(November 13, 2016 at 1:33 am)Tiberius Wrote:(November 13, 2016 at 1:26 am)Brian37 Wrote: Everyone condemns the electoral college without understanding it. It is simply one check on power among many. Without it we could have mob rule by vote.
1) The electoral college is still mob rule by vote, it's just that some people's votes are worth more than others.
2) "Mob rule" by vote would have elected Clinton this time around.
I completely understand the electoral college. I understand it enough to know it's a horrible system to elect a national president. People can rant about how smaller states need more say, but why? The people from those smaller states make up a fraction of the US population, and you are voting for a president of the entire nation, not just that state. If you want to fairly represent the entire nation, there's a simple way to do that: popular vote.
Think about it, and read my take on it. IF it were reverse, would you want that "majority rule" to be Trump and the loons whom are about to take over? Now don't get me wrong, I doubt it will get employed, but when brought up to their party it is a warning to behave.
I don't like the ugliness of it, no, but if the rolls were reversed and Trump won the popular vote but lost the electoral college we would be cheering and Trump supporters would be screaming.
We are a sanctuary government, in the context of the constitution that means neither the majority or minority always get what they want. They designed it as a fail safe to prevent tyranny. Which is why originally, before some states made it law that the electorate had to vote the way the voters did, they could go against their voters anonymously. Popular vote is what gave rise to Hitler.
People act like it is unfair. No, what we keep failing at is turnout and we keep letting them control the narrative. Now if you want to argue it doesn't work, ok, but I would argue it does not work because we don't beat them at their own game.
I ultimately see this as a football game or baseball game, metaphorically speaking. If you know the rules going in, you cant complain when you lose. I hated that Bush won, and now this. If we had had the same turnout in every state like Obama did or better, it never would have gotten to this point. But it is in place just in case we end up with someone like we have now. If you want to avoid morons like Trump, the idea is to beat them at the game, so you don't have to end up employing the "oh shit what were we thinking" option in it.
There are republicans who if not in public are thinking "FUCK, I wanted to win, but not like this". The appeal to the college is a way of sobering up after you got drunk at the keg party. I am not saying it will work in all cases. As far as I know the "reconsider" option has never been used.I am saying facing the winning minority with that prospect can act as a leash.
The King of England is whom they had in mind with this. Napoleon would be someone they had in mind, and most certainly Hitler. No electoral college, no way to appeal to the officials after the vote. It does include the attempt to say the Senate, "look, I know this happened, but this is nuts" and that last ditch appeal also applies in a popular vote too.
If Kim Jong Un won both the popular vote beyond the close margin, OUR constitution would allow the attempt of the public to appeal say "HELP DONT DO THIS"
That appeal to our Senate isn't limited to majority or minority, just a last option to say " do you really want to do this"?
If
