• 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!

Things that we all know....

S

Simpletruther

DP Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2019
Messages
16,253
Reaction score
3,197
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I may start a series here.

One thing we all know is the crying over electoral college is mostly about advantage rather than principal.

Yes, I know it, you know it, everyone knows it. Many will go to their grave denying it out of blind bias.

And this goes for both sides. This isn’t a liberal thing, it’s a human thing.

If the situation were reversed, and Obama had won two terms loosing popular vote, there would be crying on the right about how liberal are usurping the will of the people.

Likewise, there wouldn’t be a peep from the left agreeing with that conservative whining, nor any agreement that something should be done. There would be deafening silence from the left in contrast to the crying and moaning about democracy right now from the left.

That is plain cold reality, anyone disagreeing either can’t set aside their bias or is playing spin politics for their side.
 
Maybe perhaps we should just get rid of the Electoral College because it's an old, broken system developed to appease slave-owning Southern states instead of best representing the will of the American people.
 
Here are some things we all know:

Most americans do not understand socialism.

Most americans do not understand communism.

Most americans do not understand libertarianism.

Most americans do not understand authoritarianism.

Most americans do not understand solidarity.

Most americans do not understand anarchism.

In fact, most americans have no ****ing clue what a political system is, what an economic system is, and what the media has done along with our established political parties to confuse and stupefy the american public into accepting an oligarch's wet dream, capitalism with fake control.
 
CMPancake said:
Maybe perhaps we should just get rid of the Electoral College because it's an old, broken system developed to appease slave-owning Southern states instead of best representing the will of the American people.
Click to expand...

Of course if and when the popular vote doesn't deliver the desired outcome, that too will become old and broken.
 
Simpletruther said:
I may start a series here.

One thing we all know is the crying over electoral college is mostly about advantage rather than principal.

Yes, I know it, you know it, everyone knows it. Many will go to their grave denying it out of blind bias.

And this goes for both sides. This isn’t a liberal thing, it’s a human thing.

If the situation were reversed, and Obama had won two terms loosing popular vote, there would be crying on the right about how liberal are usurping the will of the people.

Likewise, there wouldn’t be a peep from the left agreeing with that conservative whining, nor any agreement that something should be done. There would be deafening silence from the left in contrast to the crying and moaning about democracy right now from the left.

That is plain cold reality, anyone disagreeing either can’t set aside their bias or is playing spin politics for their side.
Click to expand...

The Presidential election should be handled in the exact same way that all elections - state, local, Congress, Senate - are handled. Winner takes the spoils. The EC is antiquated and serves no purpose anymore. Time to go.
 
tres borrachos said:
The Presidential election should be handled in the exact same way that all elections - state, local, Congress, Senate - are handled. Winner takes the spoils. The EC is antiquated and serves no purpose anymore. Time to go.
Click to expand...

Yea thst a common liberal whine now. But again it wouldn’t be common in the least of the situation were reversed.
 
Lovebug said:
Of course if and when the popular vote doesn't deliver the desired outcome, that too will become old and broken.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's how governments are supposed to work. Through collective agreement, we correct and adjust fire to solve current problems. Why are Americans the only culture that feels so obligated to refer back to the feelings and opinions of terribly flawed, dead men?
 
There are only two arguments in favor of the EC anymore:

1)it keeps Republicans in power, and
2)Republicans hate people who live in cities.

That’s it.
 
CMPancake said:
Maybe perhaps we should just get rid of the Electoral College because it's an old, broken system developed to appease slave-owning Southern states instead of best representing the will of the American people.
Click to expand...
Correct, and now the main problem with how the EC is structured is the imbalance of voters influence on an election. So called “flyover states” have proportionally more say with their votes than states with higher populations. However, if the EC were abolished, those same lower population states would always be left behind.

My personal belief is that the EC serves a valid purpose, but needs to be overhauled to properly serve all Americans.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Correct, and now the main problem with how the EC is structured is the imbalance of voters influence on an election. So called “flyover states” have proportionally more say with their votes than states with higher populations. However, if the EC were abolished, those same lower population states would always be left behind.

My personal belief is that the EC serves a valid purpose, but needs to be overhauled to properly serve all Americans.
Click to expand...

My question to pose to you is why even care about those flyover states on a federal level? California and New York make up an overwhelming amount of the country's GDP than most of the Midwest. If a state like Wyoming wants to have more of a say on who the Commander in Chief is, they should have some actual skin in the game.
 
CMPancake said:
My question to pose to you is why even care about those flyover states on a federal level? California and New York make up an overwhelming amount of the country's GDP than most of the Midwest. If a state like Wyoming wants to have more of a say on who the Commander in Chief is, they should have some actual skin in the game.
Click to expand...
You’ve answered your own question. If presidential elections were determined by popular vote, high population states like CA and NY would decide everything. At that point, the United States would effectively become a one party country.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
You’ve answered your own question. If presidential elections were determined by popular vote, high population states like CA and NY would decide everything. At that point, the United States would effectively become a one party country.
Click to expand...

Yep.....
 
The United States was originally intended to be a group of UNITED STATES. Not one huge state. Maybe how many representatives each state gets could be adjusted. But if you get rid of the EC, we have to change our name from the United States of America to the One Big State of America.

OBSA :(
 
Good4Nothin said:
The United States was originally intended to be a group of UNITED STATES. Not one huge state. Maybe how many representatives each state gets could be adjusted. But if you get rid of the EC, we have to change our name from the United States of America to the One Big State of America.

OBSA :(
Click to expand...

Not going to happen
 
It's very easy to make an argument against the EC based on principle. Why should some votes count more than others?
 
Cardinal said:
There are only two arguments in favor of the EC anymore:

1)it keeps Republicans in power, and
2)Republicans hate people who live in cities.

That’s it.
Click to expand...

3rd...

Democrats refuse to develop a platform palatable to anyone who doesn't live in Chicago, LA, San Fran, and NYC.
 
KevinKohler said:
3rd...

Democrats refuse to develop a platform palatable to anyone who doesn't live in Chicago, LA, San Fran, and NYC.
Click to expand...

All you did was demonstrate...

2) Republicans hate people who live in cities.
 
MrPeanut said:
It's very easy to make an argument against the EC based on principle. Why should some votes count more than others?
Click to expand...

Because regions and cultures vary, and a less populous culture can be dominated and dictated to by the high population centers. It’s pretty easy to argue for it with principal.
 
Simpletruther said:
Because regions and cultures vary, and a less populous culture can be dominated and dictated to by the high population centers. It’s pretty easy to argue for it with principal.
Click to expand...

Artificially empowering a shrinking culture is not the answer to consistently moving a country forward. Treating each vote equally is a simple concept even if it means more isolated states only have power according to their population.
 
Cardinal said:
All you did was demonstrate...

2) Republicans hate people who live in cities.
Click to expand...

Explain how you arrived to this conclusion based on my words?
 
Simpletruther said:
I may start a series here.

One thing we all know is the crying over electoral college is mostly about advantage rather than principal.

Yes, I know it, you know it, everyone knows it. Many will go to their grave denying it out of blind bias.

And this goes for both sides. This isn’t a liberal thing, it’s a human thing.

If the situation were reversed, and Obama had won two terms loosing popular vote, there would be crying on the right about how liberal are usurping the will of the people.

Likewise, there wouldn’t be a peep from the left agreeing with that conservative whining, nor any agreement that something should be done. There would be deafening silence from the left in contrast to the crying and moaning about democracy right now from the left.

That is plain cold reality, anyone disagreeing either can’t set aside their bias or is playing spin politics for their side.
Click to expand...

The only problem with your theory is Liberal/Progressives out number Conservatives and almost always will win the popular vote.

I'm not saying there isn't bias involved, but it's also a fact that the Electoral College has outlived it's "dispose by" date; which it proved in 16. IF you read Federalist 68 you'll learn that the major justification and imputus for the EC was the founders legitimate worry that a "smooth talking/glib and unqualified conman would woo the common man and get himself elected; the electoral college was supposed to be a buffer between the common electorate and just such a unqualified conman. We saw in 16 that didn't work.

They (the founders) realized the difficulty in carrying off a "National Election" with the technology available in their time. IF you think about it the President and Vice President are the only elected officials that are elected NATIONALLY. So not only doesn't the EC insulate against unqualified candidates but today we DO have the ability to fairly and successfully hold a NATIONAL election. There is no valid reason to have an EC any longer. Every one's vote can be counted and everyone's vote should count.
 
MrPeanut said:
Artificially empowering a shrinking culture is not the answer to consistently moving a country forward. Treating each vote equally is a simple concept even if it means more isolated states only have power according to their population.
Click to expand...
artifically beating down a stable smaller culture is not.........treating cultures equally is a simple concept......etc etc
 
Simpletruther said:
artifically beating down a stable smaller culture is not.........treating cultures equally is a simple concept......etc etc
Click to expand...

Nobody is beating down the culture of smaller states. Often things like lack of economic opportunity have more of an impact. I'm advocating for treating people equally. It's a lot easier to understand than just claiming that WY has some kind of special culture as compared to the several cultures encapsulated in a state as large as CA.
 
MrPeanut said:
Nobody is beating down the culture of smaller states. Often things like lack of economic opportunity have more of an impact. I'm advocating for treating people equally. It's a lot easier to understand than just claiming that WY has some kind of special culture as compared to the several cultures encapsulated in a state as large as CA.
Click to expand...

Um, yes it is. If large population centers set national policy then low population center regions are being dictated to.

It happens now, it would be worse without EC.
 
Irwin Corey said:
The only problem with your theory is Liberal/Progressives out number Conservatives and almost always will win the popular vote..
Click to expand...

I question thst claim. It seems the two party system forces the very definition of right left to say in balance. As policy shifts to adjust the numbers.

But regardless of what some founding fathers said, it serves a very similar purpose as the senate. It balances out power between states and prevents high population states from dominating (as much) national policies.

Big states already have more say and sets policy more-so than smaller states. This just keeps it from being total domination.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom