The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy - Donald Trump Discussion

[–] McQualude (4231) 5 years ago

Just because your candidate didn't win isn't a reason to weaken protections against democracy because as we've seen democracy can be hacked and corrupted.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

How does eliminating the outdated, antiquated electoral college system weaken protections against democracy?

Do tell..

reply

[–] McQualude (4231) 5 years ago

You haven't made any case at all that the system is outdated, nor has anyone else that I've ever read, it's just sour grapes.

reply

[–] Frogarama (12942) 5 years ago

You do realize that the quote in the subject line is Donald Trump's quote, don't you?

reply

[–] McQualude (4231) 5 years ago

So you agree with me.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Hah, frog's typical attempt to take a shot at DT has backfired magically, as always :).

reply

[–] TJLamb0518 (3316) 5 years ago

How? TRUMP said the electoral college was flawed when he inaccurately thought it helped Obama won only to need the electoral college (which he said was flawed when he thought it gave him a result he didn’t want) because he lost the popular vote.

So either he’s insincere or insane ...which is it?

reply

[–] ducksoup (3933) 5 years ago

Oh please, those aren't mutually exclusive and you know it!

reply

[–] TJLamb0518 (3316) 5 years ago

True, but I want them to have to choose and admit their orange bigot is seriously flawed.

reply

[–] Superduper (111) 5 years ago

The EC was part of a compromise to get the southern slave owning states to join the Union. They were given extra representation to appease slave owners who thought they had a right to vote (2/3's of a vote) for their slaves.

Slavery is over and now everyone can vote (everyone that's not disenfranchised by draconian drug laws that are disproportionately applied to minorities).

So there's proof it's antiquated

reply

[–] McQualude (4231) 5 years ago

Proof has to be true sockarama.

reply

[–] Superduper (111) 5 years ago

"At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct national election of the president. But the savvy Virginian James Madison responded that such a system would prove unacceptable to the South: “The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.” In other words, in a direct election system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves (more than half a million in all) of course could not vote. But the Electoral College—a prototype of which Madison proposed in this same speech—instead let each southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall count"

https://www.google.ca/amp/amp.timeinc.net/time/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery

Stop hiding from the truth ostrich-o-rama

reply

[–] McQualude (4231) 5 years ago

The problem with only searching for evidence to support a lie is that you lie to yourself. Who are you trying to convince? Not me. If you've read my previous posts you already know that I know the history and purpose so you're wasting time taking this approach. If you haven't, you would do well to pay attention and read my previous posts.

reply

[–] Superduper (111) 5 years ago

Ya what was I thinking presenting facts to a Trumper. That's like giving broccoli to a fat Kid, they want nothing to do with it.

reply

[–] McQualude (4231) 5 years ago

Confirms what I already knew, you're lazy.

reply

[–] Superduper (111) 5 years ago

I read your posts and they don't negate the facts I presented. If I'm lazy you're just plain dumb

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Because if hilary won in similar circumstances you would not be supporting such an attack on democracy, would you.

You literally are the problem with this planet.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Both republicans and democrats wanted to bring an end to the electoral college since early 2001, after the 2000 election in which we didn't have a 'clear winner' for weeks. That's when the Supreme Court overstepped and appointed our president - no electoral college was needed.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Your* president.

reply

[–] snepts (11123) 5 years ago

Wait ... protections against democracy? What are we talking about here?

reply

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7401) 5 years ago

I would like to point out that both Barack Obama and Bill Clinton won because of the electoral college. So if we had gotten rid of it back in 1994, neither Bill Clinton or Barack Obama would have won a second term. Also said electoral college could effect the next presidential election and make a democrat win it.

reply

[–] Frogarama (12942) 5 years ago

So which side of this issue is Donald on? He has taken both sides depending in his perspective.... even though he was incorrect in 2012 so who knows what he was ranting about.

Also, electoral college is not a protection, it weakens democracy. It's also still derived from votes, so it would suffer from hacking and corruption just the same (in fact, the extra layer of electors ALLOWS for one more level where corruption can EASILY occur by simply bribing the few electors!!!!!!).

reply

[–] McQualude (4231) 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Frogarama (12942) 5 years ago

I've studied the electoral system for years and I've made strong cases against it. I've thought about it for a long time, HAVE YOU? You haven't said a single thing making a case for it! I pointed out one way in which it weakens democracy, in BOLD, and you just now IGNORED it completely as if I said nothing!

One response, first:
"Just because your candidate didn't win"

I didn't vote for Hillary. I didn't vote against Trump. I have no candidate. I am a Capital-A Anarchist and I refuse to support government unless I'm forced to.

Onward:

Basically the argument is that "cities" (aka MAJORITIES, as a city is NOT a single person) would "decide" elections (majorities deciding elections----how horrible!) because apparently everyone in a city votes identically (incorrect) and everyone in rural areas vote identically (also incorrect).

Thus, instead of cities (majorities) deciding elections, we allow rural voters (non-majorities) to decide elections.

(In reality, all of this is stupid, because the always-left and the always-right balance out pretty well, and the TINY MINORITY of swing voters decide these elections... You just gotta find where they are and pander to them!!!)

Republicans love the elector system, they just pander to the rural base and argue in favor of the electoral college all they can. Rural votes can be up to 3 or 4 times the value of an urban vote, WHICH MEANS VOTERS ARE PUNISHED FOR LIVING IN DENSELY POPULATED AREAS. It makes no sense.

Citizens United decreed that government cannot have restrictions on the value of speech. The precedent also said money is speech. A vote is speech too, and thus, the government CANNOT restrict the value of that speech... But it does!

The Electoral College has many problems, all of which favor Republicans. One major problem is that it was anti-slave or anti-former-slave, however you want to say it, in that the "land bias" favored landowners strongly.

It was also designed for a young country.

reply

[–] McQualude (4231) 5 years ago

There are millions of people out there that slept through civics and then get angry when their candidate wins the popular vote but loses the election and suddenly the system they didnt give two cents about in school is outdated.

reply

[–] Frogarama (12942) 5 years ago

Thats not a defense of the electoral college system. Slow down and think.

reply

[–] McQualude (4231) 5 years ago

I don't need to defend it. The system is a check and balance against democracy and gives states influence over elections, just as it was designed. States are still a thing and EC isn't going to change anytime soon.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

I'll repeat what I posted here about a week ago. The EC was included in our Constitution as a pro slavery protection.

James Wilson was a delegate to the 1787 Philadelphia Convention, and served on the Committee of Detail, which produced the first draft of the United States Constitution. Along with Roger Sherman, he proposed the Three-Fifths Compromise, which counted slaves as three-fifths of a person for the purposes of representation in the United States House of Representatives. He also proposed the Electoral College. After the convention, he campaigned for the ratification of the document, and his "speech in the statehouse yard" was reprinted in newspapers throughout the country. He also played a major role in drafting the 1790 Pennsylvania Constitution.

The Southern states had fewer people except the slaves who couldn't vote. Accordingly, the Electoral College was based on population representation, and the "three fifths" of a person fitted to an owner's slaves added significantly to their voting heft. That's the reason we still have it. Tradition! But for the same reason it's antiquated and needs to be gotten rid of.

reply

[–] McQualude (4231) 5 years ago

That isn't support of slavery and the EC isn't going anywhere. We are the United States of America, the states wanted a say in the election of leaders. Can you blame them. Well states are still a thing.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

Ok, but my point is that the EC gave disproportionate representation to southern states as a compromise to get them to join the union.

The issue is further exacerbated by the winner-takes-all followed by 48 states. The winner of the state gets all the electoral college votes from that state instead of proportional EC electors. Only Nebraska and Maine divide the EC votes up by proportional representation. How is that in any way fair?

Whether it's not going anywhere or not is besides my point. It's probably here for now, but all it takes is Republicans losing a few elections by the EC while winning the popular vote to force a reassessment. This almost happened in 2004 if Kerry had won Ohio, which he almost did.

reply

[–] McQualude (4231) 5 years ago

People don't elect the president, states do. How they do it is up to them.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

Ok. But that still doesn't address inherent unfairness of the disproportionate number of EC votes given as a compromise to the former confederate states.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

My bad on the reference to joining the union when they were already part of the union. Is there anything else you'd like to critique about my understanding of the three-fifths compromise?

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

Huh? I did not.

What do you think I said?

Please don't insult my intelligence about editing my post. If I said something factually wrong I'm more than willing to own up and learn from it. This is why I acknowledged my mistake and welcomed you to further critique my understanding. Editing a post after someone responds to it is not something I would ever even think to do. WTF?

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

So WTF is your problem anyway? I have to assume you must be harboring some grudge to speak so rudely and falsely accuse me of editing my post.

Just because of that dumb exchange on the Beto forum last week? I didn't insult you, just pointed out that no one was going to hold him to what he did 25 years ago in light of who was in the White House.

It just seems like a remarkably petty argument to hold a grudge over. I thought you were better than that.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

Thank you, I appreciate it. I'm glad to hear it wasn't about something as trivial as that brief exchange over Beto.

reply

[–] McQualude (4231) 5 years ago

You're making a claim that doesn't mean anything. The 3/5ths compromise meant the south had to pay more taxes but they also got more votes, but less votes than if blacks had been counted as full citizens. It was a compromise that no one liked but everyone could live with. Alternatives were voted on and failed. It is what it is.

All this anti-EC stuff is Democrats being butt hurt over Bush and Trump. Republicans aren't winning because of the electoral college, they are winning because they spent decades brainwashing baby boomers and gerrymandering local and state elections; also the Democrats are losing touch and have embraced groups that are spitting vile things against white people and especially white men. All this white bashing and man bashing is not going to help Democrats win elections. Trump was an awful candidate, he did everything possible to sabotage his own election but there was one candidate worse than him. (And by worse I mean the general public does not like Hillary Clinton because Republican propagandists spent decades smearing her name.) Democrats sat on their hands while (I hate to say it) fascist remnants took over the Republican party, kicked out the moderates and liberals, and worked their ass off to win create division, mistrust, and a loyal base that is equal parts terrified and hateful of "liberals" who they are certain are out to destroy America. If democrats want to win elections, better wake up and get in touch with Joe Sixpack instead of trying to make him irrelevant.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

I don't disagree with most of what you said, I just strongly disagree that pointing out the shortcomings of the EC "doesn't mean anything". I think it does matter that we have an antiquated system that is essentially anti-democratic in that all votes aren't counted equally. I'm resigned to the idea that it will be very difficult to change and until it does we have to work with the system that we have. It shouldn't be used as the culprit for the 2016 loss. Hillary knew the rules and didn't campaign accordingly. But I think it matters because I think we should strive to want a more democratic system of electing our president.

reply

[–] McQualude (4231) 5 years ago

We all felt cheated when we found out about the EC because America isn't a true democracy and doesn't work how we assumed. But I've realized those fears about democracy had a foundation. The general public does not have the time or inclination to keep up on every issue or follow the decisions and voting record of candidates so they rely on others to distill it down and basically tell them what to do. In theory that would in part be the free press but media is compromised by corporate ownership which is compromised by foreign influence and marketing has become very advanced. They can tell the truth and still mislead people by what they leave out. There is so much other political noise that Joe Sixpack can't tell what is what and becomes numb. Propaganda has become culture so people's very identity is wrapped up in their political affiliation. Every form of social media reinforces the bubble by feeding people what it thinks they want. Plenty of dictators have been democratically elected. If anything, we need the EC more today than at any time.

reply

[–] snepts (11123) 5 years ago

" ... a c&b AGAINST democracy"? Unless I'm missing something, people need to watch what they are saying here.

reply

[–] McQualude (4231) 5 years ago

You're missing something.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

"I refuse to support government unless I'm forced to"

Your tax dollars already do, if you don't vote, you don't count (old slogan.....)

reply

[–] Frogarama (12942) 5 years ago

Tax dollars are the force I mentioned. Dont care to count, politically. It means nothing to me. I do enjoy debating it though, just like theology... I dont subscribe to that either.

reply

[–] snepts (11123) 5 years ago

You really should vote if you want to participate here or anywhere, imo. Vote Socialist, vote Independent, vote Green. They need support to gain traction and break out of this horrible two party Super Bowl of US losers. You seem like a smart person. Talk all you want, but if you don't vote, all you are doing is talking.

reply

[–] McQualude (4231) 5 years ago

"Also, electoral college is not a protection, it weakens democracy."

Did you actually read my post? Seems we are both guilty of not reading carefully.

reply

[–] Frogarama (12942) 5 years ago

I replied to your original post above.

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 5 years ago

It doesn't sound like frogerama was complaining about the college but rather quoting trumps own words in the title.

reply

[–] McQualude (4231) 5 years ago

Yep, I goofed, but that would have been boring, Trump lies and flip flops everyday. At least we got some interesting discussion for a change.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

And who cares? Just because he had an opinion in the past doesn't negate the fact that the EC is a thing.

He won, get over it. I mean seriously get over it - it was ages ago.

reply

[–] Frogarama (12942) 5 years ago

I don't think you comprehend the point of the topic.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

LOL classic 'no comeback' response #14

So you think you have a homerun 'gotcha' like usual ... except nobody really cares since the point is irrelevant.

Just like you lot, Trump never rated it when his preferred candidate lost ... Just like McQualude stated above.

reply

[–] Frogarama (12942) 5 years ago

Just like you lot, Trump never rated it when his preferred candidate lost ...

And McQualude took it back because he goofed.

Beside that, did you even read this topic? Judging by your statement here, you didn't read the opening post in any way whatsoever.

Your statement is the exact opposite of the reality I posted here.

Seriously!

reply

[–] LordBAElish (2015) 5 years ago

https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/electoral-college-genius?fbclid=IwAR2uQb3ZfiYcSmQextu_wNtS81BDssjSOwTrlnkdmh7ge3n0XlUqokHoXT4

reply

[–] Duck6 (425) 5 years ago

So what you're saying is he's a politician, and you only just figured this out?

reply

[–] ultravioletx (10216) 5 years ago

https://moviechat.org/nm0874339/Donald-Trump/5c943078be89fc07f659a2b3/Some-inconvenient-Facts

All that ball-washing you did for him and he's just a "politician" now?

lol.

reply

[–] Duck6 (425) 5 years ago

What "ball washing"? Hardly anything in that thread is even about Trump. I think i mentioned him once maybe?

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

It gave us Bush II and Trump. Clearly its evil.

reply

[–] lolkatz (475) 5 years ago

A note on electoral colleges: if you abolish them, you won't have a federated country. I think the States of the Union are sovereign because, among other things, they have a disproportionately high voting rights during the presidential ballots, lest most of them be outvoted just because of their smaller population count. Yes, they'd still be represented in the Senate, but if they are sidelined in the election of the most important office, holding crucial executive powers, they would be rendered to mere prefectures in a country that would not be a federation anymore, but merely a somewhat devolved unitary state.

reply

[–] McQualude (4231) 5 years ago

Everyone that comes to the table must get something to eat.

reply

[–] Frogarama (12942) 5 years ago

A 1:1 NATIONAL election vote-value ratio is 100% fair because it stays the same no matter where someone lives.

1) Why would the state lines matter in a national election?

2) Why should my vote value increase or decrease based on where I live? Why is my vote worth less here in Los Angeles compared to if I decide tomorrow I want to live in Wyoming. Why would the value of my vote explode by nearly 400% on that day I move from LA to Wyoming?

reply

[–] Bubbathegut (17220) 5 years ago

If Hillary had won, I could guarantee that no one would care about the Electoral College.

reply

[–] NormaAndNorman (3900) 5 years ago

That's exactly right, bubba!

reply

[–] Frogarama (12942) 5 years ago

I can tell you that I for one wouldn't prefer a Hillary presidency. If I was to champion anyone, it would have been Bernie Sanders.

reply

[–] Bubbathegut (17220) 5 years ago

Me too, wow, did I just agree with you! holy frijoles!

reply

[–] McQualude (4231) 5 years ago

You don't elect the president, states elect the president. It was explained in civics, it has been explained here, there are many good web articles available. The reasoning and value of it have been explained. You are conveniently ignoring them so as not to dissipate your mock rage that the govt doesn't work the way 9th grade you thought it worked. (That is not meant as an insult, we all have been there. I felt cheated.) Buy don't be like those people who endlessly pretend they don't understand property tax and claim it is illegal; or people who saw a facebook video and for the first time in their lives read the ingredients on a cereal box and are full of rage because it has "chemicals."

reply

[–] Frogarama (12942) 5 years ago

Hmm... not sure why you felt a narration of the status quo was needed, obviously that's what I am debating against. I also notice you didnt try the question at the end. Noteworthy absence!

Valuation is subjective and thus I disagree with the positive valuations of the electoral system.

Also not sure why the go-to defense argument for EC is always one part "The status quo is immovable and immutable. Nothing ever changes." That counter is meaningless.

The second part is "We cant let cities (aka majorities) pick Presidents (no further explanation)."

It works because every urban voter votes identically, as does every rural voter. All three of those are untrue obviously. So to combat this non issue of majority rule in a vote, we will let the rural voters pick Presidents! Inversion of (an illusory) problem equals a solution, right?

What makes it futile is that the minority of swing voters pick Presidents, so its all BS anyway.

Also, states dont elect. The electors can be anyone. They either cast according to the vote, or they can choose to defy the will and cast against the vote.

Literal vote fraud BUILT IN to the concept. Just find an elector and bribe them.

reply

[–] McQualude (4231) 5 years ago

When I hear about a policy, law, whatever, that doesn't readily make sense I force myself to consider reasons why educated people might have believed it was a good idea. I may still disagree with but I have a better understanding. BTW I did answer your question.

reply

[–] Frogarama (12942) 5 years ago

"BTW I did answer your question."

No you did not. You just labeled my debate as "mock rage" and avoided saying anything.

If you believe you answered the question at the end, then please quote your answer.

I will wait.

reply

[–] slimone (7996) 5 years ago

Get rid of the electoral college! It made a mess of the last election!

reply

[–] Qberto (1139) 5 years ago

Get rid of the electoral college! It made a mess of the last election!

It functioned as designed and as it has before slimer.

Wah!

reply

[–] TexasJack (12515) 5 years ago

The Electoral College represents the very same political compromise found in Article I of the Constitution. It's nothing more or less than a means of balancing the interests of proportional representation with the principles of federalism and the co-sovereignty of the states. Without it, there would not have been a "United States of America" in the first place.

reply

[–] ctwdidswej (212) 5 years ago

9 justices on the Supreme Court have been a disaster. 12 is the answer.

reply

[–] Qberto (1139) 5 years ago

Wrong!

https://blogs.findlaw.com/supreme_court/2018/08/does-the-supreme-court-need-more-justices.html

Recently, the topic of increasing the number of justices on the High Court has come up again -- as it tends to every few years. And, naturally, there's no shortage of bad ideas.

The concept of court-packing involves Congress changing the rules to allow the president to appoint more justices. Currently, the president is capped at nine, but Congress could change that, and ideas abound. But perhaps the most troubling problem with a court-packing scheme like this would be the potential, and likelihood, of a snowball effect (on top of a slippery slope).

For instance, if the Republicans, who are in control now, were to do so, when the Democrats regained power, it's very likely that the same tactic would be employed to gain a liberal majority on the High Court. This process would continue to repeat until the High Court was unwieldy in size and a public joke.

High Court Politics

There's no doubt that the nomination of SCOTUS justices is political and heavily influenced by partisanship. But what's clear is that court-packing is not a solution to the partisanship, and could in fact make it worse.

Some pundits suggest that by increasing the size of the Court, and also restructuring the way the Court hears cases (i.e. justices could serve on smaller panels, akin to circuit courts), not only could more cases be heard, but it would lead to more partisan variance. However, this logic could just as easily backfire, leading to long administrative delays for a case to reach a final decision (particularly if panel decisions could be petitioned to be reheard en banc).

There are only nine justices for a good reason.

reply