right, don't misrepresent me and make assumptions.

You're the one who said the purpose was to give States the power to select the President, which absolutely was not the intention. The purpose was get a bunch of local illuminaries, selected by the People, who would be knowledgeable about potential Presidents and make an informed choice.

To quote Federalist No. 68 "The Mode of Electing the President":

Quote
It was desirable, that the sense of the People should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preŽstablished body, but to men chosen by the People for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

It's quite clear that at the very least, Hamilton saw the People choosing the Electors, not the States.  The whole idea that the system was devised to give States a voice is utter hogwash used solely to justify how in our current system it can be desirable for the EV and PV winners to be different.

Note that in the original 1789 election, which most closely resembled how the Founders envisioned it would work, only four of the ten States voting had every single Elector who voted casting identical ballots. (Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire).

You start by contradicting yourself from one sentence to the next, then you use one person's opinion to try to justify your position on its own. Your last paragraph only proves my point that different states might choose their electors differently, and that the electors' voting power is decided by the states.

Now please explain to me how alienating rural parts of the country, having 140 million+ vote recounts, and allowing one state's misconduct to be more likely to decide the election is a better system. I'll wait.

Why should I explain a strawman you yourself invented?  I haven't focused at all in this thread on what would be the best system but instead on the intent of the people who established the Electoral College.  In trying to determine such intent, the expressed opinions of those people is the most relevant evidence available.

The Founders never intended a system where all of the Electors from a given State would be of the same political party, but that was mainly because in 1787 they were largely horrified by the prospect of political parties since historically the rise of party politics had been one of the key factors leading to the downfall of republics.  They never even considered the popular vote as an option because they considered it impossible for anyone other than a demagogue backed by a political faction to gather a majority of it nationwide, and in the context of 1787 they were correct in my opinion.

However, to infer from those conditions that the Electoral College was intended to give greater weight to rural voters is utter hogwash.  Rather, the Founders saw a national direct election of the executive as impossible (in 1787)  and rather than have either the Congress or State legislatures indirectly elect the executive and thereby be beholden to either of those, they came up with the idea of a special purpose body to elect the executive.  The State weighting of Electors directly mirrored that of Congress and if the Virginia Plan (of a purely proportionate Congress) or the New Jersey Plan (of each State having equal weight in both Houses of Congress) had been adopted, there is little reason to expect that the Electoral College would not have done so as well.
Logged
McNukesô #NYCMMWasAHero
Nuke
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 861
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.23, S: 8.09

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: March 01, 2020, 01:41:03 am »

No way, really. Even if a cynical PoV is taken, the GOP would react to the next Democrat win more like it did in 2008 than the Democrats did in 2000 or 2016, assuming the popular vote is lost as well as the electoral vote. Furthermore, the GOP would likely be unwilling to amend the Constitution (or join NPVIC) without the vast, vast majority of the Party--which would remember the past--supporting it. In other words, you'd have to have the GOP lose the EC and win the PV twice or thrice, and by then the Democrats would withdraw support.
Logged
Jamison5
Rookie
**
Posts: 65


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: March 01, 2020, 02:29:04 am »

That's my prediction (based on current trends) of the whole case with Electoral College. After GOP candidates would be no longer able to win in Texas and/or Florida in presidential elections, they wouldn't be able to win federally, therefore Republicans will start to talk about a possibility of abolishing or reforming EC.



Texas is still red. Florida is trending red. By the time Texas flips, the entire Midwest except Illinois will be reliably red. The Northeast will be more competetive then.

The electoral college is absolutely necessary for this constitutional republic; it gives power to the individual states and guarantees that the president has a wide coalition. With a national popular vote, cheating and voter fraud would be drastically empowered. Some blue states are allowing non-citizens to vote and they have many dead people on voter rolls. The electoral college confines the effect of those unfair policies to only those areas and not the whole country. A national popular vote would also mean 140 million vote recounts, which would mean more fraud, more work for election workers, and more division and controversy.

The Democrats want the national popular vote because they are the ones who are struggling to build a winning coalition. The Democrats' plan of the national popular vote goes hand-in-hand with their plan to give more rights to illegal aliens (including voting). They just want more power and bigger government, they don't care about Americans.
Bull.
The main intent of the electoral college was to act as a safeguard against mob tyranny. Nowadays due to faithless electors being punished, it has no purpose and only puts power into a couple of swing states.

The electoral college makes a smoother process, preserves states' rights, requires a diverse coalition across the country, and it limits the power of voter fraud and misconduct. The national popular vote would embolden voter fraud and misconduct, give significant voting power to illegals in sanctuary states and cities (13% out of 22 million admit to voting, that's 3 million votes), and would result in nationwide recounts of 140+ million votes. Would you have wanted nationwide recounts in 1960, 1968, and 2000, perhaps going on for months?

I shall also point out the lies in your reply. You said that power is in the hands of a "couple of swing states." That is false and oversimplified. There are many swing states, swing states change, and they can swing dramatically. The parties' support in each state is dependant on the support of their policies. The safe states are not naturally safe; they are safe because a vast majority of the people in that state support a party's platform. West Virginia very quickly went from being a Dukakis state in 1988 to being one of the reddest states. This was because the Democrats alienated the blue collar workers, especially coal miners. The Democrats lost the South because they alienated the socially conservative Southern Democrats.

The original purpose was to give the states the power over who became president, requiring a broad coalition and not just one radical base. Democrats want to change the rules because they fail to win by the existing rules; that's all there is to it. The Democrats have pushed for illegals voting, ballot harvesting, later poll closing in their strongholds, and they use intimidation with groups like Antifa; that is why they want a national popular vote, it's all about power to themselves.

Absolutely wrong.  The Founders certainly did not envisage the winner-take-all partisan manner in which the electors have been largely chosen.  The reason for the Electoral College is two-fold.  First, in the context of 1787, they deemed it impossible for most of the electorate to know anything significant about most potential presidential candidates, so they wanted the voters (either directly as was specified for Representatives or indirectly via the State legislatures as was specified for Senators) to select people they knew and trusted to be the Electors. Second, while they could've done like many States did at the time and had the legislature select the executive, to emphasize separation of powers they chose to instead create a one-time special purpose legislature entirely separate from Congress (which is why members of Congress are barred from being Electors) for the sole purpose of electing the executive. The only reason Congress has any role at all is because the College does not meet all together due to the hardship then of forcing them to travel to the national capital to perform only one task, so some means had to be devised when the Electors, all meeting in their own States, fail to select the executive themselves.

Given the ease of travel today, if we wanted to update the Electoral College yet stay true to the Founders' intention, we'd have them all meet in Washington and have them deliberate until habemus presidentum. Perhaps even send up smoke signals from the Capitol dome. We might even have them reconvene whenever there is a vacancy in the executive branch.

You are now misrepresenting what I said. I know the founders did not make or anticipate a winner-take-all system. That's not the point. The point is that the states choose who they give their support to, and how they do it. Try again. If you think you're right, don't misrepresent me and make assumptions.

You're the one who said the purpose was to give States the power to select the President, which absolutely was not the intention. The purpose was get a bunch of local illuminaries, selected by the People, who would be knowledgeable about potential Presidents and make an informed choice.

To quote Federalist No. 68 "The Mode of Electing the President":

Quote
It was desirable, that the sense of the People should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preŽstablished body, but to men chosen by the People for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

It's quite clear that at the very least, Hamilton saw the People choosing the Electors, not the States.  The whole idea that the system was devised to give States a voice is utter hogwash used solely to justify how in our current system it can be desirable for the EV and PV winners to be different.

Note that in the original 1789 election, which most closely resembled how the Founders envisioned it would work, only four of the ten States voting had every single Elector who voted casting identical ballots. (Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire).

You start by contradicting yourself from one sentence to the next, then you use one person's opinion to try to justify your position on its own. Your last paragraph only proves my point that different states might choose their electors differently, and that the electors' voting power is decided by the states.

Now please explain to me how alienating rural parts of the country, having 140 million+ vote recounts, and allowing one state's misconduct to be more likely to decide the election is a better system. I'll wait.

Why should I explain a strawman you yourself invented?  I haven't focused at all in this thread on what would be the best system but instead on the intent of the people who established the Electoral College.  In trying to determine such intent, the expressed opinions of those people is the most relevant evidence available.

The Founders never intended a system where all of the Electors from a given State would be of the same political party, but that was mainly because in 1787 they were largely horrified by the prospect of political parties since historically the rise of party politics had been one of the key factors leading to the downfall of republics.  They never even considered the popular vote as an option because they considered it impossible for anyone other than a demagogue backed by a political faction to gather a majority of it nationwide, and in the context of 1787 they were correct in my opinion.

However, to infer from those conditions that the Electoral College was intended to give greater weight to rural voters is utter hogwash.  Rather, the Founders saw a national direct election of the executive as impossible (in 1787)  and rather than have either the Congress or State legislatures indirectly elect the executive and thereby be beholden to either of those, they came up with the idea of a special purpose body to elect the executive.  The State weighting of Electors directly mirrored that of Congress and if the Virginia Plan (of a purely proportionate Congress) or the New Jersey Plan (of each State having equal weight in both Houses of Congress) had been adopted, there is little reason to expect that the Electoral College would not have done so as well.

 I didn't make any strawman. If you think my statement is false, please explain why each of those points is false. Your failure to do so shows your lack of any argument. You did make a strawman it would seem. I never said it was about rural voters, I only said that their alienation is an effect that would likely happen. The point is that certain kinds of voters would be neglected under your plan.

You just explained the whole point, a system gives the voters of each individual state significant power, rather than one area or group being able to overpower the rest of the country. Thanks for making my whole argument for me.
Logged
cris01us
Rookie
**
Posts: 152


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: May 15, 2020, 02:31:37 pm »

The EC is backed by to many GOP supporters for a sudden loss (flip of TX and FL) in a single election cycle to suddenly equate to a call for its abolition.  Whether the GOP party itself likes the system is another matter, but the voters who support the party have complete buy-in to the system (plus all the GOP special interest groups who write support articles on it).  They will strong arm the party to keep supporting it, just like they do on other issues.  Rather than call for it's abolition I think the GOP would simply shift strategy (in the aftermath of a TX/FL loss).  They would probably try to 1) take back those states if the margin was close 2) pour greater resources into other states to make up the difference (ME, NH, MN, VA, NV).  They understand, via the 2010 and 2016 victories, the landscape can change and be manipulated.  They understand this through there 2006, 2008, and 2018 losses as well. 
Logged
MR. KAYNE WEST
olawakandi
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 39,652
Jamaica


Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: June 14, 2020, 06:38:09 am »

It is now probable that FL and TX is now gonna flip in 2020, instead of 2024, thanks to COVID 19.

Once DC and/or PR are states, the constitution will be forever changed and will be like an amendment to constitution and will no doubt favor Dems just like the Senate has helped R with small states having too much influence than big states
Logged
Speaker of the Lincoln Council S019
S019
Atlas Politician
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,795
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -1.39

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: June 16, 2020, 04:57:40 pm »

If TX/GA/AZ all flip, the GOP may start backing repealing it, especially if they win the NPV, which could happen if there was lots of discontent with a Democratic administration across the country, and the Dems could narrowly win all three states while collapsing in the Midwest, this could actually happen in 2028 or 2032, and if it does, the GOP will definitely considering pushing to abolish the EC.
Logged
ProgressiveModerate
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,463


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: June 16, 2020, 09:09:26 pm »

As soon as they start losing election after election and it becomes too difficult to win the EC, they'll either have to change their ideology or work to abolish it.
Logged
Battista Minola 1616
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,739
Italy


Political Matrix
E: -5.03, S: -1.57

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: June 29, 2020, 10:36:46 am »

"The Electoral College will fade as an issue after two consecutive elections without a PV/EC split" seems like a safer prediction than the one described in the subject.
Logged
Everything Was Forever, Until It Was No More
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,338
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: July 21, 2020, 07:14:35 am »

That's my prediction (based on current trends) of the whole case with Electoral College. After GOP candidates would be no longer able to win in Texas and/or Florida in presidential elections, they wouldn't be able to win federally, therefore Republicans will start to talk about a possibility of abolishing or reforming EC.



Texas is still red. Florida is trending red. By the time Texas flips, the entire Midwest except Illinois will be reliably red. The Northeast will be more competetive then.

The electoral college is absolutely necessary for this constitutional republic; it gives power to the individual states and guarantees that the president has a wide coalition. With a national popular vote, cheating and voter fraud would be drastically empowered. Some blue states are allowing non-citizens to vote and they have many dead people on voter rolls. The electoral college confines the effect of those unfair policies to only those areas and not the whole country. A national popular vote would also mean 140 million vote recounts, which would mean more fraud, more work for election workers, and more division and controversy.

The Democrats want the national popular vote because they are the ones who are struggling to build a winning coalition. The Democrats' plan of the national popular vote goes hand-in-hand with their plan to give more rights to illegal aliens (including voting). They just want more power and bigger government, they don't care about Americans.
some red states are literally kicking people off voter rolls very conveniently in time for the election but you don't seem to be complaining about that!

They're only taking dead people off the voter rolls. Stop being dishonest. You're also in a way agreeing with my point that misconduct could affect an election, you're just looking in the wrong places for it.

You're an idiot.

That's a great argument; totally changed my mind.

The fact that you're either unaware of or are blatantly ignoring systemic voter suppression via taking people off the voter roles (looking at you, Brian Kemp) does in fact make you an idiot.

Taking dead people off the rolls is not voter suppression. Try again.
If that was true, it wouldn't be a problem.
Logged
Jamison5
Rookie
**
Posts: 65


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: July 26, 2020, 12:16:40 pm »

That's my prediction (based on current trends) of the whole case with Electoral College. After GOP candidates would be no longer able to win in Texas and/or Florida in presidential elections, they wouldn't be able to win federally, therefore Republicans will start to talk about a possibility of abolishing or reforming EC.



Texas is still red. Florida is trending red. By the time Texas flips, the entire Midwest except Illinois will be reliably red. The Northeast will be more competetive then.

The electoral college is absolutely necessary for this constitutional republic; it gives power to the individual states and guarantees that the president has a wide coalition. With a national popular vote, cheating and voter fraud would be drastically empowered. Some blue states are allowing non-citizens to vote and they have many dead people on voter rolls. The electoral college confines the effect of those unfair policies to only those areas and not the whole country. A national popular vote would also mean 140 million vote recounts, which would mean more fraud, more work for election workers, and more division and controversy.

The Democrats want the national popular vote because they are the ones who are struggling to build a winning coalition. The Democrats' plan of the national popular vote goes hand-in-hand with their plan to give more rights to illegal aliens (including voting). They just want more power and bigger government, they don't care about Americans.
some red states are literally kicking people off voter rolls very conveniently in time for the election but you don't seem to be complaining about that!

They're only taking dead people off the voter rolls. Stop being dishonest. You're also in a way agreeing with my point that misconduct could affect an election, you're just looking in the wrong places for it.

You're an idiot.

That's a great argument; totally changed my mind.

The fact that you're either unaware of or are blatantly ignoring systemic voter suppression via taking people off the voter roles (looking at you, Brian Kemp) does in fact make you an idiot.

Taking dead people off the rolls is not voter suppression. Try again.
If that was true, it wouldn't be a problem.

There you go. It's not a problem.
Logged
Orwell
JacksonHitchcock
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,870
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: July 26, 2020, 01:20:33 pm »

That's my prediction (based on current trends) of the whole case with Electoral College. After GOP candidates would be no longer able to win in Texas and/or Florida in presidential elections, they wouldn't be able to win federally, therefore Republicans will start to talk about a possibility of abolishing or reforming EC.



Texas is still red. Florida is trending red. By the time Texas flips, the entire Midwest except Illinois will be reliably red. The Northeast will be more competetive then.

The electoral college is absolutely necessary for this constitutional republic; it gives power to the individual states and guarantees that the president has a wide coalition. With a national popular vote, cheating and voter fraud would be drastically empowered. Some blue states are allowing non-citizens to vote and they have many dead people on voter rolls. The electoral college confines the effect of those unfair policies to only those areas and not the whole country. A national popular vote would also mean 140 million vote recounts, which would mean more fraud, more work for election workers, and more division and controversy.

The Democrats want the national popular vote because they are the ones who are struggling to build a winning coalition. The Democrats' plan of the national popular vote goes hand-in-hand with their plan to give more rights to illegal aliens (including voting). They just want more power and bigger government, they don't care about Americans.
some red states are literally kicking people off voter rolls very conveniently in time for the election but you don't seem to be complaining about that!

They're only taking dead people off the voter rolls. Stop being dishonest. You're also in a way agreeing with my point that misconduct could affect an election, you're just looking in the wrong places for it.

You're an idiot.

That's a great argument; totally changed my mind.

The fact that you're either unaware of or are blatantly ignoring systemic voter suppression via taking people off the voter roles (looking at you, Brian Kemp) does in fact make you an idiot.

Taking dead people off the rolls is not voter suppression. Try again.
If that was true, it wouldn't be a problem.

There you go. It's not a problem.

Those 300,000 people in Georgia weren't dead...
Logged
Tamika Jackson
beeman
Rookie
**
Posts: 89
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: July 26, 2020, 01:54:40 pm »

I think if GOP loses TX and FL, there will be some huge upheaval and backlash against the right-wing of the party, particularly alt-right, Freedom Caucus, and the Tea Party. That will come before any serious consideration of abolishing the Electoral College.
Logged
Jamison5
Rookie
**
Posts: 65


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: August 05, 2020, 07:41:59 am »

That's my prediction (based on current trends) of the whole case with Electoral College. After GOP candidates would be no longer able to win in Texas and/or Florida in presidential elections, they wouldn't be able to win federally, therefore Republicans will start to talk about a possibility of abolishing or reforming EC.



Texas is still red. Florida is trending red. By the time Texas flips, the entire Midwest except Illinois will be reliably red. The Northeast will be more competetive then.

The electoral college is absolutely necessary for this constitutional republic; it gives power to the individual states and guarantees that the president has a wide coalition. With a national popular vote, cheating and voter fraud would be drastically empowered. Some blue states are allowing non-citizens to vote and they have many dead people on voter rolls. The electoral college confines the effect of those unfair policies to only those areas and not the whole country. A national popular vote would also mean 140 million vote recounts, which would mean more fraud, more work for election workers, and more division and controversy.

The Democrats want the national popular vote because they are the ones who are struggling to build a winning coalition. The Democrats' plan of the national popular vote goes hand-in-hand with their plan to give more rights to illegal aliens (including voting). They just want more power and bigger government, they don't care about Americans.
some red states are literally kicking people off voter rolls very conveniently in time for the election but you don't seem to be complaining about that!

They're only taking dead people off the voter rolls. Stop being dishonest. You're also in a way agreeing with my point that misconduct could affect an election, you're just looking in the wrong places for it.

You're an idiot.

That's a great argument; totally changed my mind.

The fact that you're either unaware of or are blatantly ignoring systemic voter suppression via taking people off the voter roles (looking at you, Brian Kemp) does in fact make you an idiot.

Taking dead people off the rolls is not voter suppression. Try again.
If that was true, it wouldn't be a problem.

There you go. It's not a problem.

Those 300,000 people in Georgia weren't dead...

Considering that there are ~200,000 dead or relocated voters still on the rolls in Nevada, there were probably many more than that in the much more populated state of Georgia. There is no reason or excuse not to remove them.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.188 seconds with 14 queries.