History of the electoral college READ....

[Brian37]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/douglas-an...97066.html

This allows for each voting in the college to vote their conscious. We are an indirect democracy or a "republic". 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. Getting rid of the electoral college right now with all three branches under GOP control and their 36 years of gerrymandering, it could increase their consolidation of power even more. There is a tool in it to allow the college to vote anonymously in so that the public nor do the members know who voted for whom. 

It is possible, although not likely since most voters don't understand the constitution, to have just enough in the college if convinced by the sane voters to flip their vote for someone other than the winner.

[Tiberius]

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.

[Opoponax]

Lesser populated states are already over-represented by the fact that each state is only allowed two senators and states like Wyoming have one Congressional representative for every 200,000 people while California gets one for every 670,000. That's more than fucking enough.

"Oh, but the big population centers would always pick the President!"

No. A majority of Americans would elect the President.

The very assholes who were claiming a conspiracy about a rigged election are actually the ones who have it rigged in their favor by being grossly overrepresented.

But whatever. It can and has been overcome. If the lazy asses who had the most to lose from a Trump Presidency would have bothered to vote, we wouldn't be in this mess right now. At least the Trumptards got out and voted for their candidate.

[Brian37]

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

[Opoponax]

True. At least insofar as it prevents a tyranny of the majority. And it can be overcome if these people would've gotten off their asses the way they did for Obama and voted.

Yes, Hillary was a boring, worn-out candidate who was for the most part, handed the nomination by the party. Yes, that sucks. But goddammit, look at the alternative.

Now, the bathing-in-the-sewer downside to this is that we have reached a point where the country is being held back by idiocy. For example, anyone who is upset at the continuous rising cost of healthcare should be screaming for universal healthcare. People are angry at corporate greed, but somehow health insurance companies are exempt from this ire? It makes no goddamn sense.

The anger of discarded white Americans is a very real thing that should not and cannot be ignored. But these people, who would benefit the most from things like universal healthcare, green energy development programs, infrastructure repair, etc. just voted for someone who isn't going to do any of that. These are also the folks most likely to end up in the military/have their kids in the military. And which Trump will we get? The "I'm gonna bomb the shit out of them" Trump, or the isolationist Trump?

If the word "consistency" can be used with Trump, it might be applicable to his belief that our military needs more money. An even bigger, stronger, more powerful military will be a toy too great to resist when controlled by a man who gets into Twitter wars with former beauty pageant contestants.

This is a man who seems able to be baited by the flatulence that North Korea farts out 2-3 times a year about how it's going to destroy America. Every sensible person knows NK isn't gonna do shit. They do that to subtly justify to their population the need for military spending that they can't afford, and to keep Dear Leader's image strong. The leadership there knows exactly what it's doing and it has no intention of invading South Korea because they know that it would be the end of their reign. They're entirely predictable.

But now add in the utterly unpredictable Trump? Fuck. And well... I don't think he realized how closely controlled NK is by China.

Anyway, I could name any number of dangers Trump voters have now exposed us to; and this was not the will of the people, so to speak. The Electoral College failed us with W. and it's failed us again now, except now the consequences could be a lot worse.

[Tiberius]

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.

This is what is wrong with your argument. It's not about the result you prefer, it's about the result that is fair. Would I want Trump to have the majority vote? No, but if he actually did, I'd have to respect that, because clearly that would be what most of the country wanted. 

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.

False equivalence. Just because the popular vote is what gave rise to Hitler doesn't mean it's a bad or terrible thing. It's actually a very fair method of determining an outcome between two options.

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.

Bullshit you can't complain when you lose, especially if the rules are inherently unfair.

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"?

Right, and the problem is, this was all put into motion before political parties were really a thing. The only election where the House and Senate decided it was when there were 4 major parties who each got a good share of the vote.

The problem with the electoral college today, other than being a ridiculously unfair system, is that the actual "electors" are party members, and generally party members in their position will vote for their party.

[Pat Mustard]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/douglas-an...97066.html

This allows for each voting in the college to vote their conscious. We are an indirect democracy or a "republic". 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. Getting rid of the electoral college right now with all three branches under GOP control and their 36 years of gerrymandering, it could increase their consolidation of power even more. There is a tool in it to allow the college to vote anonymously in so that the public nor do the members know who voted for whom. 

It is possible, although not likely since most voters don't understand the constitution, to have just enough in the college if convinced by the sane voters to flip their vote for someone other than the winner.

The electoral college is fundamentally anti-democratic and a means to impose the tyranny of the patricians the founding fathers wished the US to be.

[Pat Mustard]

Popular vote is what gave rise to Hitler. 

Wrong. What gave rise to Hitler was squalid backroom deals by a bunch of mainstream right politicians who were idiot enough to think they could control him even after giving him the reigns of power.

The NSDAP was on the precipice of a sharp downward turn in the polls by the time Hitler was made Reichkanzler, having lost 2m votes (from 13.75m down to 11.75m) between the July 1932 and November 1932 elections. Their appeal was actually very much on the wane as the German electorate were waking up to what the party was over that summer and autumn. Without Franz von Papen, the party would probably have become one of those weird historical footnotes you see all the time.

[Brian37]

Our system would be no more perfect or imperfect with or without the electoral college. WE would win every election if we would simply correct our focus and improve our turnout. STOP USING THE COLLEGE as and excuse.

To put it in NFL terms, you can put all the passing and running numbers as stats and brag about that all season, but what matters at the end of any game is whom has more points. If all we want is mob rule we don't need a congress either. Our right loves us making an excuse and blaming the electoral college, that anger allows them to keep us divided.

No, STOP FUCKING FALLING FOR THAT, it should not matter. what matters is beating them at that game, not making excuses for our own failures at geography and turnout.

I don't care what western system you set up, any system can be manipulated and no system is perfect. In this case the cure is very simple. FOCUS and geography, not infighting. That is why we never keep a majority of states and cant keep swings states. Because they are focused and we are not.

[Tiberius]

Our system would be no more perfect or imperfect with or without the electoral college. WE would win every election if we would simply correct our focus and improve our turnout. STOP USING THE COLLEGE as and excuse.

You are wrong. It would be "more perfect" without the electoral college, if you actually care about having fair elections that is. While I agree with you that focusing on turnout would certainly help the Democrats win, all you are doing is playing within the confines of an already unfair system.

This strikes me as the difference between you and I. You seem to just care about the Democrats winning, regardless of the system in place. I care about democracy, and ensuring that the election system produces the fairest result, even if that means the Democrats lost.

If all we want is mob rule we don't need a congress either.

We have a representative democracy, so yes, we do need a congress. The point of congress is that representatives are elected from small districts within states (or for the state themselves), so that those districts each have a voice in the national government. The point of the President is to be the leader of the nation. As the leader of the nation, he/she represents everyone, so everyone should have an equal vote to elect him/her. The electoral college fails miserably at that job.

You can remove the electoral college and still have checks and balances that prevent "mob rule". The president is not all powerful.

No, STOP FUCKING FALLING FOR THAT, it should not matter. what matters is beating them at that game, not making excuses for our own failures at geography and turnout.

No, what matters is democracy. If you win by manipulating a broken and unfair system, that's a tainted win in my eyes. Fix the electoral system and win the Presidency fairly.

I don't care what western system you set up, any system can be manipulated and no system is perfect.

Right, but some are more resistant to manipulation than others. The electoral college allows a person to win the presidency with 22% of the popular vote.