• 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!

The US Constitution Just Doesn't Work for the Democrats

veritas1 said:
I would imagine you could look that up yourself. Now, imagine a popular vote system where the election gets decided by a few hundred thousand votes. We'd need to have a nationwide recount. IOW, 50 state recounts. can you imagine the chaos? At least the EC keeps recounts down to one or two states.
Click to expand...

Here's the link to the totality of the Federalist Papers, no. 68: The Mode of Electing the President.

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 68

Please cut and paste for me the section that explains that the purpose of the Electoral College is "to keep heavily populated urban areas/states from deciding every election."
 
lwf said:
You are arguing against the popular vote in favor of giving individual votes in rural areas (which tend to vote conservative) more weight than individual votes in urban areas (which tend to vote democrat.) You are the one promoting cheating and stacking the deck in favor of your own agenda.
Click to expand...
You guys keep harping on that like it wasn't a tactical decision both parties made to win under the current rules. Change the rules and the tactics will change and both sides will campaign in new target areas and change the map again. The electoral college gives neither party any advantage.

The Democrats lost because Clinton ignored too many states.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
 
Praxas said:
The Constitution ALLOWS for the ending of the Electoral College through the amendment process and the Constitution ALLOWS changes like this to occur with states deciding how their electoral college is run and how their votes are given.

Your ignorance about the constitution is astounding.
Click to expand...

The Constitution absolutely does allow changes which, ultimately, would nullify it. That's one of the down sides to liberty, people are free to give it away.


“Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom, socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville
Click to expand...
 
trouble13 said:
You guys keep harping on that like it wasn't a tactical decision both parties made to win under the current rules. Change the rules and the tactics will change and both sides will campaign in new target areas and change the map again. The electoral college gives neither party any advantage.

The Democrats lost because Clinton ignored too many states.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You may be right. And I think splitting electoral votes based on the outcome of the state vote would be a good compromise.
 
Lutherf said:
The Constitution absolutely does allow changes which, ultimately, would nullify it. That's one of the down sides to liberty, people are free to give it away.
Click to expand...

You call giving 1 vote per person giving up liberty? How?
 
Cardinal said:
Here's the link to the totality of the Federalist Papers, no. 68: The Mode of Electing the President.

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 68

Please cut and paste for me the section that explains that the purpose of the Electoral College is "to keep heavily populated urban areas/states from deciding every election."
Click to expand...

Here's Madison in Federalist #39:

The executive power will be derived from a very compound source. The immediate election of the President is to be made by the States in their political characters. The votes allotted to them are in a compound ratio, which considers them partly as distinct and coequal societies, partly as unequal members of the same society. The eventual election, again, is to be made by that branch of the legislature which consists of the national representatives; but in this particular act they are to be thrown into the form of individual delegations, from so many distinct and coequal bodies politic. From this aspect of the government it appears to be of a mixed character, presenting at least as many FEDERAL as NATIONAL features.
 
trouble13 said:
I wonder if abolishing the elctorial college would work out for them as they hope. States currently use a winner take all approach to how their electorial votes are allocated leaving many disenfranchised voters in both red and blue states. By switching to a popular vote they may find that there are more conservstive voters than they realize.

Eliminating the electorial college diminishes the influence states like california, new york, and texas have in elections.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That might be true, but it also is true that as things stand now, it gives disproportionate votes to smaller populated states. It’s not as “unfair” as the Senate, though.
 
veritas1 said:
Here's Madison in Federalist #39:

The executive power will be derived from a very compound source. The immediate election of the President is to be made by the States in their political characters. The votes allotted to them are in a compound ratio, which considers them partly as distinct and coequal societies, partly as unequal members of the same society. The eventual election, again, is to be made by that branch of the legislature which consists of the national representatives; but in this particular act they are to be thrown into the form of individual delegations, from so many distinct and coequal bodies politic. From this aspect of the government it appears to be of a mixed character, presenting at least as many FEDERAL as NATIONAL features.
Click to expand...

That says nothing about concentrated versus non-concentrated populations.
 
Nickyjo said:
That might be true, but it also is true that as things stand now, it gives disproportionate votes to smaller populated states. It’s not as “unfair” as the Senate, though.
Click to expand...
The disproportionate argument perplexs me to some degree. Here is why.

The federal government does not only have authority over citizens it also has authority over the states governments. That in mind each state was given an equal vote in who we elected as the head of our federal government.

Every state is given votes according to their population and 2 more. If we were to go to simple majority vote it would rob every state of having their sovereignty represented in the election.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
The disproportionate argument perplexs me to some degree. Here is why.

The federal government does not only have authority over citizens it also has authority over the states governments. That in mind each state was given an equal vote in who we elected as the head of our federal government.

Every state is given votes according to their population and 2 more. If we were to go to simple majority vote it would rob every state of having their sovereignty represented in the election.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

No, because it would no longer be about the states. State lines are immaterial to popular election results. A popular election would reaffirm the concept of "one man, one vote."
 
Praxas said:
You call giving 1 vote per person giving up liberty? How?
Click to expand...

There is a certain inevitability in a direct Democracy. It's inevitable that the faction with the majority of votes will find it inconvenient that their claim to power be challenged. They will find that their ascension to power imposed upon them a "mandate" to satisfy the goals their supporters so vigorously endorsed. They will nod to the opposition and recognize that they are still represented but that their opinions, being contrary to the opinions o the majority, will graciously be recognized but will, unfortunately, have to go unrealized.

Eventually, however, the voice of the opposition will become intolerable. The majority will say, "Have we not been gracious in recognizing the opposition? Have we not entertained their incessant complaining? We have voted on their proposals! What more could they want? And who do they think they are to oppose the will of the majority?"

That, Praxas, is where liberty ends.
 
Cardinal said:
No, because it would no longer be about the states. State lines are immaterial to popular election results. A popular election would reaffirm the concept of "one man, one vote."
Click to expand...
That's great and all and allotting states varying electoral votes based on their population supports that concept. What your suggesting is that each state Gov should not be given a vote in who they answer too. That infringes upon each states sovereignty.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
That's great and all and allotting states varying electoral votes based on their population supports that concept. What your suggesting is that each state Gov should not be given a vote in who they answer too. That infringes upon each states sovereignty.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That makes no sense. A state is not a person.
 
Lutherf said:
There is a certain inevitability in a direct Democracy. It's inevitable that the faction with the majority of votes will find it inconvenient that their claim to power be challenged. They will find that their ascension to power imposed upon them a "mandate" to satisfy the goals their supporters so vigorously endorsed. They will nod to the opposition and recognize that they are still represented but that their opinions, being contrary to the opinions o the majority, will graciously be recognized but will, unfortunately, have to go unrealized.

Eventually, however, the voice of the opposition will become intolerable. The majority will say, "Have we not been gracious in recognizing the opposition? Have we not entertained their incessant complaining? We have voted on their proposals! What more could they want? And who do they think they are to oppose the will of the majority?"

That, Praxas, is where liberty ends.
Click to expand...

No, that is your opinion of how it would end and a lot of “what if’s” in there. The same thing could be said about the electoral college if the ruling elite continue to vote for candidates against the wishes of the populace. Seems you want to kill liberty for the individual and give it to the elite.
 
Cardinal said:
That makes no sense. A state is not a person.
Click to expand...
No but it is a sovereign entity and it was what they agreed upon to ratify the constitution. States would of never agreed to surrender any of their power to the federal government without certain assurances. What you are trying to abolish is one of those assurances.

Don't miss understand me here. I'm not saying your right or wrong. That's a matter of opinion. I'm pointing out what it is that your proposing. Earlier you said you (I think it was you) did not see any reason for the disproportionate system and I am providing you with one of the reasons it exists.

The concept of one man one vote is really not accurate and never has been. People do not vote for the president. The states do not have to cast their votes according to the popular vote within their state.

I think there is 10 states debating on changing how they cast their allotted votes to follow the national popular vote. That means those 10 states in theory could all vote for 1 candidate and all their votes could be awarded to the other one. I'm not sure there is anything in the law from stopping them from doing that. It's up to each state how they award electoral votes. It's not up to the voters it never has been

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
No but it is a sovereign entity and it was what they agreed upon to ratify the constitution. States would of never agreed to surrender any of their power to the federal government without certain assurances. What you are trying to abolish is one of those assurances.

Don't miss understand me here. I'm not saying your right or wrong. That's a matter of opinion. I'm pointing out what it is that your proposing. Earlier you said you (I think it was you) did not see any reason for the disproportionate system and I am providing you with one of the reasons it exists.

The concept of one man one vote is really not accurate and never has been. People do not vote for the president. The states do not have to cast their votes according to the popular vote within their state.

I think there is 10 states debating on changing how they cast their allotted votes to follow the national popular vote. That means those 10 states in theory could all vote for 1 candidate and all their votes could be awarded to the other one. I'm not sure there is anything in the law from stopping them from doing that. It's up to each state how they award electoral votes. It's not up to the voters it never has been

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It's no longer colonial America and we're no longer debating over which kind of agreement we need to ratify in order to get states to join into a union. Even the rationale for the electoral college is no longer being followed, which makes its existence archaic.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact, and that's why we have amendments. And even that point is moot since states do indeed have the right to apportion their electoral votes as they wish.

And if you still insist on standing by the EC as is, then you must acknowledge the reality of what happens when voters from different parties concentrate into different geographic regions such that the minority party is able to win Presidential elections consistently, then explain what's so great about minority rule.
 
Cardinal said:
It's no longer colonial America and we're no longer debating over which kind of agreement we need to ratify in order to get states to join into a union. Even the rationale for the electoral college is no longer being followed, which makes its existence archaic.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact, and that's why we have amendments. And even that point is moot since states do indeed have the right to apportion their electoral votes as they wish.

And if you still insist on standing by the EC as is, then you must acknowledge the reality of what happens when voters from different parties concentrate into different geographic regions such that the minority party is able to win Presidential elections consistently, then explain what's so great about minority rule.
Click to expand...
Except that it does not happen consistently. With that said if enough people want to change it they can.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Cardinal said:
You have it reversed. When you compare the number of citizens to the electoral vote, Montana is far more powerful. Montana is in ninth place for voting power at 255,284 people per electoral vote, while California comes in 49th place at 508,344 per electoral vote.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's what I meant about a "tiny bit of fairness.

Cardinal said:
There is literally no defense of the Electoral College that doesn't rely on untrue claims or bad math.
Click to expand...
Nor does the Constitution mention and math.

Cardinal said:
Well, I take that back. There is one intellectually honest defense of the EC and one alone: "the EC is good because it keeps my party in power." But that's it.
Click to expand...
You're entitled to an opinion.
 
trouble13 said:
The disproportionate argument perplexs me to some degree. Here is why.

The federal government does not only have authority over citizens it also has authority over the states governments. That in mind each state was given an equal vote in who we elected as the head of our federal government.

Every state is given votes according to their population and 2 more. If we were to go to simple majority vote it would rob every state of having their sovereignty represented in the election.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

“According to their population and two more” is the phrase that describes the unfairness. Why the two more? I love Wyoming. The Grand Tetons are magnificent, caught trout there and their beauty has brought tears to my eyes as the sun set behind them, with a regal moose up to its knees in lake water, l but the beautiful “big tits” don’t need representation. People do. Why should Wyoming and North Dakota have twice the representation in the Senate than California? Invisible lines drawn on a map. Should we split California into three states? I can hear the Wyoming folk sputtering already at the thought.

And what is state sovereignty? A meaningless phrase that has been used thru our history to justify a lot of evil: slavery, lynching, segregation. We stopped being a loose confederation of states a long time ago. Local authority is useful, far more practical for a whole lot of things, but check out which states quickly starting restricting the franchise once the Supreme Court decided the Voting Rights Act had outlived its usefulness. As Gomer Pyle would say, “Surprise, surprise,” it was the states that used to restrict the franchise, denying votes to blacks.
 
Nickyjo said:
“According to their population and two more” is the phrase that describes the unfairness. Why the two more? I love Wyoming. The Grand Tetons are magnificent, caught trout there and their beauty has brought tears to my eyes as the sun set behind them, with a regal moose up to its knees in lake water, l but the beautiful “big tits” don’t need representation. People do. Why should Wyoming and North Dakota have twice the representation in the Senate than California? Invisible lines drawn on a map. Should we split California into three states? I can hear the Wyoming folk sputtering already at the thought.

And what is state sovereignty? A meaningless phrase that has been used thru our history to justify a lot of evil: slavery, lynching, segregation. We stopped being a loose confederation of states a long time ago. Local authority is useful, far more practical for a whole lot of things, but check out which states quickly starting restricting the franchise once the Supreme Court decided the Voting Rights Act had outlived its usefulness. As Gomer Pyle would say, “Surprise, surprise,” it was the states that used to restrict the franchise, denying votes to blacks.
Click to expand...
I clearly explained the 2 more.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
 
Cardinal said:
It's no longer colonial America and we're no longer debating over which kind of agreement we need to ratify in order to get states to join into a union. Even the rationale for the electoral college is no longer being followed, which makes its existence archaic.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact, and that's why we have amendments. And even that point is moot since states do indeed have the right to apportion their electoral votes as they wish.

And if you still insist on standing by the EC as is, then you must acknowledge the reality of what happens when voters from different parties concentrate into different geographic regions such that the minority party is able to win Presidential elections consistently, then explain what's so great about minority rule.
Click to expand...

The same issue of small areas with dense population dominated the rest of the nation still exists.

They knew what they were doing....
 
Grokmaster said:
Listen to their INANE NONSENSE.

End the ELECTORAL COLLEGE..so as to negate the votes of the 47 states which are NOT California, New York, and Illinois.

Try to SUBVERT the Electoral College, by forcing a state's Electors to vote for whoever California, New York , and Illinois vote for , per the Colorado initiative.

Try to EXPAND the SCOTUS to PACK IT WITH LEFTISTS.


Lower the VOTING AGE TO 16...because intelligent adults are less easily duped by the left's nonsense.


They aren't even trying to HIDE IT ANYMORE:



View attachment 67252933
Click to expand...

Let them waste their time calling for the elimination of the EC. It ain't never gonna happin. Also, let them go ahead with the Colorado initiative. It only hurts their party. It can't possibly help them because the only states signing up for the nonsense are blue states anyway. And, if they want to expand the Supreme Court then let's do it. Call their bluff. Let Trump immediately pick six more nominations and the Senate can vote on them.
 
Moderate Right said:
Let them waste their time calling for the elimination of the EC. It ain't never gonna happin. Also, let them go ahead with the Colorado initiative. It only hurts their party. It can't possibly help them because the only states signing up for the nonsense are blue states anyway. And, if they want to expand the Supreme Court then let's do it. Call their bluff. Let Trump immediately pick six more nominations and the Senate can vote on them.
Click to expand...

True...I just took not of the current Left Drone Marching Orders...that "WE MUST CHANGE THE RULES, so that WE CAN WIN !!"


The Constitution just DOESN'T WORK FOR THEM...( and there really isn't anything that they can do about it, as you correctly point out !! ;) )
 
Moderate Right said:
Let them waste their time calling for the elimination of the EC. It ain't never gonna happin. Also, let them go ahead with the Colorado initiative. It only hurts their party. It can't possibly help them because the only states signing up for the nonsense are blue states anyway. And, if they want to expand the Supreme Court then let's do it. Call their bluff. Let Trump immediately pick six more nominations and the Senate can vote on them.
Click to expand...

It can't hurt them at all because it has no effect until a sufficient number of electoral votes sign on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom