The Electoral College

[arewethereyet]

There is no state that counts more than any other...it is still the United States of America.

There is no person who is worthy of more than one vote.

[GUBU]

Hitler ran and won on the popular vote. .

No he didn't. Hitler never won an election until after he installed the SA inside polling booths.

Learn your history.

Oh, and you're conception of tge US having separation of powers is total bullshit.

---

Tell me, what is the job of the EC?

It's ironic but the EC is there to prevent a popular vote election from electing a foreign-controlled, unqualified populist demagogue from winning. 

And so our founders created the very mechanic that actively led to their nightmare.

Actually the EC alomg with the senate were there to ensure that the slave states held the balance of power and stop the election of an Abraham Lincoln.

They were a grubby compromise made between the oligarchs of New England and the South.

---

There is no state that counts more than any other...it is still the United States of America.

There is no person who is worthy of more than one vote.

Tell that to the US constitution. If a California resident has one vote, the an Alaska resident has more than twenty in Senate elections and a similar multiple in presidential ones. And even house elections, the ones supposed to be democratic, are gimped to fuck and back.

The US politcial system is little better than Russia's.

[Cecelia]

Donald Trump represents best why the Electoral College is a failed system. Not just because he won, but because theoretically he could refuse to give federal funding to every state that didn't vote for him -- and this is no doubt something he would try to do -- and still win the Presidency. And if not Donald Trump, then a future President that is just as petty as him. The President is supposed to represent everyone. This President has failed in that regard (and so many others). Our Electoral College system simply doesn't work.

[Brian37]

Donald Trump represents best why the Electoral College is a failed system.  Not just because he won, but because theoretically he could refuse to give federal funding to every state that didn't vote for him -- and this is no doubt something he would try to do -- and still win the Presidency.  And if not Donald Trump, then a future President that is just as petty as him.  The President is supposed to represent everyone.  This President has failed in that regard (and so many others).  Our Electoral College system simply doesn't work.

Again, what do we replace it with?

To say that other western attempts at defending pluralism have not failed would be wrong. Human history is full of western attempts at open states that fail. 

I see any western government, as run by humans, and just like closed oppressive states arise, all are still run by humans.

I am not arguing for or against the EC, I am arguing that what we do matters regardless of keeping it, or scrapping it.

I think ultimately any system humans set up and defend or question, no matter what, always require vigilance and forethought and checks and balances. 

It isn't enough to say "scrap the EC"....... Whatever we replace it with, if we can, still has to have the insurance of not allowing either mob rule by majority or mob rule by minority. 

I am not arguing don't replace it, but what do we replace it with?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Donald Trump represents best why the Electoral College is a failed system.  Not just because he won, but because theoretically he could refuse to give federal funding to every state that didn't vote for him -- and this is no doubt something he would try to do -- and still win the Presidency.  And if not Donald Trump, then a future President that is just as petty as him.  The President is supposed to represent everyone.  This President has failed in that regard (and so many others).  Our Electoral College system simply doesn't work.

Again, what do we replace it with?

To say that other western attempts at defending pluralism have not failed would be wrong. Human history is full of western attempts at open states that fail. 

I see any western government, as run by humans, and just like closed oppressive states arise, all are still run by humans.

I am not arguing for or against the EC, I am arguing that what we do matters regardless of keeping it, or scrapping it.

I think ultimately any system humans set up and defend or question, no matter what, always require vigilance and forethought and checks and balances. 

It isn't enough to say "scrap the EC"....... Whatever we replace it with, if we can, still has to have the insurance of not allowing either mob rule by majority or mob rule by minority. 

I am not arguing don't replace it, but what do we replace it with?

Why replace it with anything? Simply abolish it and elect your president via the popular vote. 

Boru

[Brian37]

Again, what do we replace it with?

To say that other western attempts at defending pluralism have not failed would be wrong. Human history is full of western attempts at open states that fail. 

I see any western government, as run by humans, and just like closed oppressive states arise, all are still run by humans.

I am not arguing for or against the EC, I am arguing that what we do matters regardless of keeping it, or scrapping it.

I think ultimately any system humans set up and defend or question, no matter what, always require vigilance and forethought and checks and balances. 

It isn't enough to say "scrap the EC"....... Whatever we replace it with, if we can, still has to have the insurance of not allowing either mob rule by majority or mob rule by minority. 

I am not arguing don't replace it, but what do we replace it with?

Why replace it with anything? Simply abolish it and elect your president via the popular vote. 

Boru

This is an oversimplification.

There are dictatorships an theocracies whom also have elections, despite popular belief.


Even outside the EC concept, our Supreme Court on countless occasions sided with the minority, even though the majority voted one way.

Again, and I cannot repeat this enough. I am torn on the EC concept. 

But lets put it this way, if Gore had lost the popular vote and won the EC how many liberals would complain? If Hillary had lost the popular vote but won the EC how many liberals would complain?

I don't like the EC either. But at the same time, like I have said, there are plenty of other countries in history without an EC that started out open an pluralistic only to fail and end up in closed authoritarian states.

The problem with a pure democracy without checks on even voters, is you are still dealing with human nature and tribalism, and that means powers can con and manipulate for a party or even an individual's favor. 

I don't have a solution myself. I will admit that. But selling populism without checks on power is also how dictatorships, despots and theocracies arise.

[Sal]

There are dictatorships an theocracies whom also have elections, despite popular belief.

Oh please. Those elections are a farce and mean nothing other than a public display to give the appearance of validity for the government in such countries.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Why replace it with anything? Simply abolish it and elect your president via the popular vote. 

Boru

This is an oversimplification.

There are dictatorships an theocracies whom also have elections, despite popular belief.


Even outside the EC concept, our Supreme Court on countless occasions sided with the minority, even though the majority voted one way.

Again, and I cannot repeat this enough. I am torn on the EC concept. 

But lets put it this way, if Gore had lost the popular vote and won the EC how many liberals would complain? If Hillary had lost the popular vote but won the EC how many liberals would complain?

I don't like the EC either. But at the same time, like I have said, there are plenty of other countries in history without an EC that started out open an pluralistic only to fail and end up in closed authoritarian states.

The problem with a pure democracy without checks on even voters, is you are still dealing with human nature and tribalism, and that means powers can con and manipulate for a party or even an individual's favor. 

I don't have a solution myself. I will admit that. But selling populism without checks on power is also how dictatorships, despots and theocracies arise.

I don’t think that’s really a valid argument for keeping the EC (and yes, I get that you aren’t advocating for it). 

Dumping the EC wouldn’t affect checks on power. Nations with an electoral collegiate aren’t any more or less likely to become despotic than countries without one. Consider your current situation. You have a venal, corrupt chief executive for whom the majority did not vote.

Boru

[Mister Agenda]

What CAN be done at the federal level is putting teeth into customs regarding what the president isn't supposed to do. What good is the emoluments clause if it's not enforceable?

[Foxaèr]

I think the most important fact to consider involving how the EC simply doesn’t work realistically is that there has never been an instance where the EC elected a Democrat against the popular vote.

In consideration of that, and how the Republican Party fails every time in office, it is only logical that the Conservative party be put to rest indefinitely.