Beto: "EC basically just like slavery"
- Thread starter AC_Exotic
- Start date
Does it give you pause that the only way for your side maintain power is to defend minority rule tooth and nail?
Nope. Founding fathers were way smarter than you and pelosi and Joy Behar.
Oh the smartest ones. Can’t wait to watch you not back that up. Need a Red Bull first?
James Madison
Are you going to back up that they were "way smarter" than Joy Behar and Nancy Pelosi?
The United "States" of America <----- it's right there in the name. States rights. This is not supposed to be a centralized federal power. It's a representative republic of states and the EC was an important part of that agreement from the very beginning - as is senatorial representation that is equal between states of all sizes. It was always a compromise and it was a brilliant one then, as it is now.
There is already a mechanism in congress that's based specifically on population density. It's called the House of Representatives.
Thats how this works. It's fvcking simple, you commie lunatics. It's one thing for a history-blind moron who lives in a population dense city to individually not understand the fact that his vote for president is slightly underweighted - it's quite another to disenfranchise entire swaths of flyover states. These fools absolutely do not understand the unintended consequences of that - or maybe they do and simply don't care.
3 things you are never getting rid of:
And once again - as I've stated many times - the EC for a presidential candidate is simply a scoring strategy. If the goal were to get the most popular votes vs the most delegate votes via EC, the strategy would be different and the outcomes would rarely change from what they already are - including Trump.
There is already a mechanism in congress that's based specifically on population density. It's called the House of Representatives.
Thats how this works. It's fvcking simple, you commie lunatics. It's one thing for a history-blind moron who lives in a population dense city to individually not understand the fact that his vote for president is slightly underweighted - it's quite another to disenfranchise entire swaths of flyover states. These fools absolutely do not understand the unintended consequences of that - or maybe they do and simply don't care.
3 things you are never getting rid of:
- 2 senators per state
- Electoral Collage
- 2nd Amendment
And once again - as I've stated many times - the EC for a presidential candidate is simply a scoring strategy. If the goal were to get the most popular votes vs the most delegate votes via EC, the strategy would be different and the outcomes would rarely change from what they already are - including Trump.
I am not arguing what it is "supposed to be" I am arguing what it should be.
And there is a mechanism not based on population that should be eliminated. It is called the Senate.
I think everyone here is well aware of how it works. The more interesting question is how it should work.
People in the flyover states would still have a vote that counts just as much as the people in cities. That's call equality not disenfranchisement.
Simply don't care
You are probably right. Much easier to pack the Senate by increasing the number of states and make the electoral college moot via interstate compact.
It is a bad scoring strategy.
Well then, feel free to eat a bag of dicks.
Yes, but the same logic can be applied today. Not in relation to slavery but illegals.
The northern states didn’t want the southern states having their slaves basically overwhelm their northern vote just as today the conservative states don’t want the liberal states overwhelming our votes from votes by illegals. Since we don’t have ‘federal’ elections, a state is allowed to oversee their own elections. If California wants to allow illegals to vote - go for it. But they only have so much influence over the outcome since the EC is a check and balance to the final outcome and why the popular vote is irrelevant. Without the EC, what prevents Oklahoma from casting eleventy-billion votes for President? Not a damn thing.
And if we went to a popular vote for president, that’s exactly what would happen. Hence, the need for the EC. It’s also why the Democrats don’t want the US Citizenship question on the census. They want to be able to count their illegal and non-citizen population for House of Representatives allocation.
So you have it bass ackwards.
If your goal is to create the best* governing scenario, why do toy with this when you can simply spend your energy advocating for a more optimal solution in the dissolution of the Union into the individual states?
*most representative, whatever your goal is.
Btw, what is your birth name?
You maybe surprised where the whole "illegals" line of reasoning leads you.
Complete opposite. Under and electoral system slaves did count towards presidential voting. Under a popular vote they did not. Southern states were opposed to a popular vote because they would get less power.
Did you know that under the current system states can assign all their electors to the candidate who gets the most non-citizen votes?
This would necessarily change under a popular vote system.
You understand that under the electoral college system you are giving vote fraudsters 50 separate election opportunities to cast the deciding vote in. In 2016 it would have taken 80000 illegal votes to sway the outcome of the election under the EC. Under a popular vote system it would have taken 3million illegal votes.
The constitutional amendment establishing a popular vote?
OK. I don't want to hear any complaining from you when it happens then.I'm all for creating a bunch more states to pack the Senate...
This generally represent your position?
"they dictate that society should be structured so that the greatest possible amount of liberty is given to its members, limited only by the notion that the liberty of any one member shall not infringe upon that of any other member. Secondly, inequalities–either social or economic–are only to be allowed if the worst off will be better off than they might be under an equal distribution. Finally, if there is such a beneficial inequality, this inequality should not make it harder for those without resources to occupy positions of power – for instance, public office"
You advocate usurping current law. Is there a check to the executive branch not enforcing law? Is there a check to a state or municipality not enforcing law?
