• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Without an electoral college, we do not have a free country.

Moderate Right said:
California is already sinking into the ocean under the weight of it's liberal policies.
Click to expand...

The more I think about it, I wish Superman didn't fix the San Andreas fault when Lex set of the nuke.
 
molten_dragon said:
More insults and strawmen. Seems to be a favorite tactic of yours.
Click to expand...

No insults, simply observations. When you can come up with an argument let me know....
 
ObamacareFail said:
First you have to work out that we are not on a popular vote system. We are 50 united states that each maintain a level of sovereignity. Once you learn that, you will understand that Californians are voting for which candidate California's electoral votes are going to and Wyoming is voting for which candidate Wyoming's electoral votes are going to. Whining about a much less popular state's voters votes carrying more weight in their state is as silly as whining about Palmdale California's votes having more weight in a Mayoral election then Los Angeles voters in a Mayoral election. Not every state has an equal population. You will just have to learn to accept that the system in place since our founding will remain in place unless you can manage to change it by way of the amendment process.
Click to expand...

Your attempted analogy is fatally flawed. Palmdale doesn't vote for LA Mayor. Unfortunately, Wyoming and California vote for the same President. Doh!
 
jdog said:
The vast majority of people do not and probably never will understand the ethics and morals behind the electoral college but without it we are no longer a free, fair and united country.

The electoral college was created to ensure the urban areas of the country could never dominate and make the representation of the rural areas inconsequential.

Even in the very beginning the forefathers understood that the interests of the cities and the interest of the rural areas were often at odds with each other and yet to create a harmonious union, both areas needed to be fairly represented. The major issue is that the cities would always have a unsurmountable advantage when it came to sheer population, but at the same time, the cities were wholly dependent on the rural areas for their needs of life.

In the event that the rural areas were unfairly represented, and their interests not represented in Washington they would withdraw from the Union which was the central issue in the Civil War.

Perhaps we are incapable of learning from our mistakes and destined to repeat them. The elimination of the electoral college would be such a scenario.
Click to expand...

So, unlike some other people in this thread, I am not going to just poo-poo the idea of power balancing out of hand. I get the fear that rural states (primarily the southern) had that the densely populated north would also dominate the country due to sheer weight of popular and in a strict democracy therefore win every political fight for all of time. I'm not going to dismiss that concern out of hand, I get it.

BUT

That problem is already addressed in the congress. That very issue is already addressed by having a bicameral legislature with one house based on population and the other with even representation.

I believe that the narrative that the electoral college was developed for the same power balancing reason is a modern revision. Not that this wasn't part of it, it was, but it wasn't the main reason. The main purpose of the electoral college was a defense against demagogues whipping the people into a frenzy and riding a wave of popular support into a position they aren't fit for: that essentially any given representative or senator could be a whack job and it wouldn't be disastrous, but letting a whack job become president was too big of a risk and a body of sane, educated, politically aware electors needed to exist as an ultimate check against that.

Basically the electoral college was put into place because even 230 years ago people like Hamilton knew that a Trump would come along, and they were trying to stop him that far in advance.
 
jimithyashford said:
So, unlike some other people in this thread, I am not going to just poo-poo the idea of power balancing out of hand. I get the fear that rural states (primarily the southern) had that the densely populated north would also dominate the country due to sheer weight of popular and in a strict democracy therefore win every political fight for all of time. I'm not going to dismiss that concern out of hand, I get it.

BUT

That problem is already addressed in the congress. That very issue is already addressed by having a bicameral legislature with one house based on population and the other with even representation.

I believe that the narrative that the electoral college was developed for the same power balancing reason is a modern revision. Not that this wasn't part of it, it was, but it wasn't the main reason. The main purpose of the electoral college was a defense against demagogues whipping the people into a frenzy and riding a wave of popular support into a position they aren't fit for: that essentially any given representative or senator could be a whack job and it wouldn't be disastrous, but letting a whack job become president was too big of a risk and a body of sane, educated, politically aware electors needed to exist as an ultimate check against that.

Basically the electoral college was put into place because even 230 years ago people like Hamilton knew that a Trump would come along, and they were trying to stop him that far in advance.
Click to expand...

Stupid interpretation..... In the first place the legislature was prostituted by the 17th amendment which stripped the States of their voice in the Federal Government, second, the Electoral College was and is the only mechanism in place which provides some degree of equalization between the heavily populated and sparsely populated areas of the country which will have drastically different agendas. The basic problem in the US is that the liberals want to impose their agenda at any cost upon the rest of the country and they are void of any ethics and morals that prevent them from implementing tyranny.
 
jdog said:
Stupid interpretation..... In the first place the legislature was prostituted by the 17th amendment which stripped the States of their voice in the Federal Government, second, the Electoral College was and is the only mechanism in place which provides some degree of equalization between the heavily populated and sparsely populated areas of the country which will have drastically different agendas. The basic problem in the US is that the liberals want to impose their agenda at any cost upon the rest of the country and they are void of any ethics and morals that prevent them from implementing tyranny.
Click to expand...

this seems to fit most every one in politics

The basic problem in the US is that the liberals want to impose their agenda at any cost upon the rest of the country and they are void of any ethics and morals that prevent them from implementing tyranny.
 
ocean515 said:
No doubt. The undeniable truth can be seen in the results from California. There is no other state in the US that is more liberal and has more citizens dependent on the government.

The popular vote margin of victory for the candidate who promised more of the same, and it's impact, is exactly what the Founding Fathers, in their great wisdom, foresaw and addressed.
Click to expand...

There really is not an argument to be made against the electoral college system!

What does this Clinton 3 million vote lead mean?

As of today the popular votes:
Clinton 65,788, 000 - Trump 62,955,000 Clinton leads by 2,833,000

California votes as of today:
Clinton 7,362,000 - Trump 3,916,000 Clintons lead is 3,446,000

So Clinton leads in one state by 3,4406,00 &
Trump leads in 49 states by 613,000

The one state where Clinton accumulated her entire popular vote margin is
composed of 39% Latino, 16% Asian, & 7% black. California is 62% minority!
Does anyone think this represents America, I don't. In fact in Brazil according
to my 2009 TIME Almanac has less of a minority presence than California.

California is indulging in a Calexit process being it is so far removed from the rest of
the USA in demographics. I hope they succeed in this endeavor, good riddance.

Take this absurdity one step further. New York City & Los Angeles together gave
Clinton a 2,780,000 plurality almost her entire popular vote plurality.
There are over 3,000 counties in the USA and yet the popular vote crowd wants
2 cities with their unique demographics to decide the presidential outcome. Yikes.
 
slick said:
There really is not an argument to be made against the electoral college system!

What does this Clinton 3 million vote lead mean?

As of today the popular votes:
Clinton 65,788, 000 - Trump 62,955,000 Clinton leads by 2,833,000

California votes as of today:
Clinton 7,362,000 - Trump 3,916,000 Clintons lead is 3,446,000

So Clinton leads in one state by 3,4406,00 &
Trump leads in 49 states by 613,000

The one state where Clinton accumulated her entire popular vote margin is
composed of 39% Latino, 16% Asian, & 7% black. California is 62% minority!
Does anyone think this represents America, I don't. In fact in Brazil according
to my 2009 TIME Almanac has less of a minority presence than California.

California is indulging in a Calexit process being it is so far removed from the rest of
the USA in demographics. I hope they succeed in this endeavor, good riddance.

Take this absurdity one step further. New York City & Los Angeles together gave
Clinton a 2,780,000 plurality almost her entire popular vote plurality.
There are over 3,000 counties in the USA and yet the popular vote crowd wants
2 cities with their unique demographics to decide the presidential outcome. Yikes.
Click to expand...

Funny. I didn't know not-white people were also not-American people.

Just admit what you want. You want white people, solely, to decide the presidential election.

Let's just stop the blacks and hispanics from voting, amirite? Get rid of those minorities altogether. After all, you seem to think they Don't Count.
 
slick said:
There really is not an argument to be made against the electoral college system!

What does this Clinton 3 million vote lead mean?

As of today the popular votes:
Clinton 65,788, 000 - Trump 62,955,000 Clinton leads by 2,833,000

California votes as of today:
Clinton 7,362,000 - Trump 3,916,000 Clintons lead is 3,446,000

So Clinton leads in one state by 3,4406,00 &
Trump leads in 49 states by 613,000

The one state where Clinton accumulated her entire popular vote margin is
composed of 39% Latino, 16% Asian, & 7% black. California is 62% minority!
Does anyone think this represents America, I don't. In fact in Brazil according
to my 2009 TIME Almanac has less of a minority presence than California.

California is indulging in a Calexit process being it is so far removed from the rest of
the USA in demographics. I hope they succeed in this endeavor, good riddance.

Take this absurdity one step further. New York City & Los Angeles together gave
Clinton a 2,780,000 plurality almost her entire popular vote plurality.
There are over 3,000 counties in the USA and yet the popular vote crowd wants
2 cities with their unique demographics to decide the presidential outcome. Yikes.
Click to expand...

Outstanding, and exactly on point.

If one reads the arguments made when the EC was first proposed, it made a perfect parallel to the environment currently in place in California today.
 
Kobie said:
Funny. I didn't know not-white people were also not-American people.

Just admit what you want. You want white people, solely, to decide the presidential election.

Let's just stop the blacks and hispanics from voting, amirite? Get rid of those minorities altogether. After all, you seem to think they Don't Count.
Click to expand...

LOL

At some point kobie, the left is going to have to come up with better arguments than the constant Race Baiting intellectual disconnect it hopes the general population will buy.

I would think the Democratic Party would be working to stop the slide into obscurity, rather than greasing the skids.
 
ocean515 said:
LOL

At some point kobie, the left is going to have to come up with better arguments than the constant Race Baiting intellectual disconnect it hopes the general population will buy.

I would think the Democratic Party would be working to stop the slide into obscurity, rather than greasing the skids.
Click to expand...

Go back and read the post I quoted before you bitch at me about "race baiting."
 
Kobie said:
Go back and read the post I quoted before you bitch at me about "race baiting."
Click to expand...

I did. There is nothing that I read in the post you commented on that remotely implied anything about race.

My comment was well deserved.

At some point, a more intelligent argument will have to be created. The kneejerk race baiting BS the left has been trained to deploy with almost every comment is done.

Or, the marginalization of the Democrat party can continue unabated. That ball is in the Democratic Parties court.
 
ocean515 said:
I did. There is nothing that I read in the post you commented on that remotely implied anything about race.
Click to expand...

Except for, yanno, the part where slick whines about demographics.

It's like you live on another planet.
 
Kobie said:
Except for, yanno, the part where slick whines about demographics.

It's like you live on another planet.
Click to expand...

I understand the only view some has is racial. It's the wellspring of the divisive message of hate and intolerance.

There is nothing in that post that remotely infers anything about only wanting white votes.

Demographics covers lots of ground.


dem-o-graph-ics

[dem-uh-graf-iks, dee-muh-]

Spell Syllables

Examples
Word Origin

See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com

noun

1.

(used with a plural verb) the statistical data of a population, especially those showing average age, income, education, etc.​


I thank my lucky stars I don't live on a planet in the alt Universe of liberals.
 
ocean515 said:
I understand the only view some has is racial. It's the wellspring of the divisive message of hate and intolerance.

There is nothing in that post that remotely infers anything about only wanting white votes.

Demographics covers lots of ground.


dem-o-graph-ics

[dem-uh-graf-iks, dee-muh-]

Spell Syllables

Examples
Word Origin

See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com

noun

1.

(used with a plural verb) the statistical data of a population, especially those showing average age, income, education, etc.​


I thank my lucky stars I don't live on a planet in the alt Universe of liberals.
Click to expand...

The one state where Clinton accumulated her entire popular vote margin is
composed of 39% Latino, 16% Asian, & 7% black. California is 62% minority!
Does anyone think this represents America, I don't. In fact in Brazil according
to my 2009 TIME Almanac has less of a minority presence than California.
Click to expand...

Nope, no mention of race there.
 
Kobie said:
Nope, no mention of race there.
Click to expand...

Those are demographic facts!

Issues related to immigration, etc., have far more importance under those demographics than in other parts of the country.

There is nothing racist about pointing that out.

What you're suggesting is the left wants race to be the determining factor for selecting the President, rather than all concerns of people living in all parts of the country.
 
jdog said:
The vast majority of people do not and probably never will understand the ethics and morals behind the electoral college but without it we are no longer a free, fair and united country.

The electoral college was created to ensure the urban areas of the country could never dominate and make the representation of the rural areas inconsequential.

Even in the very beginning the forefathers understood that the interests of the cities and the interest of the rural areas were often at odds with each other and yet to create a harmonious union, both areas needed to be fairly represented. The major issue is that the cities would always have a unsurmountable advantage when it came to sheer population, but at the same time, the cities were wholly dependent on the rural areas for their needs of life.

In the event that the rural areas were unfairly represented, and their interests not represented in Washington they would withdraw from the Union which was the central issue in the Civil War.

Perhaps we are incapable of learning from our mistakes and destined to repeat them. The elimination of the electoral college would be such a scenario.
Click to expand...

No. Opinions on why the electoral college exist vary. Here is a selection of them that in a backward way explain that rural/urban divide you mention:
https://www.google.com/webhp?source...=UTF-8#q=electoral college and 3/5 compromise


Not pretty. Land and cattle can't vote. Slaves couldn't vote back then, either, but their owners wanted representation based on their numbers.
 
ocean515 said:
What you're suggesting is the left wants race to be the determining factor for selecting the President, rather than all concerns of people living in all parts of the country.
Click to expand...

This is pure nonsense.

There's nothing "racist" about whining that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in a state that is largely minorities, and then griping that it doesn't represent America -- even though those minorities are AMERICANS? If those minorities don't represent America, then it's pretty clear there's only one group who does. You do the math. While your white-knighting for slick is oh so admirable, you don't have a leg to stand on here.
 
Kobie said:
This is pure nonsense.

There's nothing "racist" about whining that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in a state that is largely minorities, and then griping that it doesn't represent America -- even though those minorities are AMERICANS? If those minorities don't represent America, then it's pretty clear there's only one group who does. You do the math. While your white-knighting for slick is oh so admirable, you don't have a leg to stand on here.
Click to expand...

BS.

The lefts myopic obsession with race, and race baiting, obviously precludes them from rationally considering the impact of California's demographics and government agenda's have had on voting versus the rest of the country.

It is exactly this influence of the Tyranny of the Majority the Founding Fathers wrote of when debating the creation of the EC for electing the President of the United States.

I recognize the applied racist views of the left would make it seem I have no leg to stand on, but the fact is, on this issue, the left is nothing but a torso.
 
ocean515 said:
BS.

The lefts myopic obsession with race, and race baiting, obviously precludes them from rationally considering the impact of California's demographics and government agenda's have had on voting versus the rest of the country.

It is exactly this influence of the Tyranny of the Majority the Founding Fathers wrote of when debating the creation of the EC for electing the President of the United States.

I recognize the applied racist views of the left would make it seem I have no leg to stand on, but the fact is, on this issue, the left is nothing but a torso.
Click to expand...

It's a riot sometimes watching these lyrical gymnastics.

Guy ostensibly on the "right" complains about California's demographics, yet it's "the left" that has a "myopic obsession with race." The punch lines write themselves.
 
Kobie said:
It's a riot sometimes watching these lyrical gymnastics.

Guy ostensibly on the "right" complains about California's demographics, yet it's "the left" that has a "myopic obsession with race." The punch lines write themselves.
Click to expand...

I agree. The left's gymnastics on the issue, and their desire to eliminate the voice of people outside their approved agenda is certainly a riot to watch.

Makes me wonder why they think anyone outside of their sphere would buy it.
 
jdog said:
The vast majority of people do not and probably never will understand the ethics and morals behind the electoral college but without it we are no longer a free, fair and united country.

The electoral college was created to ensure the urban areas of the country could never dominate and make the representation of the rural areas inconsequential.

Even in the very beginning the forefathers understood that the interests of the cities and the interest of the rural areas were often at odds with each other and yet to create a harmonious union, both areas needed to be fairly represented. The major issue is that the cities would always have a unsurmountable advantage when it came to sheer population, but at the same time, the cities were wholly dependent on the rural areas for their needs of life.

In the event that the rural areas were unfairly represented, and their interests not represented in Washington they would withdraw from the Union which was the central issue in the Civil War.

Perhaps we are incapable of learning from our mistakes and destined to repeat them. The elimination of the electoral college would be such a scenario.
Click to expand...

First, I'm amazed anyone liked this silly post. Saying we wouldn't have a free country without the electoral college is stupid. It would be just as free as long as we had free and fair elections. To say that either option is making us no longer a free country is an asinine and uninformed opinion.

Secondly, I'd be surprised if you have ever read any of the writings of the founding fathers regarding the electoral college or if you are basing your opinion on right wing blogs that have told you what to think. Because the electoral college was not put in place simply to harmonize the rural areas with big cities. What writings by the founding fathers have lead you to the conclusion that this was the big goal of the electoral college?
 
ocean515 said:
I agree. The left's gymnastics on the issue, and their desire to eliminate the voice of people outside their approved agenda is certainly a riot to watch.

Makes me wonder why they think anyone outside of their sphere would buy it.
Click to expand...

You're just posting gibberish at this point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom