How Important Is The ELECTORAL COLLEGE To Decentralization Of Power?

[DamianTV]

Hannity: Democrats attempt to control the lives of Americans
https://www.brighteon.com/6016330862001

Video starts off talking about the Electoral College, with bias, so be forewarned.

For once I actually at least partly agree with Hannity. But lets hear YOUR opinions on the Electoral College!

[Anti Federalist]

Very critical, of course.

Why do you think the Bolsheviks and Jacobins are out to eliminate it?

[Philhelm]

Very critical, of course.

Why do you think the Bolsheviks and Jacobins are out to eliminate it?

That should be reason enough to defend it.

[oyarde]

The people that grow the food , build the cars and do the real work of this country live outside the giant , corrupt , cesspool cities of communists that want to eliminate it . What does that tell you ?

[oyarde]

My advice is buy more ammo and make ready to defend what is yours .

[shakey1]

Winner take all vs proportional representation... what say ye?

[acptulsa]

If it weren't for the electoral college protecting "flyover states" from mob rule, we might not have had one Republican president in the last fifty years.

[timosman]

Very critical, of course.

Why do you think the Bolsheviks and Jacobins are out to eliminate it?

It slows down the process of converting the country into a communist utopia. :tears:

[specsaregood]

Do you want the people in the blue areas of this map to decide the highest office on the planet?
https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-na-pol-us-election-results-by-county/static/margin.png

I don't. You effectively eliminate everybody else from having any say in the matter.

[Brian4Liberty]

The people that grow the food , build the cars and do the real work of this country live outside the giant , corrupt , cesspool cities of communists that want to eliminate it . What does that tell you ?

Exactly. If it were a popular vote, what percentage of the area of the US would make the decisions for all? NYC, LA and SF. I'd imagine it would less than 1%.

[Brian4Liberty]

Winner take all vs proportional representation... what say ye?

Proportional.

[juleswin]

A lot of people here see majority rule as bad, I on the other hand see the rule by the minority even worse than that. I think this is the reason why we should put more emphasis on state right not reason why we should give the mnority of the people a better chance to picking the leader.

[Stratovarious]

A lot of people here see majority rule as bad, I on the other hand see the rule by the minority even worse than that. I think this is the reason why we should put more emphasis on state right not reason why we should give the mnority of the people a better chance to picking the leader.

Majority Rule is 'Mob Rule' , however , we need it in many 'general' areas, where the
biggest problem lies though imv, is where it negates our individual rights, the 'bill of rights' .
That's where mob rule sucks.
More glaringly horrible though is the fact that our elected officials don't give a sht about the
Constitution, most of them aren't legally fit for office.

[kona]

A lot of people here see majority rule as bad, I on the other hand see the rule by the minority even worse than that. I think this is the reason why we should put more emphasis on state right not reason why we should give the mnority of the people a better chance to picking the leader.
There absolutely exists a tyranny of the minority. It's called the minority rule.

“The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small Minority” by Nassim Nicholas Taleb https://link.medium.com/Z2EZRAlbfV

I highly recommend people read all of Taleb's works.

[juleswin]

Majority Rule is 'Mob Rule' , however , we need it in many 'general' areas, where the
biggest problem lies though imv, is where it negates our individual rights, the 'bill of rights' .
That's where mob rule sucks.
More glaringly horrible though is the fact that our elected officials don't give a sht about the
Constitution, most of them aren't legally fit for office.

For one, I do not believe majority rule is necessarily mob rule and hasn't been in a very long time in this country. A mob is defined as a large crowd of people, especially one that is disorderly and intent on causing trouble or violence.

The other problems u talked about has nothing to do with our form of govt and I dunno why you bring it up in this discussion.

[Anti Globalist]

Without the electoral college it would be impossible for a Republican to win the general election because not only are California and New York the most populated states, but as of this point in time, they are deep blue states and won't go back to being red for quite a few decades. Not to mention the possibility of Texas becoming blue in a decade or so.

[juleswin]

There absolutely exists a tyranny of the minority. It's called the minority rule.

“The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small Minority” by Nassim Nicholas Taleb https://link.medium.com/Z2EZRAlbfV

I highly recommend people read all of Taleb's works.

I think tyranny is the keyword here, I would nt want to be under the tyranny of the majority or minority. But there is this idea that the minority is the sheep and the majority is the wolf coming to eat us all. I will finish up reading the article and I agree with the portion I have already read.

[Stratovarious]

For one, I do not believe majority rule is necessarily mob rule and hasn't been in a very long time in this country. A mob is defined as a large crowd of people, especially one that is disorderly and intent on causing trouble or violence.

The other problems u talked about has nothing to do with our form of govt and I dunno why you bring it up in this discussion.

'Metaphor' , not that you would know what that is.

"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner" Aaron Russo


We are a 'Constitutional Republic' , supposedly, that was the idea.



...and yes , it is more disturbing that those in charge of maintaining our republic are
in fact 'wolves' .

I don't expect you to understand that either , nor that it is quite relevant to our
discussion, (my discussion) , I have no idea what lurks in the empty cavern
between your ears.

[juleswin]

Candidate Party Popular Votes
Donald J. Trump Republican 62,980,160
Hillary R. Clinton Democratic 65,845,063
Gary Johnson Libertarian 4,488,931
Jill Stein Green 1,457,050

This is the total vote count for 2016, sorry but the republicans can win elections if they actually offered the people what they really wanted. Getting 3 million more votes out of a possible 135 m voters is not that hard.

[juleswin]

'Metaphor' , not that you would know what that is.

"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner" Aaron Russo


We are a 'Constitutional Republic' , supposedly, that was the idea.



...and yes , it is more disturbing that those in charge of maintaining our republic are
in fact 'wolves' .

I don't expect you to understand that either , nor that it is quite relevant to our
discussion, (my discussion) , I have no idea what lurks in the empty cavern
between your ears.

I do know what a metaphor is and I know people don't actually mean literal wolves when they talk about 2 wolves and a sheep voting for what to eat for dinner. But the use of the wolf to represent the majority implies that they are necessarily dangerous, selfish and inconsiderate to the sheep. To me, the only difference between the sheep and the wolf is numbers, the sheep would do exactly the same to the wolf if you give him the post of leader.

Is it me or do u start throwing out the insult when u start losing the debate? I think you are wrong but I don't think you are an empty vessel.

[nikcers]

This has nothing to do with 2016. They have wanted to do this for a while now I suspect it gives them more ability to rig the election even though Trump could of won the popular vote if he wasn't trying to win the electoral college.

[Stratovarious]

I do know what a metaphor is and I know people don't actually mean literal wolves when they talk about 2 wolves and a sheep voting for what to eat for dinner. But the use of the wolf to represent the majority implies that they are necessarily dangerous, selfish and inconsiderate to the sheep. To me, the only difference between the sheep and the wolf is numbers, the sheep would do exactly the same to the wolf if you give him the post of leader.

Is it me or do u start throwing out the insult when u start losing the debate? I think you are wrong but I don't think you are an empty vessel.

OMG , don[t make me multi quote this, you lost in your first reply.


:frog:

[Superfluous Man]

The other problems u talked about has nothing to do with our form of govt and I dunno why you bring it up in this discussion.

You mean you could actually understand what he said?

[juleswin]

You mean you could actually understand what he said?

Oh yea, I speak and understand broken English.

[Danke]

'Metaphor' , not that you would know what that is.

"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner" Aaron Russo


We are a 'Constitutional Republic' , supposedly, that was the idea.



...and yes , it is more disturbing that those in charge of maintaining our republic are
in fact 'wolves' .

I don't expect you to understand that either , nor that it is quite relevant to our
discussion, (my discussion) , I have no idea what lurks in the empty cavern
between your ears.

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”


Supposedly said by Benjamin Franklin

[Swordsmyth]

A lot of people here see majority rule as bad, I on the other hand see the rule by the minority even worse than that. I think this is the reason why we should put more emphasis on state right not reason why we should give the mnority of the people a better chance to picking the leader.
That is why our system of government is designed to empower both the minority and the majority to some extent.

The only real way to prevent tyranny is to limit government and enshrine basic rights that may not be violated by anyone and the Constitution attempts to do that as well.

[juleswin]

That is why our system of government is designed to empower both the minority and the majority to some extent.

The only real way to prevent tyranny is to limit government and enshrine basic rights that may not be violated by anyone and the Constitution attempts to do that as well.

How is the majority empowered in the electoral college system? it seems to me that in the quest to even things out, only the minority got empowered. And I do understand what they are trying to achieve but I think this can be done without handicapping the majority in an election.

Strong state and individual rights, limited gov is what you need and not some electoral college system. Btw, the constitution can be amended and all rights stripped with a super majority. So essentailly, introduce a third wolf and the game is over. Also, sheep and wolves should not be voting with each other on what to have for dinner. That partnership is a tragedy waiting to happen cos whenever one is winning, the other is losing.

[Stratovarious]

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”


Supposedly said by Benjamin Franklin

I believe it, Aaron probably just borrowed it, the Late Russo was an amazing contribution
to the 'renaissance' of the Republic , its kind of having hiccups though.


:frog:

[Swordsmyth]

How is the majority empowered in the electoral college system? it seems to me that in the quest to even things out, only the minority got empowered. And I do understand what they are trying to achieve but I think this can be done without handicapping the majority in an election.
The majority is empowered through their control of the House of Representatives, the point of the EC is to keep any one region from dominating all of the other regions so that all regions will want to stay in the union, the union never would have formed without it and it would collapse if it was eliminated.
By splitting up the powers between government branches controlled by the majority and the minority everyone's rights are better protected.


Strong state and individual rights, limited gov is what you need and not some electoral college system.
You need both in a country large enough to have a significant rural/urban divide or major differences between regions.


Btw, the constitution can be amended and all rights stripped with a super majority. So essentailly, introduce a third wolf and the game is over.
There is no perfect system and it would be intergenerational tyranny and shortsighted to not allow the Constitution to be amended.



Also, sheep and wolves should not be voting with each other on what to have for dinner. That partnership is a tragedy waiting to happen cos whenever one is winning, the other is losing.
That's life, your only alternative is to appoint a lion to decide who gets to eat what for dinner and then everyone is on the menu.

[tfurrh]

You can go to Electoral College but the degree may not be worth it....especially if you take out student loans.

[juleswin]

The majority is empowered through their control of the House of Representatives, the point of the EC is to keep any one region from dominating all of the other regions so that all regions will want to stay in the union, the union never would have formed without it and it would collapse if it was eliminated.
By splitting up the powers between government branches controlled by the majority and the minority everyone's rights are better protected.


You need both in a country large enough to have a significant rural/urban divide or major differences between regions.


There is no perfect system and it would be intergenerational tyranny and shortsighted to not allow the Constitution to be amended.



That's life, your only alternative is to appoint a lion to decide who gets to eat what for dinner and then everyone is on the menu.

I think the big mistake is thinking that you can ever have a fair resolution between a wolf and a sheep. That is the point I am trying to make, bring a lion to the table doesn't help the situation. But kicking out the sheep and replacing it with another wolf is a fix to the solution. Btw, I don't think republican minority are the sheep, they are just a different kind of wolf and can sit with 2 dem wolf to come up with a workable item for dinner.

[Swordsmyth]

I think the big mistake is thinking that you can ever have a fair resolution between a wolf and a sheep. That is the point I am trying to make, bring a lion to the table doesn't help the situation. But kicking out the sheep and replacing it with another wolf is a fix to the solution. Btw, I don't think republican minority are the sheep, they are just a different kind of wolf and can sit with 2 dem wolf to come up with a workable item for dinner.
Any weaker party becomes the sheep, you can't get rid of the sheep.
Our system is as close as you can come to protecting everyone. (other than a few improvements that could be added to it)

[juleswin]

Trivia time. Without using google search, do u know which American leader said this


The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.

[Superfluous Man]

Trivia time. Without using google search, do u know which American leader said this

I don't know. But they're right, and being a disaster for democracy is a good thing.

[dude58677]

There was no popular vote at all when the Electoral College first started. The State Legislatures voted for the electors. If State legislatures did this then Republicans and libertarians would be the major parties.

[juleswin]

I don't know. But they're right, and being a disaster for democracy is a good thing.

Enough with this nonsense idea that we do not have a democratic system. I agree that is not a simple majority democratic system but non the less, it is a kind of democracy with the ability for super majorities to change every aspect of the system.

One more clue on the author, the person responsible for this quote doesn't have a good command of the english language and he was trying to say that the electoral college is a disaster for our democracy i.e our kind of democracy. No more clues, keep guessing guys.

Thanks for playing.

[acptulsa]

There was no popular vote at all when the Electoral College first started. The State Legislatures voted for the electors. If State legislatures did this then Republicans and libertarians would be the major parties.

Members of the House have always been elected by popular vote. Also, some states have always elected electors to the electoral college by popular vote.


Enough with this nonsense idea that we do not have a democratic system. I agree that is not a simple majority democratic system but non the less, it is a kind of democracy with the ability for super majorities to change every aspect of the system.

One more clue on the author, the person responsible for this quote doesn't have a good command of the english language and he was trying to say that the electoral college is a disaster for our democracy i.e our kind of democracy. No more clues, keep guessing guys.

Thanks for playing.

You haven't learned yet not to be arrogant? A representative democracy, also known as a republic, is not a democracy. There are states (most of them) which make purely democratic decisions from time to time. In California they are called Propositions, in Oklahoma they're State Questions, and etc. They result in citizens directly passing laws. That is simple democracy. But there is no such mechanism at the federal level. That can wind up happening to pass a constitutional amendment, but I don't believe that has ever happened. For mere laws the populace cannot pass nor repeal federal laws.

But thanks for playing.

[dude58677]

Members of the House have always been elected by popular vote. Also, some states have always elected electors to the electoral college by popular vote.

Even during the 1792, 1796, and 1800 elections?

[acptulsa]

Even during the 1792, 1796, and 1800 elections?

Yes.

Don't know how all thirteen states chose electors. But the Constitution called for popular election to the House from the first.

[Superfluous Man]

Enough with this nonsense idea that we do not have a democratic system.

I don't know what you're talking about. I never said anything of the sort.

Of course we have a democratic system. And that's a bad thing.


One more clue on the author, the person responsible for this quote doesn't have a good command of the english language and he was trying to say that the electoral college is a disaster for our democracy i.e our kind of democracy.

I don't doubt that the speaker thought they were giving a reason they thought the electoral college was a bad thing. If so, then that's too bad for them. They were still right, and actually giving a reason for why it's a good thing.

[dude58677]

Yes.

Don't know how all thirteen states chose electors. But the Constitution called for popular election to the House from the first.

There wasn’t a popular vote for the Presidential election and that was my point. We should go back to that. Just have the State legislatures award all the votes to the Libertarian or Republican candidate.

[acptulsa]

In 1796, eight states chose electors by one manner or another of popular election, and a ninth used a popular vote to select all but two.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_1796_United_States_presidential_electors

[juleswin]

I don't know what you're talking about. I never said anything of the sort.

Of course we have a democratic system. And that's a bad thing.



I don't doubt that the speaker thought they were giving a reason they thought the electoral college was a bad thing. If so, then that's too bad for them. They were still right, and actually giving a reason for why it's a good thing.

My apologies, I think I jumped the gun on that one.

So if not a democratic system, how would you fix the system we have now?

[juleswin]

Members of the House have always been elected by popular vote. Also, some states have always elected electors to the electoral college by popular vote.



You haven't learned yet not to be arrogant? A representative democracy, also known as a republic, is not a democracy. There are states (most of them) which make purely democratic decisions from time to time. In California they are called Propositions, in Oklahoma they're State Questions, and etc. They result in citizens directly passing laws. That is simple democracy. But there is no such mechanism at the federal level. That can wind up happening to pass a constitutional amendment, but I don't believe that has ever happened. For mere laws the populace cannot pass nor repeal federal laws.

But thanks for playing.

The way I see it, a representative democracy is still a democracy. Its a slight variation of the straight up simple majority rule democracy, actually its a bit more complicated than that because the representatives are voted in with a simple majority election. This is why I insist on call it a democracy.

[dude58677]

In 1796, eight states chose electors by one manner or another of popular election, and a ninth used a popular vote to select all but two.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_1796_United_States_presidential_electors

Still I agree with the States that didn’t use a popular vote for the Presidential Election. I think the Presidential popular vote should end.

[Swordsmyth]

Trivia time. Without using google search, do u know which American leader said this

Whoever it was, they sound like a commie.
We don't have a democracy and the EC is one of the best features of our Republic.

[juleswin]

Whoever it was, they sound like a commie.
We don't have a democracy and the EC is one of the best features of our Republic.

Another clue, the American leader in question is not a commie, he supports a mixed economy system like the one we have now.

First person to get it without cheating gets to pick the colour of my avatar for a week.

[Swordsmyth]

Another clue, the American leader in question is not a commie, he supports a mixed economy system like the one we have now.

First person to get it without cheating gets to pick the colour of my avatar for a week.
He is a commie or he wouldn't want to give the Demoncrats unchecked control of our government, doing that will result in communism.

[nikcers]

266038556504494082

[acptulsa]

He is a commie or he wouldn't want to give the Demoncrats unchecked control of our government, doing that will result in communism.


266038556504494082

Mark the calendar! Swordshyll was right about something!

[Swordsmyth]

Mark the calendar! Swordshyll was right about something!
Trump said a lot of things back when he was pretending to be a commie Democrat, he doesn't support that now.

[nikcers]

Trump said a lot of things back when he was pretending to be a commie Democrat, he doesn't support that now.
Ya I think the biggest thing is he was going to run for president in whichever political party he could run for and thought he could win the popular vote easier.

[acptulsa]

Trump said a lot of things back when he was pretending to be a commie Democrat, he doesn't support that now.

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/BareNewBufeo-max-1mb.gif

[Origanalist]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=89&v=fADn9YZWXjs