The Electoral College
People are protesting President Elect Trump? Because Hillary won the popular vote by .3% Trump = 47.4%, Hillary = 47.7%, but she lost the electoral college. That means more people voted for Hillary's platform than for Trump's. The electoral college must go. It is outdated and was for a younger America, not the America of today.
Do you know who your electors that are supposed to vote for us on December 19th? I certainly don't. I live in California where we have 55 electors. I don't know a single one of them by name. How are the electors selected? If I don't know who my electors are and yet they represent me, how is that democracy? I certainly had nothing to do with selecting them, but yet they represent me.
Somebody, please tell me how this worksI'm all for it. When all those people spread out in every county in every state believe their vote will count regardless of whether their state is red or blue, hold on to your hat.
As best as I can articulate ;
New York city , LA., Chicago, Baltimore , and a small handful of highly populated and ideologically group of cities on the left or right could or would elect the president in popular voting , in every single election !
Or , is so motivated , a certain popular uprising of say younger voters alone , or a popular faction of a certain combination of voters could do so , say new immigrants , youth and liberals , every single time ! Each of these --outnumbering ---the majority of popular voting Americans by lack of electoral college divide -COULD elect a president consistently !
Read the reasoning for the electoral college from the founding fathers , KEEPING IN MIND , we were NOT designed as a "democratic " voting nation ,but a republic of states with voter choice .
Nothing needs to change in the electoral college .The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC)
"If a state passes the NPVIC, it vows to assign its electors to whichever candidate wins the national popular vote—but only once enough states have joined the NPVIC to guarantee that candidate 270 electoral votes.
Ten states and D.C. have already joined the compact, adding up to a combined 165 electoral votes—or 61.1 percent of the votes necessary for the compact to take effect. If a few more states join, their combined electoral votes will reach 270, and the compact will take legal force. The winner of the popular vote will instantly be awarded the necessary electoral votes to become president under the Constitution. States that refused to join the compact can do nothing to stop it."(1)
States where NPVIC has been enacted into law, plus DC:
California
District of Columbia
Hawaii
Illinois
Maryland
Massachusetts
New Jersey
New York
Rhode Island
Vermont
Washington(2)
(1)http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/ … dment.html
(2)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_ … te_CompactAnd you really think it's a good idea to have the fate of the nation determined by a list of Liberal States, huh?
Your example is PRECISELY why we have the ECDon W
I have not heard of this NPVic. Where did you get the informationSources right there in the links.
More information can be found at the National Conference of State Legislatures site
http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections- … -vote.aspx
The word really needs to spread on this. It look like a viable solution.
I would be glad to help promisem, but first I need to know what you know. I mean, no need to offer a pasta recipe if you don't know how to boil water.
For instance; When you checked out the basics of the workings and purpose of the electoral college, what about that purpose and design do you think has been outgrown and dated? Hopefully it's not the truth that we are a Republic of states. That isn't it is it?
That might come off as a bit snarkier then intended, but in many electoral conversations, that does seem to be a frequent sentiment from folks that want to do away with it.
As for the part about your electors, that information is available to you if it is important, but in your state they are required to vote with the popular vote. So you don't have to worry about backroom shenanigans. (unless you believe those rumors about Democrat vote swapping)
GAThat Hillary won the popular vote, I think is irrelevant because both candidates strategized to win the electoral vote. If the popular vote won elections, candidates would craft their strategy to accommodate that.
As to the electoral college being outdated, I don’t see why. The EC was created for several reasons:
1) To prevent mob rule and enhance the rule of law, (To prevent a 51% majority from denying the rights of the other 49%). The founders saw the dangers of direct democracy like what happened in the French revolution where a Despot manipulated the passions and prejudices of the people with murderous results.
2) To strengthen the states. The founders wanted to ensure that the concerns of smaller states weren’t trampled by majorities in more populated states. This had the added benefit of unity because it forced presidential candidates to win a broader constituency and not just to appeal to larger states or urban areas.
3) It provides checks and balances. The purpose of the EC was crafted much like the other elements of our government to provide checks and balances. This is why we have two houses of Congress, the lower house representing the people in direct proportion to their population and the Senate which apportions state representation regardless of population. This was created to enhance the power of individual states as a check on the power of larger states and federal power
To sum it up, the EC was designed as a check on majority rule, to enhance the power of individual states, to promote unity by making political parties appeal to large and diverse areas of the country and not just urban population centers."Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide." John Adams
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49." Thomas Jefferson
Some of the framers of the Constitution did not have much respect for democracy. That is why it is set up as a Constitutional Republic where representation is divided equally among the populace.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." Winston Churchill
It seems as though the thought about it is international and modern as well.Rhamson: Then why do we try to impose our democracy on other countries, if we know it is going to be a failure? We even try to democratize theocracies like Islam.
I don't know either as that is what I have questioned for years. The other thing is that you have cultural limitations as to what other countries will accept. I don't know any country with the maturity or educated electorate to make a pure democracy work. Look at the ignorance you hear from the "man on the street" interviews that expose how uninformed and educated our populace is about current events, civics knowledge and political issues. Most don't even know who the vice-president is. Our system was set up to cover all those areas in its current form. What the founders did not provide was a way to intervene when money overrode the good of the country for greedy gains. I should say there is a way but we don't teach it in the schools and the public is too apathetic to chase it.
The 30 or 40 years the system is broken , we all know, we the vast majority keep getting less the rich get more. Why carry on with hit on the head lessons. Do something, don't waste away your lives.
A. Lock up bankers Federal reserved bring credit debt back to zero and fire all Federal Government. A few will get killed, yet better than being burnt out servant and slaves.
B. Wait for world war and another civil war so they can take your money from your bank account for debts owning to support the wars.
C.Move to the southern Hemisphere to avoid 90% of population and war,.avoid 95% pollution.Yes the system is broken. Any system can be worked around given enough time as the greedy find ways and exploit it's weakness' as a part of doing business. How anybody thinks Trump will change this is beyond me. He was a temper tantrum of the electorate and will go the way so many others have in the past. The rules need some updating but it has to be Constitutional. You cannot just take someones wealth and property because you feel like it. Wars come and go but the public debt is separate from the private debt. That is the law. The southern hemisphere is no bowl of cherries as well. With the mini dictators and some governments in bed with drug cartels it is a no brainer. Besides running away from a problem does not make it go away. I like living in this country and I have lived abroad to make that distinction. There are still more freedoms and opportunity here. No I do not think wealth is what drives this feeling. We just need to address a few problems to fine tune this countries woes.
My dreams have never been wrong and what they are telling me is i must leave because of the accelerating destruction that is about to come. Then it is a matter of confirming it all from the writing on the wall. The numerology dose not lie to me either, not much hope I envision for North America. All the illegitimate Corporatism are against my product of eco substainable tiny houses . Where other Countries are screaming for our healthy and affordable product for the vast majority's of people.
Then you must answer your calling or business future. However you cannot require a change of conscience of the American consumer. There are graveyards of failed and bankrupt business who could not do that. Good luck to you and your endeavor.
Will you please, please, please tell us the story of chicken little again ...............Oh please .
It is the old Paul Reverse story I am telling. Yet has spread to worldwide harm and threatening all earthlings.
The chicken little story is constantly and Religious told by Zionist violences and delustion in media and entertainment. The concept is to have to Americans chicken heads cut off . In order to inject the propaganda machine to have most us killed by first people basic cost of living. About 75% of Americans live by pay cheque to pay cheque on jobs they dislike.
The Zionist foxes who guard the CORPERATION hen houses will cut off the hens food supply. Then the hens will attack each other cutting off each other heads again. Much like they have in done with the Muslim hens where Christians hens invade or bombs their heads off of them.
Imagine a billion Muslims hens in a fight with a billion Christians hens, a marriage made for hell. We are only over crowded livestock to Zionist master foxes of the hen houses.I have to say Castle , You are a very entertaining man , chicken heads ? Really . That is a good one .
On a serious note , I am wonderstruck at how many liberals I have known and talked to about how they swapped their allegiances to the Trump train , Yet all I keep hearing from a dying party is how this trump train is off the tracks , So many bright , enlightened and intelligent people cannot simply be wrong though ?ahorseback: If liberals swapped their allegiance to the Trump train, why is Hillary's current popular vote leading Trump's by over 1.5 million and counting? Trump won the electoral college vote by appealing to the dark underbelly of America. Winning the electoral college is winning at the state level, not the national level.
When Trump campaigned he presented himself as a misogynist, racists, unethical, hateful, violent loving, anti-establishment, isolationists that made it O.K. to say whatever was on his mind and their minds. He appealed to the racists underbelly that still exists in the south and those that still think Obama is from Kenya. This is fact, not my opinion. It has been recorded for all the world to see.
He appealed to those who think Hillary is and always will be a criminal and should be locked up and put before a firing squad. He appealed to those republicans in congress who wanted complete control of the government to secure their jobs. He is currently surrounding himself with his loyalist that think the way he does. And to top it all off, his Chief Strategist is the man who ran Alt Right that the KKK and neo NAZI white supremacist love. He made it O.K. for even the evangelicals to become hypocrites of their own religious beliefs, because nothing is worse than Hillary Clinton...not even the devil.
ahorseback: We were wrong about him getting elected, but not about his character and the character of those who have come out of the dark underbelly of America. His behavior and words, promises, and pledges have been recorded for all the world to see. Let's see what happens from this point on. Your gloating is premature at this point.
You are right the democratic party is dying, but that is not a good thing. It is a bad thing, because there is no balance of power. Let's see if the democratic congress treats Trump the same as the GOP congress treated Obama by blocking his every move and trying to make him an one term president. You call us the liberal elites. What should we call you and your people, the conservative hypocrites who sold out to an immoral con man?If you read the Daily Stormer, you'd be far more informed. Somebody above was correct. The election is about winning the most electoral votes, not the most votes altogether. Trump would have won the popular vote as well had he campaigned in places like California where he had no chance to win their electoral votes.
Hail Trump!
I am not a big fan of the electoral college, because everyone's vote should matter, no matter where they live. Statewide races are run by popular vote, with no preference given to less populated areas, as the electoral college does on a national level. State elections don't tend to ignore parts of a states.
People say that without the electoral college, less populated areas would be ignored by Presidential candidates. They could do that at their own peril. Besides, plenty of states and areas are totally ignored now, due to the electoral college, since it is the swing states that candidates concentrate on.
It appears now that the final votes are being counted, Hillary is ahead by more than 2 million votes, which is about a 1.5% lead in the popular vote (source: http://uselectionatlas.org/)Would not surprise me Hillary got 2 million more votes,, it seem more than 70% of the people in the country are disappointed in Trump already with protests to continue of civil unrest never seen at this scale before.
There 18 million invalid votes they could swing either way too. There enough evidence since 1968 where a black man who ran for President and got 9 million votes out of Pennsylvania to tell you it is a selection not an election out of total fraud.Donald is on a Positive path. You don't understand that path. He does. Hopefully he will get the economy percolating again with less regulation on business, keeping overtaxation at bay, letting the people do what they do best: LIVE.
You understand Trump well , yet can not explain in detail to me or to most of the country why all the race, gender, and Religious torment greater than ever, plus greater horrors to come.
You really are telling political fairy tales as you once admitted.
Politics and religion are fairytales I can relate to them in fantasy form to bring them parachuting back to earth. Most people cannot handle the truth well because most are led by fear.
Read my article on How the Electoral College Works which includes how electors are selected.
Should have included this above, sorry.
http://hubpages.com/politics/How-Does-t … oral-Votes
Even though the US almost totally dominated by franchise of Corporatism.
Then corporatism lobbyist dominated the two party system.
You would think for at least one thing the American people can have a say toward. These Americans pay more taxes than for their food and rent . Why can't they have one simple single thing to say by a vote for or about the corrupted illegitimate Government , they have to worship everyday beyond God. Most Americans have no say to even in what other countries they are destroying.Au fait: Those videos are excellent. Do you mind if I share your Hub Page on Facebook?
Please do share it with as many people who need to understand this process better. Hope it also helped with your question on the selection of electors. Unfortunately it would take several electors refusing to vote as expected to change this election. But I agree that this institution needs to go. Thanks, Mike.
If it goes, so does the tiny protection the minority, small population, states currently have. The large metropolitan areas will control all elective functions, leaving the huge minority without any voice at all.
Just a thought.I think it's more important that every voter's vote counts equally than it is to worry that every state be equal. Since population is what matters, every state is never going to be equal in every way. Citizens/voters are what this should be about and by making decisions based on the popular vote we make sure everyone's vote counts equally.
If you watch the last video in my article on the Electoral College you will see that votes in different states have different values regardless of the state's size/population.Agreed. I don't understand the "reasoning" that bigger states will have more power. Each individual has the same vote, no matter what state they are in. With the electoral college, so many individual votes are lost when the state wins enough to win the electoral votes. That makes no sense. We go by popular vote in local and state elections. We should in national elections. The electoral college had a purpose when it was started centuries ago. It has no place now.
We live in a republic of states. If every state was the same size we would not need the electoral college. If you want to get rid of the electoral college you would have to make every state the exact same size.
Which is impossible, so….I don't get your reasoning why do states have to be the same size? The states and their government are placed there by the electorate. These elections decisions should be based on population. So, a state like Wyoming cannot have the political influence of California and rightfully so. What does your Federalist Papers have to say about that?
Straw man argument invalid, Chewbacca lives on Endor
There are many ways to vote, not just simple majority.We live in a republic of states. If every state was the same size we would not need the electoral college. If you want to get rid of the electoral college you would have to make every state the exact same size.
Which is impossible, so….
I forgot to say: with the same amount of peopleThey tell me the college electoral votes is in Constitution.
Time to change because women and others races could not vote making up the majority of Americans and white Christians are still predominately stealing the President title.
Also each person in Wyoming gets 3 times the voting count than someone in California. Making it also dominated by Nick, hillbillies , rednecks and farmers, where many have no idea what going on in the world.Those who come late to the realizations of quirks in the application of the Constitution with regards to outcomes have to live with the consequences. You cannot invalidate someone by their personal inconsistencies unless it is in the Constitution. That is why the results of the election is legal and binding. Unless we take mature and orderly steps to change the Constitution to make it meet our modern needs nothing will get done to change any of this.
Term limits, publicly funded campaigns and lobby reform should be tops on our list to enact. We will need an Article 5 Constitutional Convention to change the way the politicians have perverted the law.Since 1913 America is a fully functional franchises of Corporation and the lawyers get their way with the Constitution that way favor them. And screw the Constitution the way they want.
America is a dictatorship the way USSR was from my experience in being in both places.
Democracy is a lie especially when it comes to war.
The Electoral College has benefitted Republicans recently, not only in this election but in the first G.W. election. While that may seem good to Republicans, it could one of these days do just the opposite. Electors are not required by law in most of the states to vote according to their state's popular vote and in some elections over history have not done so. Next time may not serve Republicans so well. Keep that in mind.
I recommend you watch the last video (it's very short) in the article I wrote about this issue and see if you still feel the same way.
Personally, I prefer depending on the popular vote entirely. That way everyone's vote is equal regardless of where they live or what party they identify with. I think most members of our electorate, even if they don't agree with me, are capable of voting intelligently and do not need the Electoral College to look over their shoulder and possibly negate their wishes for some reason.
The real purpose of the EC was to be a safeguard against an uneducated uninformed electorate putting someone in the Oval Office that is totally unequipped to serve. It still has the power to ignore the popular vote and though not likely, could legally vote someone in who wasn't even on the ballot.Then, you need to get rid of the Constitution. That's the reason the Electoral College in place.
A simple history lesson explains why the founders did not want the popular vote to decide the Presidential elections.
You should have learned this in high school.
There's specific reasons the popular vote is not the deciding factor in the Presidential elections.
- ahorsebackposted 8 years ago
0Kathryn, I admit I'm not the most articulate , But my arguments cannot be broken , my political insight is unblemished , my ................oh enough of that , isn't this fun ?
totally. I have been hearing that the protestors are being bussed in. ?? not surprising.
No law against protesting as long as it is peaceful and not disorderly. I encourage it. Keep Trump under surveillance long before he takes office.
If "protests " were all this was that would be normal . -But the LA riots years ago and the thug incited violence and property damage today ; SHOULD be dealt with like always -tear gas them until they go home to mommies basement apartment and look for dinner to arrive !
The protests will be lawful and normal, but intense, long, frequent and always in the press. Trump will not find an uncritical place to rest his pompadour.
Lawful ? Lawful is not pulling OLD white Trump voters out of cars in Chicago and kicking the living shyte out of them ! Burning cars , buildings and tearing down the cities , But I understand your impression and understanding of lawful ........Not !
and then their mommies should kick them out. What would they DO???!!!!
well, this lack of work is a problem today and exactly what Trump would like to help fix!!!!
My, MY!
Liberals/ Progressiives and all your (un) helpful utopian unworkable ideas/ideals,
YOU ARE FIRED!!!
do I not care about the triteness of saying that? I guess not 
!More of you need to read The Daily Stormer, then you'd be a convert like me. It prints facts, not ridiculous conjecture. I'm sure Kathryn and Ahorseback and colorfulone all read it. It truly has changed my opinion. We need to look out for ourselves and our nation first. This nation was built on certain ideals by certain people and they need to be respected and taken care of first. We're the children of the sun. Hail, Trump!
How could I fail to not take in the timely wisdom of the Daily Stormer? Look at the clever people already in the know for their timely wisdom who reads it. I am sure it will help me develop the RIGHT attitude.
Appreciate the tip,
Hail Trump!!You'll be a lot happier if you just read it and think about what it has to say. Trump is President now. We need him to succeed. The Daily Stormer provides the information we need to understand what's going on. And, of course, it's just not the Daily Stormer, it's Breitbart too. This is where respectable people are getting their information now.
Maybe " War on the horizon" are where folks are reading.No, I have not read it or heard of it. I was fortunate enough to have a Professor named Rick Williams, from Cornell University, who taught Social Science 131 and 132. I received a D the first 131 course. I studied harder, I wrote more, sometimes all night to hand in papers, and gradually understood. By the third semester of taking his classes I received a B. Then I took Philosophy at both the undergraduate and graduate level where I studied Plato's Republic and many other philosophers, old and new.
I am still gaining understanding by conferring with The Federalist Papers which are hard to read at first, but you just have to get over your ADHD. Putting them in simpler/modern phrasing is helpful.
Recommended reading: The Mass Media and Modern Democracy, edited by Harry M Clor
and Banfeild's Unheavenly City Revisited.
While this TMI blurp makes me sound super intellectual, my degree was in Art. Why am I talking so much about myself? Because I want the country to remain free. If I can understand how to keep us free, any one can!
You know, this whole EC thing is more comical than anything. Even now a petition is out in an attempt to sway the EC into a faithless vote to get Hillary Clinton into the office. The sad thing, the last substantial faithless vote was in 1783, and only because the president-elect died two weeks after the elections were held, forcing a faithless vote.
I'll wager 99.9% of naturally-born citizens of the United States have never actually read Article I or II of the Constitution, nor understand why the Electoral System was created; and why the popular vote cannot override the electoral vote. Today, it is more relevant than ever before why the founding members created and wrote the EC into the Constitution.
For those unaware, the short version:
The Electoral College was created to enable a fair process of elections, where no one party or representative from any state would have "winner take all" ability. This was to avoid rigging during elections in favor of one candidate over another, and to allow smaller states to have an equal say and share of electoral power against larger populated states that could otherwise force a "popular majority" vote based on sheer numbers alone.
The popular vote is counted and displayed to show exact votes for the candidate and to compare those votes to each states electors - like delegates in primary races- for complete transparency. The popular vote does not, nor has it ever been used to, choose a president, vice president, senator, congressmen or Supreme Court Justice. The Delegates or Electors are chosen in each state by primary results and equally divided, based on each states rules and rules under the Articles. This results in a fair system and avoids a party-monopoly.
In today's political world, to get around the popular vote issue, candidates now use Super PACs and various lobbyists to gain more electoral delegates or bolster the popular vote in one candidates direction. In other words: bribes & favors.
In short, asking now for a faithless vote or imposing a popular vote victory is a direct violation of the Constitution. To dissolve the EC would be to dissolve the two fundamental Articles of the entire document, rendering the entire document -and all its contents- null and void. Such a result would put the United States of America into a state of complete and total chaotic anarchy, versus altruistic anarchy.
And, in opinion, given the nature of the recent violent protest and widespread violence across the country for the last several decades, do not believe the citizen majority is ready nor able to live in a peaceful, self-governed society. It is precisely these two Articles that the 13 British colonies based their decision to secede from the monarchical dictatorship of George III (aka rigged popular vote majority) in order to form -play close attention:a more perfect union, establish justice (multi-branch governance) and insure domestic tranquility (aka non chaotic anarchy)...Interesting, popular vote, based solely on numbers alone. What other basis should it be built on?
While, I generally support the electoral college for the reasons that you provide, I cannot abide the idea that the decision of the college continues to take precedence over the popular vote. Once in a blue moon, I can excuse it. It just seem that in 2000 and this time when this happens, GOP benefits. I don't want the principle of one man, one vote overridden in deference to the EC. This may have been a good idea that has outlived its usefulness. I don't see why populations in smaller states deserve such an advantage. Let them attract population from other states and become larger if they want more of a say.It has happened 4 times in 200 years. Is that too great, really something needs addressed?
Jacharless is correct: on part of the reasoning is to give smaller states at least some voice in the election, the same way they have an equal vote in the Senate. EXACTLY the same way, for an elector is appointed for each representative and each senator.
This was actually news to me, as I had never looked into it. But after reflection I have to agree that it is a good system for a republic of states, for the United States of America. Much of our constitution is constructed around preventing tyranny of a majority and protecting the minority. Something I do feel we need, perhaps more now than even in the beginning as our society and culture polarizes into subgroups.Yourpoint is well taken, Wilderness.
As I said in a recent post, this has happened twice in 16 years, is the trend accelerating. I don't to see this sort of outcome happen too frequently.
I understand the priciple of the state being represented as entity in itself regardless of their relative population. But, I am the state, and its interests cannot deviate from that of myself the majority of its citizens. The can be no House of Lords and House of Commons in America. Thus the explanation for the early 20th century amendment requiring direct election of senators.
I understand the danger of tyranny of the majority and appreciate the constitutional provisions to prevent its occurrence.It's a good question, whether it is accelerating. And it may be - although there has always been some city vs rural in our elections it seems like it is getting larger as a larger and larger percentage of people move to cities. And that is what the difference was in this election - if you look at state election maps it is very, very clear that rural America voted one way, metropolitan America the other. Whether the state went red or blue, we see that.
So at what point does it stop being tyranny and being reasonable? 70% city? 80? 90? When is it unreasonable to give rural America a say in what happens, if that say is contrary to what cities want?Well, since the country has made the transition in the early 20th century from a rural to an urban society, it was just a matter of time when this day would come. The trend is the trend. It is true that rural America is red. The concept of a rural life and lifestyle may be on the way out, just as we have seen with other demographic changes over the last century. This is just one of many. Rural America still has a say, and have the right to cast a ballot like any city dweller, but majority has to win and I don't see a reason to defer an advantage to less populated entities regardless of their geographic spread.
Small states, population wise, are given an advantage in the Senate relative to its more populated neighbors. I did not make a fuss about the EC taking precedent over the popular vote, as it was an aberration, not worth upsetting the apple cart over. But, the differences in the political parties and viewpoints between the country mouse and city mouse are far more contentious and partisan today. Add to the danger of what was once an aberration becoming routine, things are going to have to change
I hear what your saying Wilderness, I just don't know if we can fairly accomodate your suggestion within a democratic system"The concept of a rural life and lifestyle may be on the way out,"
Perhaps. And perhaps not - if Trump is going to revitalize our production abilities and jobs it won't be in the middle Manhattan or LA. It will be in the more rural areas of the country.
"Rural America still has a say, and have the right to cast a ballot like any city dweller, but majority has to win"
Sure they do - it's just that if it continues to change they know that their vote will exactly as much meaning as an ice crystal in the Antarctic. Zero.
"Small states, population wise, are given an advantage in the Senate relative to its more populated neighbors."
They are indeed. And they are given the exact same advantage in the EC. Exact, as it is formed with the same exact numbers.
I don't really know how to solve this either. I just know that disenfranchising half the country is not the answer. That [requiring vast tracts of people to change their culture and lifestyle to match something completely foreign to them, and in a radically different environment, isn't going to go over well.Widerness:
"Perhaps. And perhaps not - if Trump is going to revitalize our production abilities and jobs it won't be in the middle Manhattan or LA. It will be in the more rural areas of the country."
When are you and many others going to accept the facts that presidents don't create jobs, other than FDR and those were make work projects to get us out of the depression. Those people in rural areas that don't have jobs have been passed over by technology and globalization. They need to be retrained into skills that are now in demand. Ninety five percent of the population is employed.Don't be silly - 95% is NOT employed. Not even 70% is employed. Not even 50%. Not even 95% of employable people.
While you are happy depending on other countries for our basic needs (cars, steel, refrigerators, computers, etc.) not everyone is and definitely want actual production of our products back into the country. And those plants will not be built in Manhattan. If we cannot accept that we are dooming ourselves into a continual slide downward until the living standards of the entire world are approximately equal.That would be Americans dream and greatest if Americans were truely 90℅ employed,
Wait, wait. I gotta jump in.
"The concept of a rural life and lifestyle may be on the way out ... "
Think about that a minute. Doesn't that amount to feeling non-urban folks are just minions?
My first thought is that's not you, but, I remember other times when you have teetered on the edge. Do you really believe the perspective behind what you said? "Sure, you get to vote, but it won't matter!"
Can't you see that perspective is exactly the perspective the Constitution was designed to protect against. Or at least mitigate as much as possible. Your statement appears to be in line with the concept of The Hunger Games movies - the "districts," (states), are just there to support the "Capitol."
I do not believe small states are given an advantage in the Senate. Why would you believe equal representation is an advantage?
ps. Take a few nights and read Asimov's Foundation Trilogy". I bet you will find worrying similarities to the perspective you advocate.
GAI don't remember which thread it was you replied to my statement about the EC, so I'll join the discussion here. I have, for a long time, been struggling with the EC. I understand all of the arguments in its favor.
Wyoming's half million people get two votes and California's almost 40 million people get two votes in the Senate. This is giving equal representation by state regardless of population. This makes sense, as it is a Senator's explicit charge to represent the residents of his or her state. The President, on the other hand, is charged with representing the entire country, so why are we voting by state? It makes no sense in this modern age for a president to lose after receiving the popular vote. He represents all of us, so giving some voters a little more say because of where they reside makes no sense to me.Lay-mans terms.
I wish liberals would read a history book once in a while , The federal governments entire purpose is defined in and by the constitution , It's purpose ? If there were only four states that divided this great country , each of those four states would need equal protection , federally , That is the SOLE constitutional purpose of the U.S. government and it's ultimate obligations .
Americans should ALL know by now that America is NOT a democracy , it's a republic of its individual states , Its federal government is originally oriented to the EQUAL protection and representation OF these STATES, Not the masses of SOME of it's people but all of them.Like you, I have struggled with the EC. Over the years, I've slowly come to support it for the most part. The reasoning is two fold:
1) As ahorseback says, we ARE a republic and while I might (and do) speak is if it were one country it is what it is and we need to recognize that.
2) But more importantly is the reality of politics in this country. I disagree that a Senator's primary task is to represent the state: I find that the primary duty is to govern the country, with their state's desires coming in second place. A strong second place, but second it is.
But our pathetic political system doesn't work that way - both the representatives and senators are there for their own purposes. Not for their state and not for the country; for their own purposes and this includes, in a big way, satisfying their voters. The majority of Pork goes to states with long term representation - to the states with the most political power. Those states re-elect the senator (or representative) that got them the new museum or park. That got them the new mass transit or Amtrak stop. That another state with less "pull" suffers as a result and goes without actual needs because a powerful one wanted that museum but didn't want to pay for it is forgotten and set aside.
I remember when the 55MPH limit went in nationwide. It was installed for the express purposes of saving lives and fuel and was a reasonable compromise for those areas with high traffic patterns and short trips. For the states with wide open roads, low traffic density and hours long trips it was a nightmare, but if they didn't follow along they lost their federal grants for road repair/construction. This is the result when the needs of the few are set aside in favor of the desires of the many.
And at the top of the chain is the President and the EC elections. Now if that President governed according to the needs of the nation it would be great. But he/she doesn't; they govern according to the requirements of the political party that put them in office and that goes right back to ignoring the small (population) states. So the tiny advantage of the EC helps, IMO, to "correct" that situation and although I don't like the lack of the popular vote I do find it necessary.I have been coming to the opinion that there is a common thought behind the opposing answers to the EC question. Those that view our nation as a republic of states, and those that view our nation as a nation of citizens. Even folks that say they can see the reasoning for the EC, but still think the popular vote should be the final answer, defend their position with the definition of democracy - majority rules. One man - one vote.
I disagree with that perspective. the logic and reasoning are wrong, as it applies to our nation. We were founded as a Republic. The founders rationally feared pure democracy. Not because they wanted to deny citizens a choice, but because they understood pure democracy to be no different than mob rule. Demagoguery was as alive then as it is now.
I think I can see the reasoning behind your Senate/House justifications, (I don't agree with it), but that doesn't change the fact that you are still arguing for something that was purposefully excluded from the framework of our government.
Consider why, originally, the House was the only national office elected by direct popular-vote. It was the House of the people - the legislative body where people spoke directly. Even with manipulation, one state's Representatives could not sway the entire House. Even the Senate was selected/elected by state legislators - not the people directly. The Presidency and the Senate were to be directed by the "sense" of the people, not their direct vote. Again, pure democracy was distrusted and purposely avoided.
I think that is an accurate picture of the reasons the EC procedure was established. Whether you agree with those reasons is separate from the truth of them.
So...
When the "what has changed or become outdated" question is asked, typical answers mention the population growth, mass information technology, and such always-changing parameters. I don't see that any of those alter the need and purpose of the Electoral College. Without the EC, large population centers will continue to gain power at the expense of lower population areas. And we increase our risk for the dangers our government was designed to avoid.
Consider how often you hear the cry for a level playing field for all. Do you see a possibility of large population areas having the power Credence2 thinks is only right - rural and less populated areas should just shut-up and sit down. We get to vote but it won't matter.
Consider the logic and reasoning for the EC to our core emotional belief that we are a democracy, everything should be decided by one man - one vote.
No, not everything, and not in every instance.
GABut, would we really be asking rural areas to shut up and sit down if they still have Congress to represent them? The president cannot unilaterally change the country without the cooperation of Congress. Rural voters have their own representatives in the House and less populous states get an equal vote in the Senate.. I understand the original intent and I agree we must ensure minority voices are not trampled. I just have a hard time seeing how that would truly be the case if the president were elected by popular vote, given the representation already guaranteed by Congress.
I remember you saying do we really want the 12(?) most populous states electing the president. I feel that it actually makes no less sense than the 38 least populous states deciding, especially considering they already have equal representation in the House and Sebate.
All that said, I realize that eliminating the EC is an idea whose consequences should be carefully considered. If I were asked to vote on it right now, I'm still not sure I would favor it. I'm that undecided.The founders also recognizedthat change would be inevitable and thus made it possible for the Constitution to be amended when needed. So, are we to be content with viewpoint of 18th century men in knee breeches and powdered wigs? Their idea of popular sovereignty was limited to white men who owned property. That fear of democracy was unwarranted already and was beginning to crack in the early 19th century when the trend was to accomodate adult white male suffrage with no property ownership requirement. And who are these paternalistic people who believe that their virtue allows the precedence of their will over that of the citizens? Are the citizens of the United States a mob? One man's leader is another man's demogogue. You are the one that gave eloquent apologist explanations for the existence of Trump, there is your demagogue, if there ever was one
And what is this "sense" of the people that the President and Senate are to guided by that is to be totally independent from popular sovereignty? You must be one of those 'repeal the 17th amendment" folks. I spoke with a hubber at length about the prospect and I am just as adamant now that the 17th should stay. The Constitution is amended to adjust to new reality and changing circumstances. The change involving the direct election of senators had been fully vetted through the procedures prescribed for acquiring the necessary approval from the majority of the states. Is that not good enough for you? Do we annul all amendments to the Constitution that would not have passed muster for the founding fathers original intent? An intent that could well not apply when extended into an unforseeable future relative to their point of view
You say, "Without the EC, large population centers will continue to gain power at the expense of lower population areas." And we increase our risk for the dangers our government was designed to avoid.
And without needed reform the danger of our national leader being elected without a majority of the popular vote makes us question his or her legitimacy and the legitimacy of the process. That can't be good for credibility of the system.
Also, I AM THE STATE, me and the majority of the citizens that put our Senators into office. This idea that the State Senator has an independent agenda separate, in this Republic idea, from the citizens it serves does not figure for me. These representatives serve at MY pleasure, not the other way around. That has got to be some of the reasoning behind the 17th Amendment. I don' like the idea of a House of Lords or a House of Commons, they are all there to serve me.
You said, "Consider how often you hear the cry for a level playing field for all. Do you see a possibility of large population areas having the power Credence2 thinks is only right - rural and less populated areas should just shut-up and sit down. We get to vote but it won't matter."
At least you get to vote, I have to fight conservatives to make sure that basic right remains unfettered for everybody. Yes, they sit down and shut up. Over the last 60 election cycles, the popular vote won out in 56-57 of them, so how has the EC really protected the smaller states? I bet that this is more partisan than you are letting on. You folks don't care about small states like Delaware or Vermont, you are making this fuss over the hayseed rural areas, protecting those that typically vote GOP. My problem is the danger of that which has been always an aberration becoming routine. The GOP has won the popular vote in plenty of election cycles, so why the boogie man over this precious EC?
Anything that is not one man one vote is less than democratic, all this talk about a republic is a smoke
screen.
The buggy whip analogy was a bit off from the mark. To be honest with you, I really don't see the purpose of an EC, especially today.
Obviously the drafters of the 17th amendment take issue with this idea of the "voice of the states"' independent of the people they represent. That was obviously the case prior to 1913 when they were then appointed by plutocrats to promote the interests of plutocrats in Washington, never to be held accountable by the voters.
The President may not be charged to represent all of the citizens at all times and I agree he is to represent the values of the nation, but he is accountable to the voters, the majority of which decide that he is doing a good job and should receive a second term.
I never said that The President is to be micromanaged in his decisions, I say that in the election and reelection stage he is to be held accountable by the electorate. I pay the guy 400k a year to use his judgement as chief executive, not to come to the voters every time he is pressed to make a decision. FDR took the calculated risk of promoting policies contrary to the AMERICAN mood for isolation during the period. He was typically skillful and tactful, moving carefully. But it was a good gamble and it turn out to be the correct assessment and the voters rewarded him with another term.
As always, I enjoy the exchange, until next time......Well buddy, you were certainly clear, and I could feel the emotion behind your perspectives, but the deeper I got into your response, the more certain I am that you must have broken the martini rule well before you got to me.
To your points that were ideological, I ask for a pass. Frequently we are not too far apart on some issues, but here, there is a ton of debris to clear before we find out. So I will take a shot with a few of your more choice offerings.
First, I don't think you have a leg to stand on with this one; "You are the one that gave eloquent apologist explanations for the existence of Trump...",
My wife does accuse me of having a selective memory, (sometimes she is right), but in this case I feel confident. I have offered my explanations for Trump's performance in the campaign, both as to who his supporters were, and why they continued to support him. That you considered them elegant is a compliment. Thanks. But I don't think you will find any of those elegant responses in any way apologetic. Come on bud, do some digging and back up those words. You can get back to me later.
Then ... you went in so many directions that I will need a map just to keep from getting lost if I try to hit them all, (and so many do need hitting), so let's see if we even have any common ground to start from.
Regarding the "sense of the people," that was how will of the people was described as applied to the construction of the Constitution. I recall other readings with its use, but the easiest example found was in Federalist Paper #68:
"...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 preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture."
Now this was written in an initial discussion of the Chief Magistrate, but it is an example of the term's use. I could dig deeper and find those other times I recall reading it, but maybe this one example is enough to explain what I meant.
I am struggling to ignore, just for the moment, the temptations you offered, but I can't resist the "...are we to be content with viewpoint of 18th century men in knee breeches and powdered wigs? "
That sounds pretty dismissive to me. Do you hold the same perspective for the resulting effort of those powdered wigs? Consider that we are talking about basic structures and concepts, which would include the Electoral College, (EC), but not whether or not the Supreme Court would have six or twenty-six justices.
My perspective is that all the `detail' stuff, like; the 17th Amendment jab you attempted, or the WHITE SUFFRAGE" sarcasm, aren't even part of the discussion yet. It certainly is a part, but until we get to it - it is just deflection.
So, first, (again), stepping back to the starting blocks... I believe the original intent of the EC was primarily to offer smaller states, (like Delaware), some assurance that they would not be completely drowned-out by the larger states, (the small state vs. large state fears were very real in our initial 13-state nation, small states were hesitant to ratify the Constitution for this reason - so the EC had both political and American motive), and, also to add a layer between popular vote and final answer. Remember, those powdered wigs were not fans of "pure democracy." I think their explanations and resulting efforts clearly show the purpose of the EC.
How about you? Just the basics, what do you think the EC was designed to accomplish? Do you think their concerns about the dangers of pure democracy turning to mob-rule were silly? (wait, consider your perspective of Trump voters, and the extremely narrow popular vote before you answer that).
GAAs well, I see the passion and emotion associated with your side or the argument. Learned men have debated these concepts from either side long before either of us walked the Earth.
Sometimes, I think that we can differ in opinion substantially more often than we like to admit, unfortunately.
You expressed your views regarding Trump in an ELOQUENT fashion. Apologe tic was an unfortunate description, I am sure that your observations were truly clinical in nature.
You said:
Regarding the "sense of the people," that was how will of the people was described as applied to the construction of the Constitution. I recall other readings with its use, but the easiest example found was in Federalist Paper #68:
"...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 preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture."
-------
Understood. Those people with that 'sense of the people' are the Senators and Represenatives that I elect. Is there anything that I have said that is opposed to the definition that you provided above?
You said:
"I am struggling to ignore, just for the moment, the temptations you offered, but I can't resist the "...are we to be content with viewpoint of 18th century men in knee breeches and powdered wigs? "
I knew that the morsels that I put forth would be irresistible.
You stated:
That sounds pretty dismissive to me. Do you hold the same perspective for the resulting effort of those powdered wigs? Consider that we are talking about basic structures and concepts, which would include the Electoral College, (EC), but not whether or not the Supreme Court would have six or twenty-six justices.
----------
The Founding Fathers set up the structure of our Constitution and our form of Govenment. Of course, there should not be a change to the number of Justices to the Supreme Court without amendment, for example. But, that 'structure' has been build to accomodate change.
I save my discussion of what you call sarcasm when we get to it.
I understand the protection, but to have the votes of the majority of the electorate overruled time after time is a source of disruption. The small states get their equal protection in representation relative to larger more populous states with the Senate, where Wyoming and California are treated equally.
Have not the trend in AMERICAN jurisprudence been to extend the definition through Constitutional Amendment making for ever more pure democracy through wider participation and fewer middlemen, the reality? The world that we live in now and those that are allowed to participate in the experiment of the people and self rule, would have knocked the wigs from the founders heads. Could the modern world persist within a rigid prescription of the 'intent' of 18th Century men? Just how rigidly this "intent" is to be adhered to is the basis of debate between right and left.
I believe that the EC was a design failsafe to thwart the will of the people in case they all went for a demagogue. It was based on a concept that the masses could not be trusted for self rule. It may have been a way to simplify the result of what, in the days of the abacus, would be the process of tabulating the popular vote. Neither of these conditions exist nor are considered viable within the democratic principle, today. The people that voted for Trump were misguided in my opinion, but hardly a mob. They had their rational reason to support the man.There, you see! You are already a step back from the edge. I can return the eloquent compliment for that one. Go back and compare this to your post that started our conversation... come on, admit it. It's at least a step. And, it does look like we are closer than you think.
We seem to agree on the original purpose of the EC. I even agree that they, (the founders), believed that the citizens might not know how to make the right decisions, and purposely included or constructed mechanisms to make corrections. But, there was a second part. They feared pure democracy as a danger.
I could go on with more that we seem to agree on, but here is where I think we disagree, and where I find the most resistance. When asked what has changed to make the EC no longer valid, a typical answer is that our nation and our knowledge have grown. We no longer need the insulation of the EC. It looks like that might be your view.
To counter that, I ask that you look at the basics underlying those changes. Human nature. Human failings. It is human nature to look to your own benefit first. It is human failings that allow chicanery, to do things for personal gain at the expense of others. Or to seek power over others.
The rationals for abolishing the EC are just descriptions of those basics. What would cause a voter to be an uninformed follower, or a racist, or a schemer, or a smart intelligent and conscientious voter? Human nature and human failings. What would cause a voter to blindly follow a rabble rouser or schemer, a mob leader, or accept a bribe, or sell a vote? Human nature and human failings. Those were the objects of the EC's protections, and the Founder's fear of pure democracy.
Have those changed? Do you believe we no longer have those bad actors among our citizens? Or that we are too smart today to be hoodwinked, misled, or misinformed? I think we still have those same human nature and failings today. Just the character and tactics have evolved.
Again, consider that if Trump had gotten just ten thousandths of a percent more of the total vote, he would have won the popular vote. Given your previous expressions of what you think of Trump, I would guess you would look at his election as an exact example of mob rule on a national scale. I mean, it has sounded like you consider his supporters to be practically a mob.
To the "sense of the people," you are partially correct. The EC electors were also to be guided by that `sense', just like the Senate and House.
Did I mention that I agreed that the Constitution was meant to be amendable, or that I agree there have been positive changes - like the 17th Amendment, or that I think all state offices should be by popular vote? Ha! Ponder that.
I will offer this for later. My staunch support of the EC is due to one reason - I do think there is real danger in the popular vote on a national level. I do think it is possible for a popular vote to be a mob vote.
ps. The Court seats are set by Congress, not the Constitution. No amendment needed.
GA
The temptation was too great. I had to come back to this one;
"... Yes, they sit down and shut up. Over the last 60 election cycles, the popular vote won out in 56-57 of them, so how has the EC really protected the smaller states? I bet that this is more partisan than you are letting on. You folks don't care about small states like Delaware or Vermont, you are making this fuss over the hayseed rural areas, protecting those that typically vote GOP. My problem is the danger of that which has been always an aberration becoming routine..." *Of course the bolding is mine.
Holy cow! Really feeling the smugness of your certainty that your are morally and intellectually superior aren't you. Now, if you can just get past these emotional cries of unfairness we might be able to get you back from that edge again.
There is nothing partisan about my support of the EC, and I do not especially care about any small state in particular. But I do care about the purpose of the EC, and I do care that our government was designed for all citizens, not just the most powerful or populous ones.
Geesh, we've been here before Cred.
And that "I AM THE STATE" part ... that doesn't have any bearing on the discussion of the EC, but gee, let's build a statue to the importance of ME anyway. We can put it on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. Now there's an aberration for you.
GAThe temptation was too great. I had to come back to this one;
Glad that you are back, because I am not done with you either!
I never pretended to be morally or intellectually superior because I adhere to the principle of 'one man, one vote. That is a rational cry of unfairness, it is as plain as the nose on one's face. I am a little over the top with the term 'hayseed', let's just say 'my rural neighbors'.
I just can't help notices how the GOP sings praises for the EC now that Trump wins because of it, while castigating it as all rigged during his campaign. That would be hard not to notice. I simply don't see the EC as being so much of advantage to small states relative to a decision based upon popular sovereigty. I see it as userping the will of the majority and I don't see why the contention from such a situation is worth the EC.
Geesh, we've been here before Cred.
OK
"And that "I AM THE STATE" part ... that doesn't have any bearing on the discussion of the EC, but gee, let's build a statue to the importance of ME anyway. We can put it on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. Now there's an aberration for you."
Now, you know what I meant by this. ME and the majority of the electorate over you and Minority of the electorate, seems pretty fair to me.
No outline of why the Electoral College exists is complete without reference to slavery.
In the 18th century the North would have outnumbered the South in a popular vote because slaves were not allowed to vote. The EC system allowed for slaves to be counted as three-fifths a person which meant, under the EC system, the South gained more electoral votes, and therefore more influence.
"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."
The benefit for the South was clear:
"For 32 of the Constitution’s first 36 years, a white slaveholding Virginian occupied the presidency."
http://time.com/4558510/electoral-colle … ry-slaveryHello Don, I have encountered that thought before, and the best I can offer is a "Well, yeah, but...
Even considering your excerpt and article, I think the 3/5ths link is a secondary indirect link. Indirect because the compromise was directly related to House representation. Which of course is directly related to the EC. I say secondary because the fear of popular vote dominance by the large states was more directly related to state representation and power in the national governance.
[EDIT] I have read your later, persuasive posting of Madison's words. But I am still influenced by my readings that the structure of state representation - concerning large state vs. small state, in the new government was preeminent in discussions concerning the 3/5ths compromise. So I am still hanging on to that "...yeah, but..."
However, a quick look-about concerning the EC enhancing the power of the southern states left me skeptical of your claim that it did. In 1800, Virginia had a census population of about 600,000. For representative numbers, the compromise reduced their population base by almost 130,000. By contrast, the compromise reduced New York's 484,000 population base by only 6000. It looks to me like the EC diminished the proportion of power Virginia would have had by popular vote decision.
I feel a bit presumptuous contending your article's closing validation that 32 years of Virginian dominance confirmed its EC points. Considering the times; post-civil war, Virginia had a large share of statesmen, heroes and national patriots. The most likely electable candidates for a new nation. I believe that had as much impact on Virginia's 32 year national office dominance as its population or EC power did.
GAHello again Don W.
Your comment has turned out to be both a benefit and a bane. A benefit because it prompted me to look a little deeper. And a bane because the political aspect of the EC's formation looks like it was much more of a factor than I credited. It is also a bane because it has sent a tremor through one of the foundations of my opinion. And a bane again because I don't have the free blocks of time to commit. So, I will fill all my time crevices following a black hole of links and citation links digging into Madison's, (& Co.), `back-story''.
I don't begrudge a thanks, but considering all those banes I mentioned, it will have to be one of those humorously sarcastic, "yeah, thanks a lot!" I'll get back to you.
ps. I was was wrong countering your "EC gave southern states more power" point too. Geesh.
pps. But, I am not so sure my point about Virginia's supply of ready-statesmen and heroes was was completely wrong.
GASo much knowledge to absorb, so little time. An exquisite tension to be sure. Good luck on your quest for truth. Hope you return to share whatever jewels of knowledge you find.
"There are only two mistakes one can make along the road to truth; not going all the way, and not starting" - BuddhaOk, Don W., this time it is a relieved thanks. I was able to hold on to my opinion concerning the Electoral College, (EC), I just had to modify some of my supporting thoughts. I gave too much credence to some perspectives, and really shortchanged the importance of others - primarily the part concerning suffrage.
So your initial contribution concerning the 3/5ths. was spot-on. The problem it presented to me was that I had placed too much value on a couple motivations, (a layer to insulate the popular vote, and a balancing mechanism), and not enough on the political. And especially not enough on suffrage. (Hence my backwards thought that southern states lost more by the 3/5ths compromise relative to voting). *face palm
I am still digging, but in reading Avalon project's "Madison's Convention Debates", I am finding the earliest discussions at the Federal Convention included multiple important participants, (other than Madison), in favor of the EC; for the same reasons I recalled and spoke of. My initial responses were recollections from various readings over the years. Not exactly an easy task to consider; thumbing and skimming through a bunch of books, some I probably had forgotten I had read. The convention debate notes rang some bells.
The discussions do appear to show it was selected as the least fallible, least bad, of three methods discussed. And, the most true to the intention for the government of our new nation. The issue of suffrage was there from the beginning, but I had not considered it as I should have, because it is connected to the direction a solution had to cover. And so was the political aspect - Delaware came with a commission mandating they could accept no constitution that did not include an EC. I knew about Delaware's concerns relative to ratification, but I did not remember, (or know), that it was there from the beginning - a political requirement. I did know about the southern political aspect.
The bottom line is that the reasons I support the EC are still supportable; that support just has a different foundation. A newer and stronger one. I think I do understand the perspective and rational of those against it, I just think they are looking at it wrong.
GAWell Don W., I didn't discover any hidden jewels, but I did find the confirmation to polish up a couple of the ones I already have.
Ranging from relatively unknown names, like; Mr. Rutlidge or Mr. Gerry, to more recognizable names like Mr. Madison or Mason, or Hamilton, and from the earliest Federal Convention notes through to the finish, I continued to find that the equity of states in the new Union, along with the determination that pure democracy, (popular vote), carried much more danger to a republic than representative democracy, were primary motives. The precept that the government would be by the will of the people, (sense of the people), was the force behind those motives. I think they were good motives.
Stopping at just this point... I think this is a fair summation of the beginnings of the EC. It was determined to be the least objectionable choice - that still served the desired purpose.
Also at this point, I think it can be said the EC was completely political because it is part of a political construct - forming a republican government. It wasn't until the next step, the molding of those motives, by perspectives and influences, that formed the mechanisms of the finished-product EC, that it became `political'" in its typical sense.
I wonder if anti-Electoral College folks disagree with this?
If that reasoning - up to this point, is sound, than what can be said to have changed in those desired purposes, in these 225+ years?
GA
Nice to have you back in town, GA
Buggy whips were on the way out too, at one time. Not by deliberate design, but circumstances just change.
I never said a disparaging word about our rural neighbors, I just don't want their votes to be given greater weight than mine, assuming that I am a city dweller. I am actually exo-urban.
On the contrary, I am not on the edge but right dead center on the focal point of this debate. I am certainly not the only one asking questions about this.
This is clearly different from disenfranchisement I have accused the GOP of practicing against those they believe won't for them. Everybody has the right to vote, but the will of the greater number must prevail or the principle of popular sovereigty deevolves into something else. We have the Bill of Rights to protect the rights of minorities and dissenters. The 30 percent black population in Mississippi get to vote, but does it matter, the state is still a crimson red? But, I abide with it as popular sovereigty prevails. Why should I make any exception for my rural neighbors?
People don't just herd to cities just to become DemBots, but for jobs and economic survival. There are many aspects of conservatism that drive city dwellers to vote GOP. While more city dwellers vote Dem, the libs hardly have a lock on the urban vote.
The city mouse does not necessarily have to be diametrically opposed to the country mouse. Never followed the "hunger Games" and I am not well familiar with the works of Issac Asimov, as Arthur C Clarke has been my SCI FÎ favorite.
You said:
"I do not believe small states are given an advantage in the Senate. Why would you believe equal representation is an advantage?"
To answer that, I refer to the 'Panther's comment on the matter as well written and the best answer
"Wyoming's half million people get two votes and California's almost 40 million people get two votes in the Senate. This is giving equal representation by state regardless of population. This makes sense, as it is a Senator's explicit charge to represent the residents of his or her state. The President, on the other hand, is charged with representing the entire country, so why are we voting by state? It makes no sense in this modern age for a president to lose after receiving the popular vote. He represents all of us, so giving some voters a little more say because of where they reside makes no sense to me."Well, I think my answer to Prettypanther would serve well here. I hope you saw it.
But... The buggy whips analogy? Geez. To your mind we no longer need the same protections the Electoral College, (EC), was designed to protect against? Do you think we even needed the EC then?
Also, I think you were wrong about the Senate. A Senator's primary job is not to represent the citizens of his state. His job is to represent his state. That's why there are only two. The house is the voice of the people. The Senate is the voice of the states. I can hear the charge of semantics now, but I don't think so. It is pretty well documented. It is also the reason I don't think your, (or Prettypanther's), "Senate" as a rationalization applies to the discussion.
I might even be feeling cantankerous enough to argue that our President is not "charged" to represent all citizens. His job is to lead, and represent the values of, our nation. One possible example you might be familiar with is FDR's 1938 fight to get the Neutrality Act repealed. In 1938 he knew that the fall of Europe had to be avoided for our own safety. Britain, (and other countries), would undoubtedly fall without at least our military materials support. FDR recognized this, but the overwhelming "popular sentiment," (vote?), was firm Isolationist. It took FDR a year to wheel and deal that Act out of the books. History says he was right, and the "popular" vote was wrong. Catastrophically wrong, (as in mob-rule wrong), if it had prevailed. And history shows his job was to lead and represent the values of our nation, not the current popular sentiment, (vote?).
ps. I remember Clarke was your reading. This isn't the first time I have urged Asimov on you.
GAJust a quick clarification: When I say a president is charged with representing the entire country, I don't mean he is obligated to carry out majority wishes. I mean he is charged with representing us in the way he judges best for the country as a whole. When we vote for a man or woman to represent us in world affairs as well as domestic, we do so because we think he or she is the best choice to make decisions that affect all of us. Why should the minority select the one person who represents and leads us all?
Edited to add: I would not be arguing this if we did not have the House and Senate to provide equal representation for less populated areas."Why should the minority select the one person who represents and leads us all?"
Turn it around - why should the majority of 1/2 of one percent do all the electing?
"I would not be arguing this if we did not have the House and Senate to provide equal representation for less populated areas."
And I don't think I would either...were it not for the extreme partisanship that has developed over the last couple decades. But both houses nearly always votes as one person - that person being the majority party, and the "checks and balances" built into the constitution are as close to being useless as they can get.
Yes, in regard to Jacharless' point. People are now wondering if their votes count, or will it be overruled by an entity that says that a 'college' can consistently nullify the outcome? Is the correlation between city voting left and rural voting right that much etched in stone to the point that the rural voter is shut out? As we saw with industrialized Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, there are other non-rural concerns that could drive voters to ally with the rural vote if only temporarily in the pursuit of their own interests.
Look at Texas, Arizona for example, both have major population centers and yet the conservatives dominate the states. It is done with alliances and coalitions, even GOP voters may be attracted to other platform values not related to the interests of rural dwellers.
Really? Let's compare Alaska to Rhode Island. If land size equals population, how would the later attract more people and where would they put them?
Fact is, California, Texas and Florida are home to the vast majority of America's population (112 of 320 million). Hence, in every election, according to the one-person one-vote concept, their candidate would win every single time, rendering the other 47 states irrelevant. Again, it explains precisely why the EC was instituted.
Going further, by population density, the little town of Guttenberg, New Jersey has more people per square mile than Manhattan, New York (ranked #6). According to the one-vote logic, this tiny town would dominate every election, until another takes it place.
Back in the day, Virginia was the most populous state, compared to Delaware or Maryland - even New York at the time. The founders knew this approach would be catastrophic and always in favor of the larger states. To insure a domination vote would not happen, they formed a state-by-state delegate system. It is actually quite brilliant and applauded by many countries as one of the greatest political architecture achievements in history.
Jacharless and others: Please read this hub posted by fellow hubber Au fait. Be sure to watch the two videos. The second one explains why the EC can be abolished without any adverse effects.
http://hubpages.com/politics/How-Does-t … oral-VotesThanks, Jacharless for your reply.
Among America's most populate states, Texas, California, Florida and New York, I don't see any trend that indicate that it's residents are all going to vote in lockstep. Calif and New York are consistently liberal, Texas consistently conservative and FLORIDA is always a toss up. You assume that all the voters of these states would vote the same way and that is a stretch.
Please explain further how the analogy of population density supports your position?
No one should be disenfranchised and I have no problem with the founder's concept of protecting the participation and inclusion of less populated states whether that is Alaska, Vermont or Wyoming, but to what extent? The people select a President not a conglomeration of states' legislative appointees.We changed to direct election of Senators to make it clear that the will of the people needs to be adhered to in principle, and not left in the hands of an appointed bourgeoisie, whose interests may not reflect that of the masses.Absolutely correct. The people do if fact choose their president. In layman's terms they are called delegates. Each state chooses their delegates, at the primary level, and allocated x-number of delegate votes. Those delegates are grouped together, in what is commonly known as the Electoral College. This insures the peoples choice is clear and non-domination vote maintained.
And, again, said delegate votes are compared to the popular vote, for transparency sake and to show how the allocation of delegates was divided.
Regarding population density analogy, it was merely added to visualize the effect of solely a popular vote scenario, in which a small area of high density could dominate the vote against a larger area -an inverse to larger states dominating smaller ones. In either case, there would be a unfair advantage in favor of one candidate over another.Ok, but the delegates are appointed, by state legislatures/governor? While they generally are required to vote unanimously for the candidate that wins the popular vote in the state, I have heard they do not have to do so. But the fact that we have had these recent differences between the EC and the popular vote indicates that the people's choice is not always clear and respected. I can understand how such a college could relieve contention over the outcome of the vote in earlier times. Today, with electronics and instantaneous availability of information and results, why should the will of the people be expressed through these middlemen? As long as the popular vote take precedence and the EC supports and confirms that, no problem.
More people living in an area means that that area has a natural advantage assuming that all the residents really would vote in favor or against, in lockstep regarding a candidate. That is not always etched in stone. In COLORADO, my origin point, rural residents of the Eastern Plains complained about being outvoted by the more liberal residents of the Denver/Boulder area. So what do we do about that? Is it really unfair, they are all citizens with the right to vote for their perspective interests, there are just fewer voters supporting the agenda of the rural areas, is that to be unexpected?
That was a nice graphic, thank you for allowing to more easily visualize your points.So if the people living in a major metropolis were fairly divided ideologically that would be fine BUT that isn't so , new York for instance is primarily democrat . In fact sixty eight percent of NYC citizens are democrats , given that and say Chicago at 65- % democrat , LA. at 45 % democrat to 30 % republican in voters , How then would it be fair that high density cities would elect a president in every single election , In the major cities in America , democrats far out weigh republicans , How fair would the popular vote be in a republic .
Get used to the electoral college
It's Going to be here for awhile !
One more attempt -to not give Trumps presidency validity ? Come on guys , don't be sore losers .Yes, so, people have a choice for whom they support. Nobody is making any group vote all democratic or Republican, so the GOP needs to get more creative and reach out to this constituency for votes. it is not impossible. People vote for whom and what they want and the one position or candidate with the greater number wins. You can get that out of any civics book.
After the last difference between the verdict of the popular vote and the EC, this issue is front and center and will be on the receiving end of ever greater agitation. Protests destroyed Lyndon Johnson's administration and was the ultimate source of Nixon's resignation. So, the voice of protest will be far from ineffective in keeping the new President Elect from getting out of line.
A slate of electors is provided by each party. Although the legal appointments may vary, in practice it is the winning party that has "appointed" electors.
Two states assign electoral votes based on the percentage of votes per candidate. All others are winner-take-all.
Electors have pledged to cast their electoral vote according to the vote of the people and state law. Some states (24, I hear) legally require their electors to vote according to their pledge, with penalties of up to $1,000 if they do not, or even assign criminal penalties ((New Mexico). Several states deem that an elector that violates their pledge has resigned and another is chosen.
I have seen claims that "faithless" electors (that violate their pledge) can get away with it because electoral votes are secret: this is untrue as each elector signs their ballot, which is then given to the state where it is copied and copies sent to the Senate President, the state's Secretary of State and a few other places.
The result is that the popular vote wins...in a given state. In the Republic of states, those "states votes" are then apportioned the same way representatives and senators are, with one vote for each member of the House and one for each member of the Senate.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections- … llege.aspxThanks for the link, for all you math and statisticians out there, how is it possible for a greater number or more populated individual states to tally a majority for a single candidate, with the national total reflecting that tally, yet the EC can award the candidate with the lesser amount of votes the prize?
50 D 5R, 10EC D
50 D 5R, 10EC D
65 D 5 R, 12 EC D
32 EC D
40 R 5 D 9EC R
40 R 5 D 9EC R
40 R 5 D 9 EC R
30 R 5 D [i]6 EC R[/u]
33 EC R
Total popular votes: 185 D, 165 R. 33 R EC votes takes it, and popular vote loses. Gross example, but it could work that way.Thanks, Wilderness, seems a bit convoluted to me. Popular vote tally is so much simpler, and there is no question that the will of the majority of the electorate has been satisfied?
Simpler, yes - you don't have to count votes and then count congressional representatives as well.
Yes, the will of the majority will be satisfied. If that's what we think is important - that the majority run roughshod over anyone in their path - it will work well. Think it works well for the Christians living in Iran? For the Kurds in Iraq? Would you appreciate being an America under Christian rule - no abortions, no gay rights, prohibition, blue laws etc.?
Protection of the minority is important. Our founders were wise there.That is why we have the Bill of Rights to prevent what it is that you fear from happening. The 14th amendment, equal treatment afforded to all citizens under the law.
And when the majority gets all the SCOTUS seats, and fills it with their own appointees? What then?
As far as equal treatment afforded all citizens being guaranteed by the 14th amendment, tell that to blacks in the 50's. Tell it to gays just a few years ago. Tell it to women in 1900, or to the working woman today. In all cases, their rights were guaranteed by the constitution to be equal to anyone else, and no further laws were needed.
Minorities have always been oppressed, and the 14 amendment stopped very little of it.The President appoints Supreme Court nominees for confirmation by the Senate. I don't know what you mean by SCOTUS seats filled by the majority? It there is any danger to the 14 th amendment it comes the conservative side of the ideological ledger.
So, looks who actually admits now that Minority complaints about inequities in society is more than just whining, when it touches your nerve you surely pay attention now, don't you?
I have had to always work around the shortcomings of the system and I bet you and the conservatives can as well.The US is actually a Republic. It is governed by rule of law. The elected are bound by oath to the written governing limits (ie constitution) yet vote "together" and create laws to address concerns of the represented in a democratic way. So we are a republic with a representative democracy.
The electoral college is only used for representation of the president and vice president. All other voting at the federal and state levels is by majority rules. Appointments to cabinet offices are done by the president.
The appointment and confirmation of Justices to the Supreme Court of the United States involves several steps set forth by the United States Constitution, which have been further refined and developed by decades of tradition. Candidates are nominated by the President of the United States and must face a series of hearings in which both the nominee and other witnesses make statements and answer questions before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which can vote to send the nomination to the full United States Senate. Confirmation by the Senate allows the President to formally appoint the candidate to the court.
In addition, this system means it's possible, with the right combination of states, to win the presidency with only 23% of the popular vote (based on 2012 numbers). That can't be a good thing surely.
http://www.npr.org/2016/11/02/500112248 … pular-vote
If you're American, your history class in high school gave you the reasons for the Electoral College being the choice of picking the President vs. a popular vote.
If you want to get rid of the Electoral College, you might as well get rid of the Constitution.
Both are an intricate part of the checks and balances we have in the U.S.
I think the ec is a better deal for dems. I think red states are more solid. In a pop vote all the money and efforts go to ny and la. Reps on the offense, dems defend. They can rag out them cities with their political garbage to my hearts desire. Reps win in that scenario. Twisi
But ima uneducated white guy that never went to electrical college so..
.No, it's "undereducated." GA might be within reading distance.
Speakin of GA. You ever see him argue with Promisem? Its like an enigma wrapped up in a chinese finger trap. Im scratchin my head wondering whose side are they on? But yea the EC gotta go.
Yes, and if you throw credence in the mix it gets really gnarly.
Just between you and me, please dont tell Mr Promisem I referred to him as a chinese finger puzzle, okay? I apologize .But yea I vote we end the popular vote. No Wait. I vote we Brexit the next EC exit.
Phoenix, I don't know if the EC benefits Dems, as twice in modern political history the GOP has benefitted from the EC overruling the popular vote.
In a system like this there is going to be anomalies and anomalies really don't care what looks fair. It would be unusual if they did look fair. That's just the nature of an anomaly. If you look back at recent history at the margin that Democrats have won the Electoral College you will see, what I say to be true.
There seems to be assumption that nobody votes Republican in these larger cities. More people voted Republican in these larger cities than the combination of entire red States. Yet they received no electoral votes. In a popular vote all Republicans would have to do is win a margin of error amount of popular votes in these larger cities for a win.In 2008 Obama won EC by over 100% margin and popular by est over 15% margin. Which one was the cakewalk?
But at least the popular vote and the determination from the electoral college supported the same candiate for victory. I am primarily concerned when it doesn't.
Which results would have been easier to change by republicans?
I don't think that either Party could change the result within either system, popular vote or EC. My point is that the popular vote should rule supreme and that when it hasn't it has benefitted the GOP, even though it did not happen by design.
I hear your saying that the EC is a advantage to the Dems, but if this contest was won on popular vote only, we would of had a President Gore and a President-elect Clinton. Can you ever point to a time even in the last century where the GOP wins the popular vote yet the Dems win the election because of the Electoral College?
I just look at things from an analytical point of view the best I can. I doubt the geniueness of your political adversaries intent regardless of the merit of any argument. I just believe if I was democrat Id hang on to EC with both hands because Republicans are squeaking by in EC against large margins by dems. If you think itsa circus now with EC it only gets much worse in a pop. Imo. I sincerely believe a pop vote would not get the results you believe.I think it a presumption to believe the popular votes for gore and clinton would hold true if we were not in an EC system. Change the system and the tactics change too.
Heck, Credence I could hitchhike to LA and flip 1% by myself. Imagine what republican with all that coke money Koch sp* could do.Ok, but why would it not hold true. What would be the basis in a change of tactics
All they would have to do is flip a very small percentage of votes in la and ny. They could focus all their money and effort to flip a small%. Its a cost effective advantage to go on offense while dems defend in say la. While not so cost effective to go on offense scattered out in usa red states to garner chump change votes. The tactics would change but as I believe the red states are more solid.
I suppose that George Soros could take the same approach with the red states. There is no reason to believe that staunchly democratic strongholds like California and New York ( LA-NYC) could be moved in any way to create a substantive advantage for the GOP
Is that what you want? Soros money vs Koch money? Agreed both strategies would change for both parties. Whoever has the most money wins with most promises going to LA. Both candidates would call LA home or both be New Yorkers. I can hear the slogans now. LA's fine but it aint home New Yorks home but it aint mine no more.
It already seems like its all this way anyway. Id bet it get worse. I could be wrong that a pop vote would slightly tilt towards republicans sometimes , based on current trends of winning by narrow margins in EC for reps vs larger margin wins of EC by dems. Lots of variables.
"Can you ever point to a time even in the last century where the GOP wins the popular vote yet the Dems win the election because of the Electoral College?"
100% went to the R's. Think that sounds really significant - that all 2 times it went to them?Statistically, if one time it went to the Dems and the other time in favor of the GOP, I might dismiss it.
Yes, the fact that it only has happened twice is not conclusive, but it did occur twice within election cycles over the last 16 years when it had not occurred for a century before is something of note. How often will this continue? I don't know that I would be happy having this happen again, as the angst of 2000 is something we have to contend with every other four years, it is most divisive.
UPDATE ANNOUNCEMENT
Good news, nearly half Americans did not vote for this illegitimate body of franchise Corporation Government. The soul purpose of a real Government is to protect. Not to use, build up nukes and threatened the world with nukes. Then have Trump say we got nukes, why not use them.
Then US Corp/Government is the largest contributors to destruction of the natural environment. The other half delusion themselves to believe the Government dose more good than evil, then choose between the lesser of two evils. I choose no evil at all.
How could Government do evil and harm?, they are a fictional entity. For those who antilize the outcome of the election to death, they are either mastur-debators or experiencing their own personal hell on earth. From the half, that rather hide from these facts and continue watching the last 40 years of America crumble. They too chicken sh_t to face me with this true reality's that America greatest pass time is lying. Mostly about America being the greatest country on earth.- ahorsebackposted 8 years ago0
I think that a lot of people are just now finally realizing the full authority of the electoral directives , the REASONS for them , What many , many people don't get is the construct and reasoning of states-- to --federal authorities to begin with . Why we needed the assemblage of both powers , To protect the individual state beneath the federal government , state protection from the feds as well .
In basic meaning , from the beginning of the colonies becoming states one like Rhode Island needed to be represented as much as the mighty New York state at the federal level , IN THE REPUBLIC of America , created the need for this electoral college !
We don't get to change that , because we can't personally grasp political loss , we don't get to call now for totally popular federal elections , if we did , we might as well have a king and a queen for all of the good that a popular presidency would provide us in national elections of ALL of the 50 state's and indirectly , their peoples will . - ahorsebackposted 8 years ago0
To try to explain the electoral college , in fact the electoral process , in fact the entire political process of this republic, to democrats like these is both a futile attempt to educate those who won't accept it and a false flag of such receivership in education itself. Peoplepower and his many minions already know the system , they already understand the process , they already know the details in the puzzle box .
This new left in America knows our system very well because they are , if nothing else , intellectuals , what they lack and what they telegraph perfectly is no respect FOR this incredibly designed and vastly effective election process and system itself . They have grown up in and learned within houses of entitlements , institutions of tantrum instilled teachings , thought process' of organized chaos .
Leftist ideologies in themselves are directionless , the one think process they almost universally and totally lack is looking "down the road ". except towards and within the minds of young and youth of our education system , probably the only battleground where they actually engage effectively . The uneducated . The problem there is they have to settle on that part of the youth and uneducated that never progress' beyond a certain level of socio-political maturity . Hence the brainy ones here .
The new left in America and in this election lost ! Simple right ? ...... But no , not today ,.....what they have done now is start down this road of micro-analysis of the greatest "peoples" election system in the world . Problem is for new- liberals the "check engine light" keeps blinking and they covered it up with duct tape and it began blinking when they allowed their leadership to have rigged the entire primary election process for Hilary over all others ,THEN they collectively jumped into the sack with the media ,then and now they are standing back and watching their imploding system and can't fathom the one thing that could have happened , why ? Here 's a clue , as you stand scratching your heads and kicking the tires wondering why pseudo-intellectualism still isn't intellectualism .
You should have used the one thing that they collectively deny even exists in the world today .
Common sense .See what I mean everyone ! Its so obvious as to make a child laugh.
ahorseback: You took the bait hook, line, and sinker. It's O.K. for Trump to walk up behind Hillary in the last debate use those word while she was trying to answer questions from the audience. But when I use it, you imply that I'm some kind of a child. Doesn't that make Trump some kind of child as well?
Why did Trump get elected based on the electoral college vote? For over 30 years, the republican propaganda machine which includes Fox News, the republican congress, and now fake news sites, and twitter have been using character assassination to demean democratic administrations, and liberal causes. They have been doing this so that they can build a monolithic government where they rule everything. I must admit, this last election, they have succeeded, with them having complete control of the house and the senate. There is no longer representation by the people and a balance of power. And with the appointment of Trump's Supreme Court Justice, they will have control of the highest court in the land for many years to come.
They have character assassinated, everybody from LBJ, Kennedy, Carter, and Obama. They have put out the constant drumbeat of misinformation and the people bought it. They successfully passed Citizens United which gives voice to corporations and big moneyed interests, to the point where the people are not represented but where congress is beholden to them for funding their reelections. They have caused those who are brainwashed to vote against their own best interest, because they need their votes to stay in power.
The electoral college is based on a majority. If the candidate gets more than half of the electoral votes in a given state, the candidate gets all the remaining electoral votes in that state. In the 1700's the fastest way to move information was to write it on a piece of paper and give it to a man on a horse. Each elector took their vote to D.C. where they could get the most current information and then cast their vote based on the latest information. Today information travels at the speed of light.
In order to balance large states with small states, the EC, adjusts the smaller states to get the same equivalent votes as large states. Therefore in today's political climate, the candidates concentrate more on the the small states, because they only have to win a majority of the votes. It is easier to do that in a state that has less EC votes than one that has more. With today's technology, it is much easier to parse and massage the data and that is precisely why Trump won the electoral college. His people knew that to be the case. While Hillary's people also knew that, they didn't use it to their advantage.
New York has the largest population followed by California. After that, the population by states drops of rapidly. Therefore, the popular vote is better suited as representation of the people than the electoral college. Don't be surprised in the next election, if the same thing happens. This is a prediction from a pseudo intellectual liberal, who knows nothing, but does do the research and analysis, instead of name calling and insulting those that don't agree with them, ahorseback.
We will all bow down to the Trump empire of loyalist and family who don't know squat about running a country. Thank you electoral college, right wing congress, Fox News and right wing propaganda, and all the people who believe Trump's campaign B.S. Good luck to you, for him making good on those promises."Why did Trump get elected based on the electoral college vote?"
Well, it wasn't because of fox news, a Republican Congress, fake news sites or twitter. It was because tens of millions of people find that being ruled by an elite political aristocracy without ethics, integrity, honesty or laws is not their kettle of fish.
"New York has the largest population followed by California. After that, the population by states drops of rapidly. Therefore, the popular vote is better suited as representation of the people than the electoral college. Don't be surprised in the next election, if the same thing happens. This is a prediction from a pseudo intellectual liberal, who knows nothing, but does do the research and analysis,"
You might get with this pseudo intellectual and do some research for yourself. From 2010 Census Bureau figures, state populations:
First place goes to California, not New York, with 37,253,95
Next is Texas, not California, at 25,145,561
Third place, not first as you claim, comes New York: 19,378,102
Instead of falling off rapidly, Florida slides in barely behind NY with 18,801,310
Three more states have roughly 2/3 of Florida.
http://www.ipl.org/div/stateknow/popchart.htmlWilderness: Who do you think gave them that kettle of fish? So you think that a man who has proven that he has no ethics, integrity, or honesty ( in your words) and has zero experience in government and world affairs is going to get them out of their kettle of fish? He is surrounding himself with loyalist that think like he does. That is very dangerous for a leader of a country. Because they can fall into the trap of group think. It was the neocons and group think, that caused us to invade Iraq. There is no balance of power in group think. Everybody is afraid to disagree with the king...Trump.
From 39 million to 11 million, the population drops off rapidly in just 7 states. I have to admit my source was not current. But it still is a rapid delta in just seven states.
Please watch this video and then get back to me.
https://youtu.be/7wC42HgLA4k
Peoplepower , I don't know where to begin , you make it all so easy to just say "Tough Cookies " , there is nothing wrong with the E.C. or the election process as it is and you would have excepted that graciously had Hilary won .
That is simply how sore losers react.
Liberals , at least the ones still in shock today and obviously you still are , deserve every ounce of shock and awe that they are receiving from this election outcome . COLLECTIVELY you jumped into bed with the Hilary campaign for one , an obviously and totally -morally corrupted candidate with a long , long history of mafia like leadership and corruption , THEN you slid right into the comfort blanket among the entire mainstream media as they spiked your ideological cool-aid with 100 proof bias , slant and a venomous hatred of the right !
At the same time as that is all happening , as the Trump train is" picking up steam " from an element of anger that has been building for decades in the center , you totally ignored the TRUE platform of change that EVEN the GOP was betting against , Then you threw all the race cards , the sexist cards , the misogynist cards , the homo-phobia cards , then added the Islama-phobia , gender-phobia etc. , Finally at the end of the election you fully realized - YOUR candidate never even had a news conference for a year and a half !
It's no wonder you lost . You did it the old fashioned way , You earned it P..P. see you in four years !ahorseback: This is the fifth time that the EC has allowed 2nd place winners to become president. Two were in modern history 16 years apart. The next one will even be closer because everybody is on to how it works and how they can exploit it. All they have to do is concentrate on the smaller states, get more than 50 percent of the EC votes in those small states and it is winner take all.
Either elected a Government by the majority of it's people or don't call it a democracy under the laws of the American Constitution. White Christian males is not what Americans is all about anymore.
Or
Tell the real truth!!@America is under the Laws of the UNITED STATES CORPERATION. Your under Corporatism , not country. Your name ID is in Capitals letters that not your real name but you volunteered your life, your job, your home under Corporatism system. Your debt for life and your children too are under a privately owned Corporation bank, your not under a real country. Your employment justice system an military are the two largest Corporation in the world and their ideas of safety, rules, not your true freedom at all.
Why vote? your Corporatism Government already has pre design your Government for you. Just follow instructions every day, pay your bills and Corporatism will select your jobs. Your so called free choice are those colour of jelly beans you really like. Almost everything is a Franchises of Corporations and confederation of shopping mall , except it. Or keep fighting the faceless dictatorship ghost forever. Or my choice is to step outside the box of economy salvery.The U.S.A. was never a democracy, it's a republic.
The Constitution explains the process of electing a President. There are specific reasons for the Electoral College vs. a popular vote for choosing the President.
If the Electoral College is over turned, then the Constitution is worthless.
The Electoral College is an integral part of the checks and balances within the U.S.Then call it - USA Republic of Corporations
Don't lie or lead America in to believing democracy leads this country. Hillary could have a million public votes and couple hundred self elected representative of Corporations would have total control it anyways. If you took 10,000 Christians Americans and took 10,000 Muslims and had them vote for War. The vast majority would vote no on both sides. Now America is based on a war economy because exporting manufacturer and the US dollar is finished. Nothing else to prop up the integrity of Americans now.
I have only faith in the majority of American people say, never greedy Corporatism..Trump dose not need to file his taxes or get lobbyist to pull his string, he is under the wings of Rothschild and Rockefeller with all the money in the world. They can rip out the heart of America and replace it with a synthetic one and brand like the USSR Communist did with the same Zionist tax.
The majority of the people throughout human history are the only ones who truly have changed the world for the betterment of man. Never the greed of the few with total access to those electoral cheat booths.The only one lying is the government.
Country was always a republic, it's only the government that has lied and said it was a democracy.
If it was a republic of corporations, hillary killary would be in office.
Trump was against the corporations buying off the politicians.
It's a republic of states, that give their permission to D.C. to rule. It's NOT supposed to be that D.C. tells the states what to do.
Thus, you have the Electoral College to make sure states have a say in what goes on in D.C.
That's why the popular vote does NOT decide who wins the Presidential race.Amen! This is all explained on The Daily Stormer (www.dailystormer.com) and on Breitbart. Read them and learn.
The children of the sun shall prevail.
"...and to the Republic, for which it stands, one nation, under God..."If anyone could ever sort through all of Trumps corrupted history and all his BS, in which is worst than lying. Because BS lying dose not even care that they are lying.
If Trump's few billions can hold up bankers and Corporatism 100s of trillions. If Trump can stand up against a full house of US Zionist Congressman in which much of his family and businesses belong to.. If Trump can totally change a whole a new leaf , that all gose back to his KKK grandfather.
Then Trump's real owners of country take him to the back too and show him a film of Kennedy being shot, then ask Trump is their any questions? If Trump can hold up to all that pressure and ruthless guns, then Trump really is Thor or supernatural in real life.
I think the people will still shoot him if he rapes and murders the Lady statue of Liberty with his bare tiny hands.You're one sick dude!
Hopefully, you stay in Canada.
You ask a question, then you come up with this stuff.
You want to rant, not understand.. Typical of the forum responses.
The Electoral College has a purpose and it has succeeded in it's form to stop a despot from being put into the White House.
All the world should be thankful for that.
Trump's been a businessman for years. He's not about to shoot himself in the foot. If he was so objectionable, he would not have succeeded in business. He didn't make his billions off the government dole.
Give the guy a chance to do something before condemning him.
There are numerous people who've actually done stuff that's terrible - hillary killary, obama, bush, bill "the sex addict" clinton. Get irate at them.
Let Trump get started and then decide.Frankly, I am glad that he is here and weighs in. We are gonna all call your latest autocratic dictator to account. Were gonna have protests and demonstrations that will make the sixties look like a funeral parlor, in comparison. It is gonna be a great time to be alive, have to look at the bright side...
The real owners own all politicians and major media and their minds, yes it is deeply sick for the people. Only about 80% majority of the consciousness of the people can be the true Savior of Americans, never the hierarchy of the few. The only way I can imagine is by war by civil and World war. When and by then, the Americans will get too sick of the abuse.
My records show no harm and honesty to a fault (working on that one) IF this is a sick individual, then I wish to stay sick by moving to Bolivia because US will drag Canada down with them.The illusion that 'the people' know what is going on is seriously distorted. Even those who do kind of know 'what's going on' - don't, really. The scary thing is that the people who DO know what is going on have their own special agenda designed to benefit THEM (whatever that is).
Until Americans start realizing how profitable these deep divisions are (in a few different ways); and that ALL of us are subject to various forms of manipulation to ensure a continuing divide - there will be no semblance of unity, here. Too many of us have been driven 'right' or 'left' with not nearly enough of us marching down the middle.
The chasm that exists through both America & The World is a lot more simple than most people realize. Christians & ex-Christians Prove God Exists by Debunking Salvation: Science & Spirituality Reveal the Real Jesus. Look it up. There is no apocalypse for people to base a vote on that next time. No more voting on fake hype, fake news or fake fear. Pay attention.
There's a reason for the Electoral College and it did what it was supposed to do.
You don't like it, well, this is what allows you to post the way you do.
Appreciate it for what it is instead of whining about the freedoms you have.You didn't even read what I wrote, you're just one of my least favorite trolls who enjoys stalking me and being proven wrong over and over again - unable to accept an intelligent debate with a woman who obviously knows a whole lot more than you are willing to admit. All of Trump's supporters WANTED the electorial college abandoned until it won the election for him. Hypocrits. Trump's fans are as flip-floppy as he is.
Where am I proven wrong on the Electoral College?
Who said I wanted the Electoral College banned?
The problem you have is what you say makes no sense.
I can't help it if you don't have a clue of what you're talking about.
You're the one not accepting the results - I'm fine with them.
What's your problem, darlin'?
Can't put a couple sentences together that make sense when facts are looked at?
If you can't do that, maybe you shouldn't post on the forums.
If you want to use facts and logic, then you'll lose because you platform doesn't stand up to facts and logic.
I don't troll you, i get notified, just like you when there's a response on things I follow.
I just don't let silly liberal logic go untouched like they do in government and the media.
Your name calling may stop others from showing how illogical you are and that you don't use facts, but it doesn't bother me - call me all the names you want.
If you put forth illogical, biased and untruthful posts in the forums, I will respond.
Have a happy Thanksgiving with your "loving, compassionate" people that are spouting hate in the streets.
CheersAgreed! That stupid liberal logic is fully exposed on The Daily Stormer. We need to take back this country from the forces who are keeping us disunited. The global cabal is one. BLM is another. Protestors are another. Were there riots in the street when Obama won? Of course not.
Hail, Trump!Daily Stormer makes clear that there will be no coddling for all those protesters and demonstrators this time under the new regime, now the truncheon is king and the gulag will be their new home.
Hear and Obey,
Hail, Trump!!"We need to take back this country from the forces who are keeping us disunited. The global cabal is one. BLM is another. Protestors are another."
Oh, no! The alt-right is trying to take my song and screech it out. It doesn't work from your end. You are on the side that is worshipping this 'divide' and sucking life out of this country. As I recall, there were right-wing protests. Anyone else remember The Tea Party?
The reasons why you didn't see these protests in 2008 was because 1) Obama WON both the popular & electorial vote; AND 2) the majority of people were RELIEVED to have the GOP war regime OUT of there. Plus, 3) people weren't nearly as concerned about Obama having a 'hateful disposition' meant to intentionally stir up hard feelings among our DIVERSE population AND the entire world.
Also, 4) Obama had the 'book knowledge' and some political experience to do the job. We may have elected 'someone unusual'; but we didn't elect an irresponsible, hate-spewing FEAR-mongerer. Obama & Hillary have both been quite gracious losers. The other side (the ones who write & read your new favorite sites) were threatening us with GUNS if they lost. You should ALL be grateful for peace-loving, protesting liberals.
For 8 yrs, GOP made it clear that they do not respect our votes; by trying to convince everyone that Government is bad bcuz of us EVIL ‘elitists’ (your NORMAL American neighbors) - WHILE painting themselves as 'abused’. They refused to work across partisan divides on budgets, immigration laws, jobs programs, climate change, tax reform, energy, etc - AND had a majority, yet Obamacare exists. Citizens became angry with a stalled country; while GOP continued to blame Obama & those who voted for him.
Nasty women were calling Trump racist & misogynistic BEFORE the election for divisive-hype reasons. Trump needs to say & do something ELSE to unite us beyond using the SAME lame, hateful rhetoric that somehow got him there. I actually forced myself to watch Trump's latest 'Thanksgiving Address'. Did anyone else who didn't vote for him believe him? He seems to have a weird idea that since he won, the nation is now united - and even funnier, he seems to think that we should all back him up. Without so much as an apology to anyone.
Also, most men have been misogynistic toward Hillary for a long time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrcQeFl76cg Most women (except white Christians) were able to separate her from Bill’s scandals; and could see that the ones she DID participate in weren’t NEARLY as incriminating as any other male politician before her.
Hillary worked in a male-dominated culture WHILE 'being a lady' – and failed miserably against Trump, a good ‘ol locker room pal with a hot-head, fear-mongering, cocaine-mentality and practically NO experience in politics. Plus, he obviously knows how to use his big businesses to rip people off & evade taxes.
Misogyny is also why many Bernie voters (and other white men who would normally have voted Democrat) rejected Hillary. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEoWSaM61NI Its not just GOP men. This is what really sickens women. We expect this attitude from the disoriented right-wing.
How do I know that I'm right about all this? Because other 'groups' beyond white men had EVERY REASON to be JUST as ANGRY as anyone else about anything; and yet we found it in our hearts to vote fair between both Trump & Hillary.
Fixing things is simple - Christians & ex-Christians Prove God Exists by Debunking Salvation: Science & Spirituality Reveal the Real Jesus Christ. Look it up. There IS NO APOCALYPSE for anyone to base a vote on that next time. No more voting on HYPE, fake news or fake fear.
I almost allowed Trump humiliation personally to turn my unique artists into union artists. Like the other artists that must promote sex and violences or they don't make the top grossing movies of all time or pro wrestlers for megalomaniacs. At least Trump did not fire me where Bush did fire me completely from the US for refusing him of a war sculpture.
+1
(He said he is moving to Bolivia. So, thats good.)Like Bush you voted for Trump, you now must live with the huge cluster Mr F. mess coming. In 4 years if your alive, let's compare notes on who made the sickest or worst choice. I prodictated in the pass a selection both Republican would be selected. Most likely they will attempt to steal this internet of our free speech. Snowden knows that story.
From personally dealing with both of them, and the inescapable trapped US is in, I already know I am the winner. My predictions have never lie to me, and they speak from the heart and the universe. Trump will BS, lie and harm you more ways than you can imagine. Shame on me if allow twice, lucky no pass regrets. If you allow this regret in your future, you did not learn a thing from the Bush experience X ten.Actually, obama is the worst president for information.
He's denied a record number of freedom of Information requests for the last 2 years and is on track to break another record this year.
obama is the one talking about shutting down "fake' news site, as he leads the American Government in the biggest lies I can remember in watching politics for 40 years.
Trump dressed down the mass media, as he should have, for being so biased during the election. Wikileaks did what journalists in America used to do.
And who's demonstrating in the streets saying they don't want to abide by the laws of the U.S.? Is it the Alt-right or is it the snowflakes that make up the demoncrap party?
If you'd pay attention to the lies, it's coming from the demoncraps, not from Trump.
But, that doesn't fit your agenda - so, sorry to confuse you with the facts.
CheersYes Obama is worst and Trump will take it way beyond.
Kennedy was the only real President and Bill Clinton was not half bad. Although don't except BJ for a sound reason for impeachment.
There is very good reason many intelligence Americans are leaving America. Many selling everything and running, no sense running
to the bank too late. Better to have gold in hand than to have debt you did not know about because of war.Really, leave? THAT'S your advice? No, we just need to realize HOW & WHY we are so divided; and then ALL of us need to get a grip. All hope is NOT lost. We have every reason to stay and fight for our country. I'd like to think that it is only a small minority of us who are such cowards. You seriously underestimate people in general, Castle. Money isn't everything; and this country isn't new. We've been through LOTS of really ugly things together. Tweeking things in a democracy for the general benefit of everyone takes time, especially with a constantly evolving citizenship.
Leaving ain't a big deal.
Just get in a car or a bus and head south or north.
Same jobs are available as in the U.S.A.
Never said hope was lost, just tired of listening to idiots complain about how they want more socialism and less freedom. It's beyond my understanding.
Want to get along - stop calling other people bigots, white supremacist or white nationalists.
Stop trying to force beliefs down other people throats. If they want to believe a certain way, let 'em. That's what freedom is all about.
Would be nice to stop stealing American peoples money too.
"Tweaking" for a republic is allowing people freedom to do, think and behave the way they'd like too.
It's not accomplished by passing laws that force people to behave a particular way.
America was founded on the rights of the individual, not the community or the government. Give people the freedom to be who they want to be.
Why should the government be involved in marriage?
Why should the government be involved in the medical field - telling doctors what's legal and what's not? As in why make abortions legal or not legal - what business is it of government?
What difference does it make if a restaurant wants to allow smoking? If you don't like smoke, don't eat there.
Lets not have the government pass 15 new laws or regulations per day, every day for decades to come - lets just stop enacting or putting out new laws. Why don't we try that for a few years?
America is about freedom - tweek more freedoms my way and I could get behind that!
Have a happy turkey day
Cheers"tired of listening to idiots complain about how they want more socialism and less freedom. It's beyond my understanding." And yet, you go on about how 'people should be able to believe what they want'... And second, that's NOT what we want. You refuse to hear anything beyond, "I'm paying for someone else's medical care." Us stupid 'elitists' fork the money out so that it doesn't cost us more, later; and again - many of these people (including many homeless) actually HAVE jobs but can barely afford rent, much less healthcare. Btw, many are veterans who don't have nearly the support that they need (because of GOP stinginess); and there are far too many families. You don't have to care about them, but stop being mad at people like me who do.
However, this was just about the most reasonable post I've seen you write, OG. For once, you did not sound like a 'bigots, white supremacist or white nationalists' - so WHY do you insist on acting like one? Trump didn't run on those things; and he sure as hell isn't going to bring them. The GOP is as big on red tape as the Dems are. We need a third strong party FOR the people. Its happened before. As I recall, that's how the Republican Party got started.
FYI, I'm not trying to get anyone to 'believe' anything other than what they already believe. Its just that we all know how much fear is wound up in the right-wing Christian fabric of this country; and the GOP keep taking advantage of that. I'm pretty sure that if we based our votes on something OTHER than fear (especially since it is so unfounded) - we might make better collective decisions. The hub I keep promoting actually promotes diversity - including Christianity; and it was written months ago specifically for this reason: to diminish arguments between atheists & dogma-embracing Christians who simply CAN'T let each other believe & live however they want.
While I wouldn't exactly call it a success that we semi-agree on something, perhaps there is a glimmer of hope. Happy Turkey Day to you, too!
Every dark empire all come to an end. The vast majority of American know things will get much worst, yet don't have a clue what to do. I have prepare for this time for 5 years. Pretty well, all top economist and even Trump himself predicted a US economy collapse. That would mean to an empire, civil war/world war and wars are unjust. I have confronted every possibility to move people toward the source of the problem. Yet they rather fight or be abuse by the real owners of US. Rather than switch to solutions that would work. No sense beating a dead horse then catch a deadlly dieses from the dead horse. I think I can convince some of family to come with me. If the rest of the family want to jump off a Cliff. It would not be brave to jump off with them, but rather stupid.
Why the hell are you in here? Is this 'your part' in all this? Do you consider it to be your DESTINY to WARN us? Are you a BIG, SMART MAN of the world spewing this hopeless bullsh*t - WHILE claiming to be more 'enlightened' than us stupid Americans?! Read a couple more books or go mediate in Bolivia, you're not quite there, yet.
misfit,
As you write, you contradict yourself. This is why it's so difficult to get through to you.
You talk of tolerance, then call me an "elitist", I'm no such thing. Don't think I'm better nor worse than anyone else.
Do this - stop with the big government. Big government causes problems, never solves them
Stop telling me about the "good" for the community.
Have the government stop telling me how to live, what "morals" I need to have.
Tax me less, let me decide what I want to do with my money.
Have government live within a budget. If they can't do that, then kick 'em out and get a new group in.
obama has almost doubled the national debt in 8 years in office.
obama ahs turned down a record number of freedom of information requests for the last 2 years, and is on pace to set another record this year.
You can't hide information from the citizens and at the same time expect them to make intelligent decisions. obama has been nothing but a conman for the last 8 years.
Sum it up - leave me the frick alone. I'll do the same for you.
Limited government - stop spying on all the citizens, stop telling me what to do in all aspects of my life, stop stealing my money by taxing me.
You take less of my money, stop spying on me, and stop with all the regulations, we'll get along just fine.
Government doesn't do that, then whether it's a demoncrap, republitard or some peacenik 3rd party, then Houston, we'll have a problem
He's in Canada,
Nothing to do but pay attention to the neighbors.
But, thank God for the Electoral College!! LOL
Cheers
Also liberals have to remember that popular votes were intended for voters that are actually alive and also not intended for bus loads of serial voters.
The purpose of the electoral college was to prevent mob rule which changes according to the whims of the biggest majority. Senators should not be elected by popular vote either which is why we have such problems with career politicians, (who become corrupt over time) who are voted in by the dumb, rather than the wise. In the past, (before the 17th amendment,) U.S. Senators were elected by representatives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeen … nstitutionWho gets to decide who is dumb and who is wise?
We have the words of people who were in the room. In the Records of the Federal Convention, James Madison, who was in favor of a popular vote, recorded:
"There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections."
So the EC system was the one most likely to be agreed by the South. It was politics.what was the actual problem do you suppose?
The lack of influence the South would have with a popular vote system due to the fact that so many of the population were slaves, so could not vote. That's what Madison means when he says:
"The right of suffrage was much more diffusive 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, we are a republic of states and the constitution reflects that fact. Each state wants the same "voice" as any other.
No, I think it goes deeper than that, as brought forth by the first democrats in the south.
"From 1854, when the Republican Party was founded, Democrats labeled its adherents "black" Republicans to identify them as proponents of black equality. During the 1860 elections Southern Democrats used the term derisively to press their belief that Abraham Lincoln's victory would incite slave rebellions in the South and lead to widespread miscegenation. The image the term conveyed became more hated in the South during Reconstruction as Radical Republicans forced legislation repugnant to Southerners and installed Northern Republicans or Unionists in the governments of the former Confederate states.
Source: "Historical Times Encyclopedia of the Civil War"
Radical Republicans
The Republican party in 1861 was a coalition of disparate elements. Formed only 7 years earlier, it contained men who had been Whigs, Anti-Slavery Democrats, Free-Soilers, Know-Nothings, and Abolitionists. By the outbreak of the war, these fragments had coalesced into 3 basic factions: conservatives, moderates, and radicals. President Abraham Lincoln's task was to mold these factions into a government that could win the war without destroying the South politically and economically.
The most aggressive and, eventually, most influential of the three was the Radical Republican faction. All Republicans were against slavery, but this group was the most "radical", in its opposition to the "peculiar institution." While conservatives favored gradual emancipation combined with colonization of Freedmen, and while moderates favored emancipation but with reservations, Radicals favored immediate eradication of an institution they viewed as iniquitous, and saw the war as a crusade for 'Abolition.' "
FROM http://www.civilwarhome.com/republicans.htmlIt does; several big names of the day commented that the common man must not be able to control who runs the country. Elitism, in other words.
But the primary objective was protection of the minority - the constitution is full of it. The makeup of the Senate, and there IS a Senate. The first amendment. The 4th, 7th and 8th amendments. Heck, most of the bill of rights.As I caught it, it was that the EC was created to protect the rights and lifestyle of the smaller states in the South. While it did accomplish that (to some extent, anyway) I'm not sure that there was enough anti-slavery sentiment at that point in our history to assign that as a cause.
In The Federalist # 10 James Madison deals with the topic of the "violence of factions" and their propensity toward "dangerous vice …"
Not too many people know that, Kathryn.
Good on ya for knowing about the history of America.
So refreshing when someone actually looks at the past for facts!
Good job on presenting why things are the way they are!!
Have a happy turkey day!happy turkey day to you too!
worth repeating:
<The purpose of the electoral college was to prevent mob rule which changes according to the whims of the biggest majority. Senators should not be elected by popular vote either which is why we have such problems with career politicians, (who become corrupt over time) who are voted in by the dumb, rather than the wise. In the past, (before the 17th amendment,) U.S. Senators were elected by representatives.>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeen … nstitution
Well, Hillary seemed pretty clueless and incompetent as Secretary of State eg Benghazi, how to operate a smartphone without compromising National Security etc etc, so it should really come as no surprise she didnt know how the Electoral College works.
Excerpt of Paper #10 revised for modern understanding by KLH:
* How can we secure the public good and private rights against the danger of a tyrannical faction?
1. By preventing the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time?
No.
2. By rendering the majority, (which have coexistent passion / interest,) unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression by
1. Their number ?
2. Their local situation?
Yes.
Reasoning:
*If the impulse and opportunity coincide, we know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate controls. Moral and religious motives are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number of people combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful. (think protesters)
A pure democracy, ("a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person,") cannot prevent the mischiefs of faction because a common passion / interest (purpose) will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole. This communication and concert (power) of the whole result(s) from the form of government (democracy) itself and there is nothing to check the willingness of the whole to sacrifice a weaker party or "obnoxious" individual.
"Such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention and are incompatible with personal security or the rights of property. They are as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." READ ~> "Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions."
A republic, ("a government in which the scheme of representation takes place,") however, promises the cure for which we are seeking:
Republic:
1.) The delegation of the government to a small number of citizens elected by the rest. The effect of #1. is to refine and enlarge public viewpoints, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be the LEAST likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations.
READ ~> "Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose."
2.) The greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended. The effect of #2. may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal. It is clearly decided in favor of an extended republic.*The electoral college is a body of chosen representatives and we just have to trust the system.
- ahorsebackposted 8 years ago0
One , The electoral college is the hero of the left when it works only for them ? I don't care how many million votes get counted , your hero lost !
Two , Trumps "racism" , is just a fallacy of the left that is proven if you can read anything outside of the liberal junk mail media bias .?
Three , Trump is the quintessential outsider that your liberal party only dreams of in those like Sanders , He will change Washington to equal only that which is dreamt of by democrat leadership help , or not !
Are you still THAT sore about Hilary's loss , guess what , she lost ?ahorseback: I don't have to read, all anybody has to do is watch the videos of his campaigns starting with the primaries and going up until now. They have been recorded for all the world to see and hear. It is not a fallacy it is fact.
You are like the parent who is partial to your child even though everybody else knows your child is a bad seed, you say little Johnny is a good boy. You and everybody who believes him are in denial. So you buy everything the man says. He puts down Romney in the worst way showing him choking and then saying if I told him to drop to his knees, he would. Now Trump is considering him for a position. This was just today.
What credibility does a person have who implies he has so much control over his opponent he would drop to his knees and give him oral sex? Don't tell me that isn't what he was implying. Now Romney comes crawling back to Trump. How can anybody trust anything that either side says anymore. Trump has created a new normal where what is true is only for that moment in time. Tomorrow that same situation might be false. Trump calls it Truthful Hyperbole, Trump's words not mine.
I accept that Hillary lost. I'm more concerned about what Trump's character and values and belief system are. He becomes enraged if anybody insults him, even in a satirical way. He will come after you, Freedom of Speech be dammed. He already went after the play Hamilton and the show Saturday Night Live. He will continue to tweet insulting things about them until something else distracts him.Petulance , that's all I can say to ALL Trump protesting , Where were they when Hilary was stuffing 600 million dollars of State Dept. money in somebodies pockets ? I am still amazed that you and so many worry more about the 'possibility ' of Trumps future problems and totally ignored a perfect ' record 'of Hilary's abuses . Yet you still try to paint Trump as evil .
Well, you know, the principle of one man-one vote works for me, too. The damnable right wing community would be screaming against the Electoral College now had Clinton won. Now, we go into this sappy stuff from them about how it needs to be protected.
Clinton won by almost 1.5 million popular votes, just how much a disparity between the popular vote tally between the winner and loser, yet the award goes to those that support the candidate having fewer votes, are we prepared to accomodate? That is why 'His Accidency's administration and mandate to govern is tainted with doubt and non support. Gore only won the popular vote by about 500,000 votes. Both times in the modern age, this disparity have benefitted the GOP.
Continuing to give the candidate receiving the lesser of the vote tally the victory on ever more frequent occasions is not acceptable, unless tyranny is ok by you as long as it eminates from the right?
California has signed the contract for the National Popular Vote Movement. Your electors will be voting for Clinton. Nine other states have also passed this contract in both houses of their government.
Had Cali gone republican, do you think the libs would still have asked their electors to set aside their ethics and their pledges and vote for Clinton? Do you know if the state voided the law on faithless electors, or would ignoring their pledge and changing those votes have been illegal?
I think the electoral college is becoming inherently unfair. The difference between the popular vote between Clinton and Trump are a considerably percentage higher then it was in 2000 between Gore and Clinton. How much more extreme must it get before something needs to be done?
But in spite of all this, we have to follow the rules regardless where they lead and avoid upsetting the apple cart that is our current system. However, I will be first to stand in line for needed reforms to take place between now and before the next election cycle.
- ahorsebackposted 8 years ago0
Democrats would do very well to eliminate the corruption from their own DNC , their primary was all but totally corrupt and admittedly so ,their choice of a winner was THE most corrupt individual ever to run for president , it seems foolish to try reinventing a working national system when you can't even run your own house without total and obvious corruption ! I suggest you ask Sen. Sanders !
Are you cognizant? The whole theme here has that it has not been working.
ahorseback: The difference between Trump and Hillary is that Trump's lies, denials, sex, finances, scams and fraud have all been documented for the world to see as pure unadulterated fact. Hillary on the other hand has been accused of everything from murder to jeopardizing our national security. However, the key word here is accused. The only thing she is guilty of is a careless handling of her email. If all the other accusations are true, then why isn't there any proof? Oh I know she has the DOJ on her side. That's why the head of the FBI threw her under the bus with the wikileak information, so Trump could use it against Hillary.
Jason Chaffetz, the Head of the Oversight committee that started the Hillary investigations, said that if Hillary were elected, he has enough material to keep her in investigation mode for another four years. They want her to wear the badge of guilty until proven innocent which they never will allow, even thought she has been cleared of all charges on Benghazi and the email. Chaffets, says that is not enough, the people deserve more.
If you would have done real fact checking about Hillary instead of being brainwashed by right wing propaganda and fake news sites, you would realize this was all a conspiracy by the GOP to keep her out of the White House. They had too much to lose, if she got in. Instead what they have now is a monolithic congress that is all one sided where everybody uses Group Thinking, which is very dangerous for the country. In addition, they will also control the Supreme Court.
You have great expectations from a man who lies and then denies that he lied almost every time he opens his mouth. This is done for all the world to see as facts, not opinion, and not fallacy. His association with the Alt-Right and their association with the KKK and neo NAZI movement is frightening to say the least. He now has real conflicts of interest with his global investments and the presidency.
Allow me to set the record straight AGAIN in here:
First, Bernie - who jumped onto the Dem ticket since he knew he couldn't win under his own 'Independent' party (pretty much in the same way that Trump hijacked the GOP) are NOT going to have as easy of a time winning the next election as they think they will; because it is largely THEIR fault as much as any other white male that this 'White Nationalist' crap was allowed to revamp. I'm guessing most millenials are clueless about Christian militants. Well now they get to learn all about them!!
‘Let’s go, Democrats. I’ll kill you all.’ This is where we’re at. Have you ever thrown a pop can away instead of recycling it in front of a liberal? LoL! Don't underestimate them.
For 8 yrs, GOP made it clear that they do not respect the vote; by trying to convince everyone that Gov is bad bcuz of us EVIL ‘elitists’ (your NORMAL American neighbors) - WHILE painting themselves as ‘the abused’. They refused to work across partisan divides on budgets, immigration laws, jobs programs, climate change, tax reform, energy, etc - AND had a majority, yet Obamacare exists. Citizens became angry with a stalled country; while GOP continued to blame Obama & those who voted for him.
Nasty women were calling Trump racist & misogynistic BEFORE the election for divisive-hype reasons. Trump needs to say & do something ELSE to unite us beyond using the SAME lame, hateful rhetoric that somehow got him there.
Also, most men are misogynistic toward Hillary for DECADES. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrcQeFl76cg Most women (except white Christians) were able to separate her from Bill’s scandals; and could see that the ones she DID participate in weren’t NEARLY as incriminating as any other male politician before her.
Hillary worked in a male-dominated culture WHILE 'being a lady' – and failed miserably against Trump, a good ‘ol locker room pal with a hot-head, fear-mongering, cocaine-mentality and practically NO experience in politics. Plus, he obviously knows how to use his big businesses to rip people off & evade taxes.
Misogyny is also why many Bernie voters rejected Hillary. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEoWSaM61NI Its not just GOP men. This is what really sickens us women. We expect this attitude from the disoriented right-wing.
How do I know that I'm right about all this? Because other 'groups' beyond white men had EVERY REASON to be JUST as ANGRY as anyone else about anything; and yet, we somehow managed to find it in our hearts to vote fairly between both Trump & Hillary.
The chasm is a lot simpler than most people realize: Christians & ex-Christians Prove God Exists by Debunking Salvation. http://hub.me/akagx There IS NO APOCALYPSE for anyone to base a vote on that next time. No more voting on fake fear.
Misogyny is also why many Bernie voters rejected Hillary. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEoWSaM61NI Its not just GOP men. This is what really sickens us women. We expect this attitude from the disoriented right-wing.
How do I know that I'm right about all this? Because other 'groups' beyond white men had EVERY REASON to be JUST as ANGRY as anyone else about anything; and yet, we somehow managed to find it in our hearts to vote fairly between both Trump & Hillary.
-----------------------------------------------------
I beg to differ that misogyny was the reason why HC did not win. I voted for Hillary as by far as the lesser of two undesirable candidates. I was keen on Sanders because he represented the direction I believed the party needed to go which he substantiated through his word, his record and his current actions. This has nothing to do with the fact he was male. HC ignored Sanders' supporters for the most part and reluctantly threw them a bone while instead cowtowing to moderate Republicans who could never be serious allies for progressive principles. By having someone like Paine as her running mate,she decided to go' wall street' instead of main street. Many of us has wished that she would have picked an integrity keeper and firebrand for the working class like Liz Warren. Such a move would have been a significant compromise for the Sandernistas, perhaps enough to had made a difference at the polls in this last election. She made the mistake of taking things for granted and being presumptuous assuming that rather than have Trump as President, Sandernistas would line up behind her. But most simply did not vote at all. She failed to read the 'tea leaves' which were clear and quite obvious for most of us.
Racism is a factor that explains Trump's success with whites and white men in particular. How else can you explain someone so outlandish having the level of success that he has had? Otherwise, would not the greivances that Trump claimed that he would correct in society appeal over a broader cross section of the demographic?
- ahorsebackposted 8 years ago0
The above charts a beautiful one but look at the reflection of it from eight years ago ! Did anyone whine when Obama won with 90% of eligible black voters voting for him , did you see riots , crying in the streets ? Racism doesn't play into Trumps victory , get over it ! Everyone [ different ethnicities ]voted for him and the system worked as it should have .
Stop whining !
This was the only alternative , Blame only yourselves .I don't except these elections to be fair when the powers to be, rigged everything electronical in peoples lives of services. Mainly Americans are programed on how to think and even in school on What to think. Very few are free thinkers.
That's where you are always wrong Castle , The last free thinkers in the world are Americans , right and left , One , that is exactly why everyone is dying to get into America . And Two , that is why those who self exile can never get over their sloppy exodus and suffer life long patriotic hangovers , Three , everyone who DOES get in trys to manipulate it to their own agenda .
Isn't America great ?I have been to the old USSR and US has taken that progressively beyond in Corperation Communist and war economy rule world wide. You have been Program since a child that America is the Greatest country in the world while US Government keeps stealing your freedoms away. You would only know horse if you have had traveled the all the Continent like I have throughout 54 years.
ahorseback and all you other Trump believers out there: This morning news read:"Trump will not pursue Clinton investigation." She was made to look like the devil incarnate with "lock her up and "put her in front of a firing squad." He ruined her political career, so that he could be President. He also planted the seed in the minds of many Trump believers that will never change their minds about this women. She will always be crooked Hillary
Why did he change his mind, because he is guilty of all the global conflict of interests that he claimed the Clinton's are and he doesn't want to be investigated. It would show the world what a hypocrite and con man this guy really is.
Now I'm going to play the conservative republican mind game. It is called "What if." What if he reneges on all of his promises? He has already softened his position on Obama Care and the Wall. What if he doesn't make good on many other pledges? How are you going to feel? What if he can't bomb the sh*t out of ISIS?
http://reut.rs/2fl68hQ via @ReutersTrump death threats don't scare Snowden. Snowden says he is just a President, and he says nothing since elected.
Trump got his eye on the lady Status of Liberty since she is not 10 like his wife, he says she more of 4 or 5. I would rate a gargoyle at a 5 Liberty has far more characters and meaning for Americans than Trump will ever have along with his Zionist Congress too, who he can't rip apart neither.
ISIS is one sure thing because US is ISIS along with false flag and fake jews. US must blame and point to someone else for the collapses of America.Trump a least admits to a bubble ready to burst and America will go bankrupt and he God oh mighty will make a deal and save the day. Not the run on the banks or the war that America can not afford, just that day as the phony press will be with him this time.
Oh, forgot Mexican won't pay for the wall because both will be broke when Trump ruins America.Peoplepower , First , Trump isn't to blame for crooked Hilary , Keep in mind if she isn't charged now - before O mans done , Obama cannot pardon her after his term ! Quite frankly if you can't see how she ruined her own career , you are very naïve !
"What if "? Trump won't make it through four years if he doesn't drain the swamp !
Still the sore loser huh ?ahorseback: Still blaming the wrong people? Trump branded Hillary with that name. He brands all of the people who don't agree with his delusional world. So now he says "leave Hillary alone." Then you think as soon as Obama is gone, he is going to prosecute her? Isn't that misleading the public, by lying?
He is not draining the swap, he is filling it with "business as usual water." You can't accept that he used Hilary and all the other people he demeaned as tools to gain what he wanted. Why does he want Mitt Romney back? It is all political theater for him, but he does not suffer the consequences of what he creates or even take responsibility for it.
Sorry to disappoint you, but he is not bringing jobs back, because labor is cheaper off shore and corporations will not allow their bottom line to be affected by higher wages in this country. Most manufacturing and assembly line jobs in this country have been taken over by automation and robots. That's why Detroit is out of work.
And you call me naive. Take off your rose colored glasses and see the world for what it is, globalization and an ever changing and ever improving technology that gives corporations and big moneyed interest a bigger bottom line. I'm not a sore loser, I see Trump for what he really is and that concerns me. Trump's behavior and character have been recorded for all the world to see. Trump's character is toxic and the rest of the world and half of this country know it. The other half of this country is naive, just like you are, and believes everything he said in his campaigns will come to fruition.Peoplepower , It IS SO sad to experience people of your age as naïve as you are , I gave up long ago trying to figure out where the socio- political maturity development level of the left failed , perhaps it was your soft government service and entitlement paychecks , perhaps simply your P.C. driven Obama love affair , either way , the last eight years of socialism's failure to get a jump start in America has left you and those like you direly in need of aroma therapy , cute huggie bears , warm milk and safe spaces to lick your collective wounds .
Guess what , Its Trumps turn and the rights turn too ! Sit back , get yourself a emotion therapy latté and watch what happens when anything BUT a neighborhood social reformer runs the country !ahorseback: Yes it is sad, but not for the reasons you stated. It is sad that the people who believe in Trump's promises and pledges are angry right now because he is not going to lock up Hillary. It blows my mind to think people actually put stock in what he says. It is sad that they have been conned by a master con man and they don't even realize it. Even the Evangelicals betrayed their values and beliefs systems to put faith in this man.
http://a.msn.com/01/en-us/AAkDgNV?ocid=stYou want sad? Here's sad - when a college of advanced learning takes down the American flag because of the temper tantrums of it's students.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 … fter-dona/
Our rights will all be threatened under Trump. This nationalistic attitude is dangerous. The people who say Hail Trump is too close to Heil Hitler for my tastes. White nationalists are on the rise. That's ultra un-American.
Don't let the horsey lecture you about naivety. He is locked in an eternal right wing feedback loop.
Reminds me of 'Hail Hinkel' from the classic Charlie Chaplin film, The Great Dictator (1940) with our current real character almost as ridiculous as the one Chaplin portrayed in the film. It is good for a laugh or two, just like Trump. You will have to see it sometime.Thanks, Credence! I'll have to check it out. The Trumpster would be good for a laugh, too, if his ideas weren't so scary. I'll have to check out Chaplin!
From Black Lives Manifesto - "We are committed to disrupting the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another."
Sorry, this ain't my goal, nor the goal of most people. If you want to support a group that wants to "disrupt the Western prescribed nuclear family" I would suggest going someplace else.
Now, I have not heard that from Trump. He's said he wants to make America great again for ALL people.
I prefer that vs. an enemy of the country that's found in Black Lives Matter, which is supported by Soros, hillary killary clinton and obama.
I'll take the "white nationalist" over a group that wants to destroy America any day of the week.
Look at actions, don't look at words.
The actions of Black Lives Matter, the support they get from Soros, obama and hillary killary clinton are much more dangerous to me, because their actions show me their hatred towards the fundamental values of most people in America.
The only actions I've seen from Trump so far is forming a group of people - blacks, women and men - that seem to want what's best for Americans.
They're not laundering money through a foundation, they're not being exposed as corrupt by Wikileaks, they're not supporting a Muslim sect that vows to blow up America .
What they are saying is they want to put America first, they want trade deals that are fair for Americans, that they want to stop the politicians, like hillary killary, reid, pelosi, cruz, the bush family from lining their pockets with money while in government positions.
I like those concepts vs. what obama has been touting for the last 8 years.
If that makes me a "white nationalist" for wanting what's good for America, so be it.
Much better than those that want to destroy the very fabric that made America what it is today - a place where you and I can share a conversation and not be worried about the police coming to arrest one of us because we think differently.
Again, I'll take that over obama's and hillary killary's way of thinking any day of the weekYou are worried about the Non-Existent Alt-right we hear so much about , The rights of Americans under conservative presidents are always advanced , never neglected . Do not believe all that Marxist crap .
A marching mass of white folks makes my hair stand on end. Giving them a hug can get you beaten, or a wet white sugar-ed by coke.
California signed a contract as did nine other states.
We actually have the EC because our founding fathers had the foresight to try to protect us from an unqualified populist candidate. This time, it didn't work.
- ahorsebackposted 8 years ago0
So many will never understand the ideology of cities and crowds , larger cities would elect the president every time . High population areas alone , democratic to a tee , would elect democratic presidents EVERY time . The E.C. was designed to protect STATES equally within the nation . Not the peoples popular vote . I wonder when will Americans ever read a book again , read a few , become enlightened , become knowledgeable to this election process .
In a popular election only ;
-New York city
-Chicago
-San Francisco
-Dallas
-New Orleans ,
Would determine the outcome of elections -EVERY time . That's okay with liberals I'm sure ! This is a very hard problem, we need to think more about it. is there any chance for us? ideology is wrong for all, but what we can do?
I'm sure that many feel incredible disappointment in this loss , first , that's perfectly normal .Second and more important is when one makes the exception of investing emotionally in a political election , ? That , as I'm very sure a lot of young people have, is neither healthy nor normal.
There is however No systematic failure to correct ! I's an election , unfortunately it divided families , friends , fathers from daughters , etc...... We move on , we learn from it , we study , we evolve and as we evolve some of us even change . The new liberal today , believe it or not , becomes even the possibility of the conservative of tomorrow.
Your premise is wrong - we are not a democracy we are a republic, here in the good ol' U.S.A.
Propaganda leads you to believe that we are a democracy. Understand first and foremost that we are NOT a democracy. We do not decide things by popular vote. Contrary to the propaganda that's pushed on us daily by the U.S. Government.
Democracy - control of an organization or group by the majority of its members.
We are and have always been a Republic - a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.
The founders were wise men. They did not believe that the majority should decide the choice of President, but the majority of States should decide who was President.
This was one of the checks and balances that the founders used to limit the power of the Federal Government.
They knew, even back in the 1700's, that the large, populated areas could force the majority of states to adhere to beliefs and laws that were unwanted in the majority of States.
For example - let's look at the 13 colonies.
Most of the North had the large cities and the southern states had smaller populations.
So, if the popular vote was used for deciding the Presidential Election, 4 states from the north could sway the Presidential election to someone that the other 9 states didn't want. The founders thought this was unfair.
Hence, each state was given a certain number of "Electoral Representatives", and this balanced the power between the highly populated states and those states with a lower population.
The founders felt the the individual states needed a fair representation in the Presidential Election, not just based on the total population of the states. The Electoral College was their solution to the problem as they saw it.
Here are the priorities of rights as seen by the founders.
1) Individual rights were paramount. The state nor the federal government could infringe on those rights.
2) States rights - the Federal Government could not infringe on the rule of law within states.
3) The Federal Government was allowed to rule because of the states and the individuals that made up that particular state.
When that Federal Government overstepped it's limitations, the states could succeed from the Union. Yes, this was felt to be true, and this was one of the reasons for the Civil War. (Most of the Confederate States had no voice in electing Lincoln into office - he was never on the ballot)
This is why Lincoln didn't just conquer the Confederacy, he destroyed the southern states - burning down factories, tearing up the rail system and burning cities to the ground.
He wanted to make sure that the southern states never had enough power to break away from the Union again. He was the first American terrorist.
From that point forward, the power of the states has been limited, and the Federal Governments power has over reached it's mandate.
The Electoral College is the last "Rule of law" that allows states to have some say in who is put into the White House. This is the reason for the Electoral College and why the popular vote is not used in the Presidential Election.
We've been conned by our government into thinking that it's the Federal Government that's the ultimate ruler of the country.
This is propaganda - it's supposed to be the individual, followed by the states giving their consent to those in D.C.
Those in D.C. are always given permission - they're not "leaders". They're supposed to do what the states and the individuals within the states want them to do.
So, if we get rid of the Electoral College, we might as well get rid of the Constitution - it's no longer a valid document. All sections of the Constitution will have been infringed.
This is really very nice blog and so informative. Thanks a lot for sharing this article.
Related Discussions
- 76
Could the USA drop the Electoral College?
by ptosis 12 years ago
"A constitutional amendment, which requires a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress (or a Convention under Article V of the Constitution) and ratification in three-fourths of all fifty states, would be required." - https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petiti … e/GZQtFSPVCheck out...
- 69
Faithless electors appearing
by Dan Harmon 8 years ago
It seems that at least two electors from Texas have decided to cast their electoral college vote not for the man they promised to, but someone else.Christopher Suprun is one of those faithless electors:"That was also the last time I remember the nation united," Suprun wrote. "I watch...
- 71
Sore Loser GOP wants to now restructure the Electoral College?
by Credence2 11 years ago
excerpt from a recent article"After back-to-back presidential losses, Republicans in key states want to change the rules to make it easier for them to win.From Wisconsin to Pennsylvania, GOP officials who control legislatures in states that supported President Barack Obama are considering...
- 14
Let’s face it, it’s the Electoral College that counts. A deep dive.
by Tim Mitchell 11 months ago
From Latest US Swing States Voting Intention (28-30 December 2023) by Redfield & Wilton Strategies (Jan 8, 2024) shows Trump winning in all six swing states surveyed. Those six states are:Arizona – Trump = 41%; Biden = 35% (Margin of error = 3.45%)Florida – Trump = 45%; Biden = 34% (ME =...
- 78
Electoral College vs. Popular Vote
by Faith Reaper 7 years ago
I may be a bit naive on this topic, but I believe that my vote should count. I understand the history and all, but I still think one's vote should count, and the candidate who receives the most votes should win. What are your thoughts. Please help me to understand why the...
- 36
The Electoral College - State Voters Won't Count
by ga anderson 5 years ago
Let me channel Jake for a moment...BIG BREAKING NEWS! Bombshell announcement! A CONSTITUTIONAL crisis!Deleware has voted to join eleven other states in awarding their 3 electoral college votes to the national popular vote winner!The votes of state voters in these 12 states no longer matter! YOUR...