Electoral College idiocy
- Thread starter Loyal Coug1
- Start date
Bingo. Because the states elect the president, it the people. It was intentionally designed this way. The founders were quite aware of direct democracies, but didn’t want one. It’s not a big, it’s a feature.
(Sorry I swapped the numbers. And I used the 2020 census data, which is what is used for apportionment. So our numbers will be different.)
Voter fraud! It’s all rigged!! 4 year olds all over the country took ballots and voted for Biden!!
It's not outdated, and it has a reason.
Without the electoral college, the 4 biggest cities in USA, like
It's not old and outdated and it's not without a important purpose.
Without the electoral college, the about 4,5 biggest cities in USA, would decide the presidency.
The rest of the country, altho technically have representation thru popular vote, in reality, the votes of the farmers, living in places like Wyoming, would have ineffective, meaningless votes, to the point, that they might as well never vote in a popular vote system.
The people who live in BIG cities have DIFFERENT VALUES, etc, then those who are farmers in places like Wyoming.
So because of that, under the popular vote system the BIG CITY VALUES, BELIEFS, ETC, WILL ALWAYS HAVE REPRESENTATION, WIN OUT OVER THE VALUES, BELIEFS OF COUNTRY PEOPLE, BECAUSE THEY HAVE MORE PEOPLE THEN COUNTRY PEOPLE BECAUSE IN A BIG CITY.
The Electoral College makes sure that each state, election area, gets a certain amount of electoral college votes based on population density. California for instance has more Electoral votes then Wyoming.
This makes it so that ALL states get fair, equal representation based on population density which determines how many representatives they get, which determines how many electoral votes they get.
This makes it so that BOTH BIG CITY PEOPLE AND FARMERS IN WYOMING, ETC, BOTH GET THEIR VALUES, BELIEFS EQUALLY REPRESENTED IN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS.
That said, the Electoral College needs fixing. A Electoral College Voter can NOT vote for who won the state popular vote. That MUST change. A Electoral Voter MUST be REQUIRED to vote for who won state popular vote. So if California popular vote goes to a Republican(Would never happen), a Electoral Voter would have to vote for the Republican who won the California popular vote, even if they wanted to vote Democrat.
The Presidential candidate who either wins the most states or the most Electoral Votes wins, thus ENSURING THAT BOTH BIG CITY BEAVIS AND BUTTHEADS AND FARMERS, AND EVERYONES VALUES, BELIEFS, GET FAIR AND EQUAL REPRESENTATION NO MATTER IF THEY LIVE IN WYOMING OR IF THEY LIVE IN NEW YORK CITY.
I believe candidates would be moderated by elimination of the EC. Example: if all votes were up for grabs, a republican candidate for president would actually benefit from campaigning IN New York, rather than completely ignoring it as they do now. Am appeal to moderates and independents would result in more support and turnout for the republican candidate. As it is now, they don't even bother.
And again, dems in Alabama and North Dakota would be engaged in the process like they simply are not currently. Turnout would go up. More of the public would tune in rather than the trend we are seeing now. That's my thesis. It's fun to dream. It ain't ever gonna happen tho. Taihtsat
With all due respect fv€k the founding fathers. We know this was a compromise over slavery and the power of the north and south voting blocks. Those days are over.
Jefferson himself felt it ridiculous for future generations to be tied into what their ancestors implemented. He thought constitutions should be abolished every generation (he was a dummy in some ways) but he was def right about not being tied toothed previous generations rules. This ain't canonical stuff we're talking about. Taihtsat
But then how could the originalists tell us what they decided the founders were thinking?
Wait…you mean to tell me they didn’t foresee the musket evolving into hand cannons with 50 round clips and bump stocks with the 2nd amendment?!
No F-ing shit. It has been 250 years. Things change, and changes need to be made to reflect them. Like gee slavery was abolished.
While that had a PART in the making the Electoral College, the biggest reason is that they didn't want the TYRANNY of the MAJORITY BULLYING THE MINORITY.
AKA, they didn't want a BIG CITY, NEW YORK VALUES, BELIEFS, PEOPLE, bullying farmers and their values, beliefs, in a smaller state, with less people, via a popular vote, democracy system.
This sentiment is portrayed in Mel Gibson's THE PATRIOT, where Mel Gibson's Colonial character said SO WE SHOULD TRADE THE TYRANNY OF KING GEORGE FOR THE TYRANNY OF OUR NEIGHBORS TELLING US WHAT TO DO IN A DEMOCRACY.(Not a exact word for word, but close enough)
That's how a lot of colonials felt, and they only agreed to join the revolutionary war, if a democratic Republic was done over a democracy to prevent, stop a tyranny of a majority from bullying, telling them what to do. They wanted their values, beliefs, etc, to have fair, equal representation, as the majority.
The Electoral College was the best they came up with, that better then a popular vote.
That doesn't mean that it doesn't have faults, as it does have faults.
And it can be improved, fixed, etc.
But it shouldn't be scrapped. And if do scrap it, then don't replace it with a popular vote or anything like unto it.
If you want to try to fix the Electoral College, go for it.
If you can replace the electoral college with something better then the electoral college AND better then popular vote that makes sure that farmers in Wyoming have fair, equal representation as the Beavis and Buttheads in BIG CITIES, and that makes sure that the 7 biggest cities don't decide the election, then go for it.
But for now the Electoral College for all its flaws is better then a popular vote system.
Just when I get these other yahoos straightened out I have to deal with you? F it I'm not even going to start picking through every incorrect thing you posted. But your whole "big City" ranting is ridiculous. Newsflash - more people live in the city, so "cities" have more sway than the rural areas. It's called Democracy. One person one vote.
Oh and thanks for us letting us know that California has more electoral votes than Wyoming. In other insightful news, smoking causes cancer.
P.S your second ramble is just as incoherent.
Last edited:
Don’t need video. You know how many 4 year olds there are in Georgia? About 12,000. Coincidence? 🤔
There is a difference between BIG CITY VALUES, BELIEFS, and small towns, country, farmer, etc, values, beliefs.
Just living in a Big City can, change people's values, beliefs to Big City values, beliefs, just like just living in a smaller state, smaller town, living in the country can change a person's values, beliefs.
What your saying under the popular vote system is that if you live in a Big City with Big City values, beliefs, that your values, beliefs are more important, more effective, get more representation, etc, then those that are farmers, live in smaller places.
THATS NOT FAIR.
FAIR IS MAKING SURE THAT EVERYONES VALUES, BELIEFS GET FAIR, EQUAL REPRESENTATION.
You probably already think it's not right, unfair that King County always getd what they want, and make decisions for Eastern WA.
Under a popular vote, that would only get worse. A Electoral College system lessens the control King County has over Eastern WA, because at least Eastern WA values, beliefs, would have fair, equal representation, etc, as King County Values, Beliefs, and at least the candidates would campaign in Eastern WA, hear Eastern WA out, instead of only campaigning in King County, and only hearing what King County has to say.
Ok but semi usually New York City types have more Beavis and Butthead types then small towns, small counties, etc, and are semi typically known for their Beavis and Butthead types.
Geezus F-ing Christ. Majority rules, like it or not. Equal representation. "Equal" meaning one vote per person.
Both interpreting or being a originalist both is wrong.
The right way is what Justice Scalia and others have advocated, and that is going by the ORIGINAL TEXT.
Words have meaning. If the constitution literally said the SKY is blue, then the only correct ruling is that the sky is colored blue.
You can't or shouldn't say "Well Sky could mean anything like maybe the constitution means that the ocean is blue, instead of sky", or "The original intent of the founders of the constitution is that Sky is going through a blue, depressive condition, state".
The proper ruling would be to rule that according to the constitution saying the sky is blue, that the sky is colored blue, because the words of the constitution says so.
That's what TEXTUALISM is, and TEXTUALISM is the only correct way to interpret the constitution and make a ruling as a Supreme Court Justice, and or any legal judge that has authority to make a ruling on constitution, law, etc.
Ok so you would be happy with a popular vote system giving King County more power, control over Eastern WA.
And you would be unhappy if a Electoral College system made it so that King County had less control over Eastern WA.
In the State of Washington we have a popular vote system. WTF are you talking about? King County does dominate the state because THERE ARE MORE OF THEM THAN US.
So you favor a TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY.
SO IF THE MAJORITY TELLS YOU TO BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN, THEN YOU SHOULD IMMEDIATELY SET FIRE TO YOUR HOUSE AND BURN IT DOWN.
AND YOUR IN FAVOR OF ANY SYSTEM LIKE A POPULAR VOTE THAT WOULD ENABLE THE TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY TO POPULAR VOTE TO TELL YOU TO BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN.
You obviously didn't get the comparison.
I know that WA doesn't have a Electoral College system and that WA has a popular vote.
If the USA had a popular vote. California, Florida, LA, New York City, would not only determine who wins the presidency, but also would have POWER, CONTROL OVER THE REST OF THE USA.
CALIFORNIA, FLORIDA, NEW YORK CITY WOULD BE LIKE KING COUNTY HAVING POWER AND CONTROL OVER EASTERN WA, AND THE REST OF THE USA WOULD BE LIKE EASTERN WA, CONTROLLED BY KING COUNTY.
A example of this kind of thing is the EMINENT DOMAIN LAWS, that allows the USA Govt to UNCONSTITUTIONALLY, ANTI BILL OF RIGHTS SEIZE, TAKE AWAY OWNERSHIP, AND OWN YOUR PROPERTY FOR THE SUPPOSED GOOD OF THE USA, IF YOU DONT SELL YOUR PROPERTY TO THE USA OR IF YOU DONT USE YOUR PROPERTY FOR THE USA GOVT.
EXAMPLE OF THIS IS TAKING YOUR PROPERTY SO THAT THE GOVERNMENT CAN BUILD A ROAD, BRIDGE, ETC.
A POPULAR VOTE IS USUALLY THE TOOL THAT THE GOVT USES TO TAKE YOUR PROPERTY TO BUILD A ROAD.
Example of this is the popular vote legislation that seized privately owned property of those that wouldn't sell to the govt, in order to supposedly finish building the North South Freeway in SPOKANE.
It would be better if there was a ELECTORAL COLLEGE TYPE VOTE THAT WOULD STOP KING COUNTY VOTERS FROM EXERTING SUCH ABUSIVE CONTROL OVER EASTERN WA.
A Electoral College type vote better protects the rights of the people from the tyranny of the majority that would seize, take people's property unconstitutionally to build a road.
That's why a Electoral College type system is better then a popular vote system.
No shit. Crazy unhinged dude. At least you can follow trains of thought of most posters, agree with them or not.
Whatever the Founders were thinking of 250 years ago doesn't matter anymore. But as I posted last night, with factual backup, smaller states get a little more pull than the big states with the Electoral College.
Last edited:
This is already addressed with state representation in the Senate. Sparsly populated North and South Dakota, with a fraction of the population of New York and California have the same number of senators.
Also, large population states like Florida and Texas lean republican. "Minority" values are already protected by OVER representation in one house of Congress. Also not to forget they can elect their own state legislatures and governor's where local government has a greater affect on their daily lives. Taihtsat
Last edited:
This could not happen under a constitution - which is the supreme law of the land. Your argument here is irrelevant. Taihtsat
The right way is what Justice Scalia and others have advocated, and that is going by the ORIGINAL TEXT.
The original text also counted black people as 3/5 of a person. Fv¢k scalia AND the founding fathers. Taihtsat
What Scalia and others wanted the original text to mean. FIFY.
it's funny that the original text of the second amendment includes the words "well regulated" and yet all of the textualists like to claim that the comma invalidates the first part of the amendment.
This was actually an anti-slavery provision. Remember, the 3/5 compromise was for purposes of apportionment. WIthout this, the slave states would have been able to include slaves in their population counts and have a greater number of representatives and hence more electoral college votes. It wasn't that they were valued as 3/5 of a person, but that they shouldn't be counted at all unless they were free.
Well regulated = well trained. The common use of "regulated" then wasn't the same as what we mean now.
Account Suspended
constitution.org
I thought textualism was meant to use the meaning at the time. I guess it’s really just a cover to not be called activist like those damn libruls.
Irrelevant to this topic as to HOW it came to be. The fact that it IS in the original text is what matters. Taihtsat
The wording of the second amendment was written to indicate that we would have a well trained militia that would help provide security for our country....not a bunch of idiots with guns shooting at Tannerite and yelling, "Hell Yeah, Brother!"
The second amendment was included because of the aversion to a large standing army. You may not have noticed, but since then, the United States has morphed into having the most developed and well funded standing army in the world that is bolstered by an enormous national guard.
The entire purpose of the second amendment really no longer exists....but hey, I love shooting guns too.
Similar threads
