• 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 Federalist Papers by ‘Publius’ (1788)

The problem is that the True Democracy you exhort is the true end of the Federal Republic.

You are asking that the country be divided immediately into at least two sub countries.

How in the world does the excerpt from the Federalist Papers support your thesis?
You mean to tell us that all the people who voted for Trump would move to the crapholes like Alabama?
 
People in Iowa don't think the way people in New York do and vice-versa.
Actually there are only two kinds of people in Iowa, New York or anywhere else in this nation. One is the low intellect uneducated, who due to their large numbers gave us Trump and the other is the thinking ones who understand that no matter where in the nation one may be, we all are truly interdependent on each other and can not survive as a nation without each other. It is only the morons who advocate secession because they are too stupid to understand reality.

The Congress, where the real power lies, is where our Founding Fathers provided democratic representation.
The perfect argument against the electoral college.
 
Reality proves you wrong as people in all fifty states can be found on all sides of issues and for and against all manner of candidates and political parties. .

So you prefer a tyranny of the minority? That goes against a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Are you seriously asserting that

the goals and life style, income and interests of a person who has chosen to make his home on the edge of the Rocky Mountains in Wyoming

and the life style, income and interests of a person who has chosen to make his home on the edge of Central Park in New York City are directly identical?

Is this really your thesis to support the termination of the Constitutional government we currently enjoy?
 
Still struggling to accept the giant Hillary loss. Your silly basketball story means nothing. Absolutely nothing!
You just have to accept the fact and move on with your life. Trump won! Now repeat after me Trump won!

Actually, Haymarket's sports analogy makes sense.

The Electoral College wasn't put in place to usurp the voting will of the people. It was put in place in an attempt to ensure voters from great distances (rural areas) were well informed and incorporated into the voting process. The problem is when these large regions or counties are declared to have swung for a particular presidential candidate, all it would take for that candidate to win the entire state would be for a simple majority of regions/counties to be declared for said candidate, whereas the majority of voters throughout a given state could have voted the other way. This creates a problem if a state has very small rural counties but large metro areas, yet those metro areas are grossly outnumbered by the rural counties. This is exactly what we saw take place in the 2016 presidential election in several states.

Then there's the problem of the electors themselves, these so-called delegates (and super-delegates). As we saw in the 2016 presidential election, if enough pressure is put on these delegates, they've "vote as they're told or as promised" instead of pledging to vote in the way the entire state's overall vote was carried. That is the real problem with the Electoral College. It really does NOT reconcile to vote based on "the will of the people" and it's an argument that's always completely missed in these such debates.
 
Actually, Haymarket's sports analogy makes sense.

The Electoral College wasn't put in place to usurp the voting will of the people. It was put in place in an attempt to ensure voters from great distances (rural areas) were well informed and incorporated into the voting process. The problem is when these large regions or counties are declared to have swung for a particular presidential candidate, all it would take for that candidate to win the entire state would be for a simple majority of regions/counties to be declared for said candidate, whereas the majority of voters throughout a given state could have voted the other way. This creates a problem if a state has very small rural counties but large metro areas, yet those metro areas are grossly outnumbered by the rural counties. This is exactly what we saw take place in the 2016 presidential election in several states.

Then there's the problem of the electors themselves, these so-called delegates (and super-delegates). As we saw in the 2016 presidential election, if enough pressure is put on these delegates, they've "vote as they're told or as promised" instead of pledging to vote in the way the entire state's overall vote was carried. That is the real problem with the Electoral College. It really does NOT reconcile to vote based on "the will of the people" and it's an argument that's always completely missed in these such debates.

Spin how ever you want. The plain simple fact is Trump won so no matter how you guys try to spin the tale
it really does not matter. Ramble on and on the end result is the same. Please accept reality of the situation
and stop the fairy tale wishes that he is not president. If you don't like the EC then work to change it. But
considering that republican's control something like 35 state house is not going to happen anytime soon.
 
You mean to tell us that all the people who voted for Trump would move to the crapholes like Alabama?

Hey! I live in Huntsville, AL...one of the wealtiest, diverse, technically advanced and highly educated parts of this state. I think if the city could pick itself up and move out of Alabama, it would because it's nothing like the rest of the state. :mrgreen:
 
That is utterly absurd that without different states there is anarchy. You could abolish the individual states tomorrow and there would NOT be anarchy.

I am simply endorsing that the presidency be discussed by a straight vote of the people.

Most law enforcement is conducted by employees of counties and states. There are court decisions that keep the Feds out of the States unless there are compelling reason to interfere.

And I am saying that the Electoral College exists and was created specifically to dilute the impact of the heavily populated states. At the time, those states were Virginia and Pennsylvania and New York. Now they are New York and California.

Take away California and New York and the popular vote goes to Trump.

Leave them in and convert the US to the Haymarket America AFTER the Constitution has been discarded and you have the tyranny of the Majority that Hamilton warned against.

If you are truly committed to his, I will look forward to studying your drive to dismantle the Constitution.

If your efforts appear to be succeeding, that is, if too many states vote to eliminate their voice in national politics, I will join into the group that will rise to defeat your campaign.
 
Spin how ever you want. The plain simple fact is Trump won so no matter how you guys try to spin the tale
it really does not matter. Ramble on and on the end result is the same. Please accept reality of the situation
and stop the fairy tale wishes that he is not president. If you don't like the EC then work to change it. But
considering that republican's control something like 35 state house is not going to happen anytime soon.

See, now that's where you're wrong.

No one's trying to spin Trump's victory into anything other than what it was, but let's be honest here. Even Trump said he was shooting for an Electoral College victory. He's even bragged about winning "so many states" as opposed to winning outright via the popular vote. It was only after he started getting flake that he didn't win the popular vote and, thus, began to fear he wouldn't be so beloved by the people that he started ragging about he would have won the popular vote it it hadn't been for "voter fraud", a claim that's never been supported by fact.

Pres. Trump knows he'll never be able to pull off an Electoral College vote again, but no one's trying to spin that in a way to suggest his victory didn't happen.
 
You mean to tell us that all the people who voted for Trump would move to the crapholes like Alabama?

If the Haymarket Plan for America featuring the tender Mercies of Nancy Pelosi is implemented, that is the probable outcome. The moves will be mandated by a law named something like the "Welcome Home Bonus Program" as the unfortunates are loaded onto cattle cars and shipped to Alabama.

However, in the real world, commodities and stock traders seem to be enjoying the outcomes of the Trump Administration's efforts.

Most Americans, in truth, are better off today than they were on 11-7-16.

When 4 trillion dollars of wealth are added to the stock portfolios of the citizenry, it helps to make people feel better.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...reaches-16-year-high-on-u-s-economic-optimism
<snip>
[h=3]HIGHLIGHTS OF CONSUMER COMFORT (WEEK ENDED AUG. 6)[/h]

  • Weekly consumer comfort measure jumped to 51.4, highest since week ended Aug. 19, 2001, from 49.6
  • Index of current views on the economy rose to 51, also a 16-year high, from 48.6
  • Personal finances gauge increased to an eight-week high of 58.9 from 58
  • Measure of buying climate climbed to 44.3, highest since week ended June 11, from 42.2
<snip>
 
From the Guardian:
The 100 best nonfiction books: No 81 - The Federalist Papers by ‘Publius’ - 1788

Excerpt -


In the present public "debate", it seems that we have forgot the reasons why - subsequent to the defeat of the British monarchy - the states had some difficulty in agreeing to combine into one nation under a central government. It was particularly the southern-states who were preoccupied with their lack of population vis-a-vis the north. Which, ipso facto, gave them less political power in which to maneuver.

The only way to appease them was to "manipulate" the popular-vote by means of the Electoral College, which lead to this historical fact: Five times in the history of the United States a democratic popular-vote was overturned by the Electoral College.

This fact alone is a travesty of democratic rule!

For true democracy to reign in our republic of states, we must "grow up" to the fact that ONLY THE POPULAR VOTE decides the presidency. Just like it decides elections to the Legislature and all public offices within the states ...

NB: And the fact that it will be difficult to overturn the 12th Amendment to bring Truly Complete Democracy to America is simply a "given", and not a reason not to do so. We are simply correcting an historical mistake that is an obstacle to true democracy.
This is a backhanded attempt to disavow the electoral college. BTW, our government is a democratic republic. In other words, there is one vote per eligible American citizen that votes for representatives of those votes and districts.

A true democracy is for smaller amounts of people in a country than the 330 million, or so, in the US. A democracy is for less powerful countries like the US.
 
There is no merit or issue to your story and you know it. It's just another rant in a very long line of them.
Buddy take a look at your post.... "childish"

It is unfortunate that you opt to make a personal attack rather than attempt to discuss the issue.
 
Are you seriously asserting that

the goals and life style, income and interests of a person who has chosen to make his home on the edge of the Rocky Mountains in Wyoming

and the life style, income and interests of a person who has chosen to make his home on the edge of Central Park in New York City are directly identical?

Is this really your thesis to support the termination of the Constitutional government we currently enjoy?

If your point is valid - why then don't all the people of Wyoming not vote one way while the all the people of New York vote the opposite. The reality is that you have people in both states that claim are so different who vote exactly like the people whom you claim are so different.
 
Most law enforcement is conducted by employees of counties and states. There are court decisions that keep the Feds out of the States unless there are compelling reason to interfere.

And I am saying that the Electoral College exists and was created specifically to dilute the impact of the heavily populated states. At the time, those states were Virginia and Pennsylvania and New York. Now they are New York and California.

Take away California and New York and the popular vote goes to Trump.

Leave them in and convert the US to the Haymarket America AFTER the Constitution has been discarded and you have the tyranny of the Majority that Hamilton warned against.

If you are truly committed to his, I will look forward to studying your drive to dismantle the Constitution.

If your efforts appear to be succeeding, that is, if too many states vote to eliminate their voice in national politics, I will join into the group that will rise to defeat your campaign.

Why do you hate people who live in larger states and want to negate the vote for those people?
 
Why do you hate people who live in larger states and want to negate the vote for those people?

Pretty simple
House of reps = By the people for the people
Senate = By the state for the state
Electoral college = By the state for the people
President = By the people for the states
 
If the Haymarket Plan for America featuring the tender Mercies of Nancy Pelosi is implemented, that is the probable outcome. The moves will be mandated by a law named something like the "Welcome Home Bonus Program" as the unfortunates are loaded onto cattle cars and shipped to Alabama.
WTF? tin foil hat too tight?

However, in the real world, commodities and stock traders seem to be enjoying the outcomes of the Trump Administration's efforts.
Are they? Which specific outcomes? Can you answer that because I have asked another poster several times and he can not.

Most Americans, in truth, are better off today than they were on 11-7-16.
You point? Now you are trying to attribute success to Trump even before he had the mystery outcomes you mention?

When 4 trillion dollars of wealth are added to the stock portfolios of the citizenry, it helps to make people feel better.
Indeed it does, but for those who want to know how that happened, can you point precisely cause and effect, or better yet action and effect?
 
Pretty simple
House of reps = By the people for the people
Senate = By the state for the state
Electoral college = By the state for the people
President = By the people for the states

There are no states without the people who comprise the state. You cannot pretend to have the illusion of representing something called the state without representing the people of that state.

So why should some states be treated significantly different when it comes to voting power of a citizen than other states?
 
This is a backhanded attempt to disavow the electoral college. BTW, our government is a democratic republic. In other words, there is one vote per eligible American citizen that votes for representatives of those votes and districts.

True - but untrue for the presidency vote!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A true democracy is for smaller amounts of people in a country than the 330 million, or so, in the US. A democracy is for less powerful countries like the US.

Less Powerful, me arse! Attack France and and you'll get nuclear warheads up the kazoo. And France elects its president without any asinine "Electoral College"!

There is NO discrimination as regards the ideal of democracy? Where did you ever learn that in a high-school Civics Class?

Do you not recognize in the map posted above of how the Popular Vote is manipulated/distorted by the Electoral-College?

How about this one - do you understand it better?

Or do you prefer to remain blind to the obvious fact of our Unfair & Illegitimate Electoral College nonetheless ... ?
 
Last edited:
The problem is that the True Democracy you exhort is the true end of the Federal Republic.

You are asking that the country be divided immediately into at least two sub countries.

How in the world does the excerpt from the Federalist Papers support your thesis?

Not in the least.

I am suggesting that, as a nation, we correct a wrong perpetrated by the 12th Amendment that discredits any purported claim of a "free and just democracy".

One must be either blind or clearly deranged to not see the present unfairness of the EC.

It makes a mockery of our "supposed democratic republic" ...
 
PURPOSELY DISTORTED

It is wrong, however, to believe that the "only way to appease them was to "manipulate" the popular-vote by means of the Electoral College". There are many mechanisms required for a democratic system, if it is not a purely theoretical society. That is one of the things one sees immediately, when one studies how democratic constitutions are constructed and how the various checks and balances work together in an integrated system of civic organization. I realize that that is a more complex argument, than the daily populist can bare, but to want to remove one element from a large and complex whole is not as easily argued, unless one wants to do mischief to the country.

When a "supposed democracy" is clearly UNJUST (because it warps the popular-vote, the crucial standard of any "real democracy) - as our Electoral Democracy has been shown to be five times in the nations history* (the last occasion in November of last year) - then it is urgent that said democracy "grow up", shed the past, and move into the future on a more honest foundation of a truly fair accounting of the popular-vote for the presidency.

I don't know how to put it any clearer, and a developed democracy should understand the basic unfairness of a presidential election in which the popular-vote is purposely distorted ...

*National popular vote far better than Electoral College system for choosing presidents, Stanford professors say - excerpt:
It is time to abolish the Electoral College in favor of a single national popular vote where all votes count equally, Stanford political experts say.

The Electoral College is responsible for disenfranchising, in effect, huge swaths of American voters, said Doug McAdam, a professor of sociology who studies American politics. A single national popular or “constituency” vote would determine the president based on who won the most votes total across the country.

Otherwise, McAdam said, “The great majority of American voters exercise no real political voice in the outcome of presidential elections.”

Under the U.S. Constitution, the Electoral College determines who is the U.S. president, based on vote totals in each state. The candidate who receives a majority of electoral votes (270) wins the presidency. Each state’s number of electors is equal to its number of members of Congress (representatives plus senators). Washington, D.C., also has three electors, so the total number of Electoral College members is 538.

According to McAdam, four out of five Americans exercised no real electoral voice in the 2012 presidential election due to the winner-take-all Electoral College system, which made campaigns focus on the handful of “battleground” states that were up for grabs heading into the election.

“If we define ‘battleground’ states as those where the final margin of victory was 5 percent or less, only six of the 50 states qualify. They were Colorado, 4 percent; Florida, 1 percent; North Carolina, 3 percent; Ohio, 2 percent; Pennsylvania, 5 percent; and Virginia, 3 percent,” he said.

McAdam noted that the mean margin of difference in the remaining 44 states was a whopping 19 percent. “Even with such populous states as Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio in the mix, the total population of the 2012 battleground states was barely 20 percent of the country’s total,” he said.
 
True - but untrue for the presidency vote!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Less Powerful, me arse! Attack France and and you'll get nuclear warheads up the kazoo. And France elects its president without any asinine "Electoral College"!

There is NO discrimination as regards the ideal of democracy? Where did you ever learn that in a high-school Civics Class?

Do you not recognize in the map posted above of how the Popular Vote is manipulated/distorted by the Electoral-College?

How about this one - do you understand it better?

Or do you prefer to remain blind to the obvious fact of our Unfair & Illegitimate Electoral College nonetheless ... ?
I prefer to keep every state and district in the union motivated in presidential elections and not just the ones with the highest populations where the political ideology is much different than in other states or districts. If we go with a strict democratic vote winning the presidential election, there will surely be cries of foul or threats to form another union.

I suppose you've looked at the map of counties that voted for Trump as compared to Clinton in the 2016 election? How the Trump winning counties, except for a few 'highly metropolitan area' counties indated the map? Why do you prefer the map of union counties that constitute California (how many illegals voted in that election in California?), the east coast, Chicago, Altlanta, Seattle, Washington, etc?
 
True - but untrue for the presidency vote!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Less Powerful, me arse! Attack France and and you'll get nuclear warheads up the kazoo. And France elects its president without any asinine "Electoral College"!

There is NO discrimination as regards the ideal of democracy? Where did you ever learn that in a high-school Civics Class?

Do you not recognize in the map posted above of how the Popular Vote is manipulated/distorted by the Electoral-College?

How about this one - do you understand it better?

Or do you prefer to remain blind to the obvious fact of our Unfair & Illegitimate Electoral College nonetheless ... ?
I prefer to keep every state and district in the US motivated in presidential elections and not just the ones with the highest populations where the political ideology is much different than in other states or districts. If we go with a strict democratic vote winning the presidential election, there will surely be cries of foul or threats to form another union.

I suppose you've looked at the map of counties that voted for Trump as compared to Clinton in the 2016 election? How the winning Trump counties, except for a few 'highly metropolitan area' counties, inudated the map? Why do you prefer the map of US voters that constitute California (how many illegals voted in that election in California?), the east coast, Chicago, Altlanta, Seattle, Washington, etc? Of course, I know, it's because a progressive president will always be voted for in those higher metropolian, east and west coast areas. Maybe you want to belong to the 'united areas with skyscrapers' instead of United States of America?

Finally, with an electoral vote, democratic voting totals ARE taken into account. The highest state voting total gets the electoral votes. The states with the biggest total voting gets the highest electoral votes. You have every right to scream when Iowa gets 55 electoral votes and California gets 6.
 
Last edited:
There are no states without the people who comprise the state. You cannot pretend to have the illusion of representing something called the state without representing the people of that state.

So why should some states be treated significantly different when it comes to voting power of a citizen than other states?

Tyranny of the majority, minority rights, mob rule.
The founding fathers created a republic not a demoracy.
Madison wrote "first to protect the people against their rulers, secondly to protect the people against the transient impressions into which they themselves might be led."
The EC and the senate balance the power of states like CA from becoming to powerful and running the politics for the rest of the country. It also gives more power to states like Montana.
 
Tyranny of the majority, ....

Let us stop you right there.

What so called TYRANNY are you talking about if we went to a popular vote? here is the definition of TYRANNY
tyr·an·ny
ˈtirənē/Submit
noun
cruel and oppressive government or rule.
"people who survive war and escape tyranny"
synonyms: despotism, absolute power, autocracy, dictatorship, totalitarianism, Fascism; More
a nation under cruel and oppressive government.
cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control.
"she resented his rages and his tyranny"

So where would a popular vote suddenly be TYRANNY as described in that definition?
mob rule.

What MOB RULE are you talking about? Present examples where the winner of an election by popular vote translates into mob rule?

here is the definition

mob rule
ˌmäb ˈro͞ol/
noun
control of a political situation by those outside the conventional or lawful realm, typically involving violence and intimidation.

It has been my experience that when a right winger uses the term MOB RULE it is completely misapplied and is simply a dog whistle for the right not approving of the will of the people.


The founding fathers created a republic not a demoracy.

and it would still be a republican form of government if we abolished the EC so your point fails to be made.

Madison wrote "first to protect the people against their rulers, secondly to protect the people against the transient impressions into which they themselves might be led."


Which means what exactly regarding the popular vote and the will of the people?

The EC and the senate balance the power of states like CA from becoming to powerful and running the politics for the rest of the country. It also gives more power to states like Montana.

California does not have enough people nor power to fun the politics of the country. Take that straw man back into the barn.

Why should a voter in Montana or Wyoming have three to four times the electoral power behind their vote as other citizens? That violates the principle of one person/one vote with no person having any more power than any other citizen.
 
Back
Top Bottom