Why the Electoral College exists.

[ludin]

I always feel conflicted on the EC issue. I like the idea that it gives a boost to smaller states because it does make candidates come to those states and pay attention to their specific issues. On the other hand, how do you argue against the fact that it does value certain voters over others?

no one says that it is perfect but it is more equal than having people in 2 or 3 state determine the president with no one else having a voice.
this is the same argument that the founders had when they implemented it.

 

[MrPeanut]

no one says that it is perfect but it is more equal than having people in 2 or 3 state determine the president with no one else having a voice.
this is the same argument that the founders had when they implemented it.

I thought the original argument had more to do with including the population of slaves into the equation even though they couldn't vote. Of course that was in response to the North having the advantage in the population of possible voters.

 

[Harshaw]

I thought the original argument had more to do with including the population of slaves into the equation even though they couldn't vote. Of course that was in response to the North having the advantage in the population of possible voters.

No, that was over the number of representatives in Congress.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

I implied people who voted Republican in the 2016 election.



Entirely irrelevant to both my post, and the thread, but okay. Clinton still won more votes than Trump and only lost because of a system that grants voters in swing states absurdly more voting power than voters in states that routinely vote for one party.

Your problem is that there is not popular vote system for Hillary to win for the office of president. We are 50 states.....not one big state. And despite your attempt to deflect away from democrats voting for Trump, it is reality. Democrats voted for Trump in large enough numbers in the blue firewall states to prevent any Hillary comeback. The general election is not the primaries.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

That the reason he gives for the electoral college was not the reason expressed by the founding fathers. What part of my post confused you?

Which part of Hamilton favored the electoral college over a popular vote election confused you? And what really matters is what was expressed by the founding fathers.

 

[Fenton Lum]

For those of you that want to get rid of the EC.

The reason that the EC exists is because we are not one whole country. We are a country with States in it. Not county's. Not districts. But States. What exactly does that mean? In order to understand what that means you have to examine history.

Just before the Revolutionary War there were various districts that was controlled by the Brittish. After the Revolutionary War these same districts didn't just dissolve. The leaders of these districts considered themselves separate from the other districts. They were their own little mini-countries for lack of a better term at this time. These leaders knew that with them being so small that another country, a bigger country with more resources could came in (especially with the aftermath of the Revolutionary War) and basically take them over quite easily. In order to avoid this they communicated with each other for the express purpose of mutual defense. They were essentially doing what any other country did with when they had possible opponents that were bigger than them. A system that has been in effect for thousands of years and still exists to this day. They were making allies with equal or smaller, or hopefully bigger, states than they were. All for mutual defense.

While trying to make allies they did not and never intended to give up control of their areas. This was purely a strategic tactic to ensure their survival. This led to the first Constitution known as the Articles of Confederation. As the name implies it was a confederation of states. Separate but equal states bound together for self defense. After some time they realized that the Articles of Confederation had some flaws. For example there was a problem of money paying for what this federal government was supposed to do. Or rather the lack of money to pay for it and there was no provisions in the Articles of Confederation that allowed the raising of such monies. IE: Taxes. They relied entirely upon the States to fund them and those States often did not pay in full what they promised. The States realized in order to properly assure mutual defense then they needed to make a slightly stronger federal government. One that could raise the money needed for protection and one that could over ride petty squabbles if the need should arise. (one reason the commerce clause was added into the US Constitution)

This led to a Constitutional Convention. Which formed the current Constitution. The States gave up some power to ensure that all protection was mutual. But, even though they gave up some power for this they did not and would not give up complete power. They ensured this by making a limited Federal Government. Delegating it certain powers which it was never supposed to go beyond. Part of doing this was what led to the Electoral College. It ensured that the States, got to choose who ran the Federal government. And they made it to where each State would have essentially one voice, one vote. (the EC is more complicated than that, just boiling it down here). Each member State was supposed to have equal say in this Federal government. And it was designed this way by making the legislatures of each State select representatives to decide who was to become President.

Note what I said there. It was designed this way by making the legislatures of each State select representatives to decide who was to become President. It wasn't left up to the people of each state. But their legislatures. The people had their say in how the Federal government was run by electing their legislatures and Representatives into office. IE: The Senators and Congressmen. It was up to the States to decide who to elect to enforce the will of the People. That is how the member States kept their control of how the Government was run. The people were never meant to elect the President. Just the Senators and Congressmen. It was another part of the Checks and Balances that was made into the current US Constitution. A way to make sure that the Executive Branch was not stronger than the Legislative Branch and the Judicial Branch. And visa versa all around.

There is of course a bit more to it. This is just the watered down version but enough is in there to explain why we have the EC.

In summary: We the People get to decide how our government is run via the Legislative Branch of our government by electing the Senators and Congressmen. The States gets to decide who to pick to execute the laws that is made by the Senate and House of Representatives. We are not One Country. We are several Member States acting in concert for the defense of all.

We are not One Country. We are several Member States acting in concert for the defense of all.

Hardly sir, hardly.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

no thanks. they are the ones doing the gerrymandering. it's the same way in every state.

if anyone is doing gerrymandering, it should be the states. The elections that are affected by gerrymandering are state elections deciding who the states are sending to the House of Representatives.

not if we only use census generated population density data to draw the districts. everyone who believes in democracy should oppose gerrymandering.

The census itself can and has been manipulated.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

gerrymandering is cheating, and state control of drawing districts hasn't even approached solving the problem. therefore, districts should be drawn federally.

It is not cheating. It is 100% legal and constitutional for the states to handle reapportionment. It would be unconstitutional for the feds to handle it. It would take a constitutional amendment that the states would have to ratify with a 3/4ths majority to change it to fed control.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

You do realize most other democracies do not have gerrymandering right?

We are a representative republic.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

How about a simple rule that no congressional district can have parts of more than one county? It could contain multiple whole counties but may split only one of them.

Preventing nonsense as in the link below (my congressional district) is easy to avoid:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas's_35th_congressional_district

That strip contains parts of 5 different counties and two cities (about 80 miles apart) yet contains no whole county.

That would be up to the individual states. I agree that some abuse does go on. and the biggest abusers historically have been democrats

 

[ttwtt78640]

That would be up to the individual states. I agree that some abuse does go on. and the biggest abusers historically have been democrats

There is a serious probelm when the representatives get to select their voters rather than the other way around.

 

[Helix]

how would the feds know what to do?
again you still have not argued say states should be stripped of their right to district their state.
We did it in FL just fine. 2 districts had to be redone but other than that everyone else was fine.

2 reps lost their seats when it was redistricted but that was almost expected.

it has to be done at the federal level, as the states will cheat like they do now. the districts should be drawn by a computer using only census population data. not that it will ever happen as both teams love to subvert democracy by cheating, but ideally, that's how to solve the problem.

 

[SirGareth]

The founders only wanted the people to vote directly for their Representatives who held the sole power to initiate any federal tax levies. The Senate did not consist of elected Senators but 2 appointed Senators from each state who had the power to vote down gifts the people might be tempted to vote themselves from the treasury thought their popularly elected representatives. The House and the Senate held profoundly different roles, the Senate had oversight over the Executive branch, the House held none and each legislative branch held unique powers to check the other's.

Sadly this fine piece of Constitutional architecture was all but destroyed by the Woodrow Wilson Era 17th amendment, making the two houses redundant, duplicative and dangerously more "democratic."

 

[Helix]

It is not cheating. It is 100% legal and constitutional for the states to handle reapportionment. It would be unconstitutional for the feds to handle it. It would take a constitutional amendment that the states would have to ratify with a 3/4ths majority to change it to fed control.

gerrymandering is absolutely cheating. i'm sorry that you support the practice, tacitly or otherwise.

 

[ataraxia]

Its also nice that a couple of dense population centers do not get to hold the other 90% of the country hostage with whatever coyote acme scheme they come up with.

Well, yeah, maybe. But that also seems to mean that the majority of the country can get to be held hostage by a handful of hillbillies living out in the middle of nowhere with whatever coyote acme scheme they come up with.

 

[SirGareth]

You may be out of step with the times; the new prerogative is identity based representation, thus voters more in tune with the insanity of the left would select their own district, not by geography, but by their most valued and prized identity: The "transgendered" would have their own district, the blacks theirs (they mostly do now through the gerrymander), the hispanics theirs, the gays, the Muslims, the Asians, the feminists, abortion "rights" etc.

 

[ataraxia]

You may be out of step with the times; the new prerogative is identity based representation, thus districts more in tune with the insanity of the left would select their own district not by geography but by their most valued and prized identity. The "transgendered" would have their own district, the blacks theirs (they mostly do now through the gerrymander), the hispanics theirs, the gays, the Muslims, the Asians, the feminists, abortion "rights" etc.

As opposed to what? The prerogative of the right that the whole country be run by rural, older, uneducated white males? Or is it just the Koch brothers?

 

[SirGareth]

Well, yeah, maybe. But that also seems to mean that the majority of the country can get to be held hostage by a handful of hillbillies living out in the middle of nowhere with whatever coyote acme scheme they come up with.

You may be out of step with the times; the new prerogative is identity based representation, thus voters more in tune with the insanity of the left would select their own district, not by geography, but by their most valued and prized identity: The "transgendered" would have their own district, the blacks theirs (they mostly do now through the gerrymander), the hispanics theirs, the gays, the Muslims, the Asians, the feminists, abortion "rights" etc.

 

[SirGareth]

As opposed to what? The prerogative of the right that the whole country be run by rural, older, uneducated white males? Or is it just the Koch brothers?

I value my lack of indoctrination (what you call "education")

I know how the world really works, the collegiate world is merely a Disneyland for sheltered acne faced imbeciles turned out by government unions.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

There is a serious probelm when the representatives get to select their voters rather than the other way around.

You mean those same state representatives who are elected by their voters? Where is the problem with that? I certainly admit that those drawing the districts often draw them in hilarious fashion, however it is legal.

 

[ataraxia]

I value my lack of indoctrination (what you call "education")

I know how the world really works, the collegiate world is merely a Disneyland for sheltered acne faced imbeciles turned out by government unions.

The computer you are typing on and the internet you are surfing on was designed by those acne faced imbeciles.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

it has to be done at the federal level, as the states will cheat like they do now. the districts should be drawn by a computer using only census population data. not that it will ever happen as both teams love to subvert democracy by cheating, but ideally, that's how to solve the problem.

"Has to" simply does not apply without a constitutional amendment that 3/4ths of the states must ratify. Reapportionment is a relegated to the states, not the feds. That's the breaks.

 

[Helix]

"Has to" simply does not apply without a constitutional amendment that 3/4ths of the states must ratify. Reapportionment is a relegated to the states, not the feds. That's the breaks.

i support doing it by whatever means are necessary. won't happen, though, because both sides like to cheat.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

gerrymandering is absolutely cheating. i'm sorry that you support the practice, tacitly or otherwise.

I do wish there was a better way. I did not like what the democrats did with it when they held the advantage for seven decades, however until someone comes up with a better way of doing reapportionment and gets a constitutional amendment passed to change it, or the individual states change it on their own.....it's the law, like it or not. I am amused, though that the democrats in general(not speaking of you) absolutely loved gerrymandering until the republicans took control of it in the aftermath of the 2010 state elections.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

i support doing it by whatever means are necessary. won't happen, though, because both sides like to cheat.

Whatever means necessary will take a very long time if it ever happens. I am not sure that the establishment politicians in either party really want to give it up altogether.