Law Did a court ruling just invalidate the electoral college?

[Beaver Brownlee]

Biden will get the nom, so it's a 50/50 shot. If its Warren or Sanders, they will get hosed in the midwest again and trump takes it.

Lol!
That stammering yammering old fool doesn't stand a chance.

 

[Beaver Brownlee]

Not even close.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Liberal states have the most electoral votes, not Republican states. And you're right, states don't have exactly equal votes as you pointed out Cali has far to many imo just as other heavily populated states.

Liberal states on the whole have more electoral votes, but their residents are underrepresented. How does CA have too many electoral votes when each CA elector represents a greater number of people than electors in smaller states?

 

[MikeMcMann]

Because it facilitated easier vote counts when it created as a matter of logistics. It's also another example of where the individual states and geographic majorities are balanced against the raw power of the federal horde; similar to the nature of representation in our bicameral Congress. This is why people love to say that we're a "Republic" instead of a Democracy. Not really, but it's fun to say.

You're going to love the electoral college in a few decades 100x more than you hate it today. I promise. Calm down, and endure this rollicking wave.

That is an interesting comment as I read basically the exact same argument just yesterday on another, more hardcore sight.

The argument was that with the continued browning of America and the inevitable loss of majority control in America to minorities the electoral college was the last and most important safeguard to ensure Whites would be able to maintain majority control, despite having minority numbers.

Is that what you are referring to with your statement?

Because change is hard. I don't think anyone truly thinks it's a good way to decide the presidency, but at any given time there are unprincipled hacks who will defend it because they think it's in their partisan advantage.

The thinking behind it was that Americans wouldn't know much about the presidential candidates, but they would know who they trusted in their areas to make good decisions about it. And the expectation was that there would rarely be a candidate who wins a majority in the electoral college. If there isn't one, the election goes to the House of Representatives (the more-democratic body), which picks among the top three EC vote-getters. So they didn't anticipate parties, but they figured that the EC vote would be like a primary.

If you read through the history, you'll see two main points:

1. It never worked as intended and was poorly conceived from the start; and
2. The apologetics you see today (that it was intended to make only "swing states" matter or whatever) have nothing to do with the thinking behind it.

BTW, fun bit of history that illustrates the disingenuousness of apologists here. If a Democratic candidate ever wins the election without winning the popular vote, the EC is dead.

Change is hard but do you not think it is more tied to it been seen as something that can be controlled and manipulated more to direct outcomes as opposed to the popular vote where tactics such as gerrymandering and voter disenfranchisement and fraud are losing ground to over whelming numbers?

They know they are losing on the latter and thus must cling to the former?

 

[Beaver Brownlee]

Liberal states on the whole have more electoral votes, but their residents are underrepresented. How does CA have too many electoral votes when each CA elector represents a greater number of people than electors in smaller states?

Because it's still giving preference for population rather than equal state representation.

 

[oldshadow]

Because change is hard. I don't think anyone truly thinks it's a good way to decide the presidency, but at any given time there are unprincipled hacks who will defend it because they think it's in their partisan advantage.

The thinking behind it was that Americans wouldn't know much about the presidential candidates, but they would know who they trusted in their areas to make good decisions about it. And the expectation was that there would rarely be a candidate who wins a majority in the electoral college. If there isn't one, the election goes to the House of Representatives (the more-democratic body), which picks among the top three EC vote-getters. So they didn't anticipate parties, but they figured that the EC vote would be like a primary.

If you read through the history, you'll see two main points:

1. It never worked as intended and was poorly conceived from the start; and
2. The apologetics you see today (that it was intended to make only "swing states" matter or whatever) have nothing to do with the thinking behind it.

BTW, fun bit of history that illustrates the disingenuousness of apologists here. If a Democratic candidate ever wins the election without winning the popular vote, the EC is dead.

Typical left you just hate them fly over and southern states having any say in who get elected as president. The urban heavy states should get to rule everyone.

If a democrat wins but loses the popular vote the system still worked and the supporters of the college would still support it.

There is still debate if Kennedy lost the popular vote and won the election.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Because it's still giving preference for population rather than equal state representation.

"Equal state representation" would mean people from small states are more overrepresnted than they already are now.

 

[Kandyland]

Liberal states have the most electoral votes, not Republican states. And you're right, states don't have exactly equal votes as you pointed out Cali has far to many imo just as other heavily populated states.

Agreed. California and New York alone are fucking 84 Electoral votes for the Democrats every election. I'm not sure what the whining from @sabretruth is all about. The whole point of the Electoral vote was to stop places like Cali and New York from dictating the elections ever year and to give smaller states a voice. It's not that hard @sabretruth.

I always thought TDS was an over played shtick by Republicans, but in terms of the Electoral college, it's a real thing. Look at the replys in this thread. The whining because the election didn't go their way so lets abolish it. My God it's cringy.

 

[Beaver Brownlee]

"Equal state representation" would mean people from small states are more overrepresnted than they already are now.

Do tell why a more populated states should dictate to less populated states who should be president.
Mob rule isn't a good thing.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Agreed. California and New York alone are fucking 84 Electoral votes for the Democrats every election. I'm not sure what the whining from @sabretruth is all about. The whole point of the Electoral vote was to stop places like Cali and New York from dictating the elections ever year.

I always thought TDS was an over played shtick by Republicans, but in terms of the Electoral college, it's a real thing. Look at the replys in this thread. The whining because the election didn't go their way so lets abolish it. My God it's cringy.

The "whining" is based on people from small states counting more in Presidential elections than people from large states. There is no good ethical reason why living in a state with a small population should give a person greater say in determining the President than living in a large state.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Change is hard but do you not think it is more tied to it been seen as something that can be controlled and manipulated more to direct outcomes as opposed to the popular vote where tactics such as gerrymandering and voter disenfranchisement and fraud are losing ground to over whelming numbers?

They know they are losing on the latter and thus must cling to the former?

Gerrymandering wouldn't be relevant to the EC, but there is a perception on the right that demographic change is dooming them in fair elections and that various forms of fuckery are going to be needed for them to hold power (apparently, the thought of, like, not basing an electoral strategy on appeals to white resentment and instead switching to good governance that will have broad appeal hasn't come up). But I don't know that the EC is inherently favorable to the right; it's just kind of worked out that way recently. Hence my point that if it ever is responsible for Democrats winning an election they would have lost, it's gone. No one with principles who isn't a moron thinks it's actually a good way to do things.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Do tell why a more populated states should dictate to less populated states who should be president.
Mob rule isn't a good thing.

It's not "dictating". But each citizen should have an equal say, instead of citizens from small states having political privilege.

 

[oldshadow]

"Equal state representation" would mean people from small states are more overrepresnted than they already are now.

We were formed as a union of states, with all states having and equal say in the running of the country.

It was one of the stipulations the less populated states wanted before they signed up.

Otherwise they would have done away with the states

 

[Beaver Brownlee]

Agreed. California and New York alone are fucking 84 Electoral votes for the Democrats every election. I'm not sure what the whining from @sabretruth is all about. The whole point of the Electoral vote was to stop places like Cali and New York from dictating the elections ever year and to give smaller states a voice. It's not that hard @sabretruth.

I always thought TDS was an over played shtick by Republicans, but in terms of the Electoral college, it's a real thing. Look at the replys in this thread. The whining because the election didn't go their way so lets abolish it. My God it's cringy.

They want mob rule and are to ignorant to understand how retarded that is. If that's the way everything worked we'd have sundown laws again.

 

[oldshadow]

Because each citizen should have an equal say, instead of citizens from small states having political privilege.

We are the United States not one huge single state and that’s the way it was intended.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

 

[Jack V Savage]

Typical left you just hate them fly over and southern states having any say in who get elected as president. The urban heavy states should get to rule everyone.

No, I want everyone to have equal say. It's interesting how rightists ITT can't seem to even imagine others having genuine principles. I think you guys are saying more than you intend to.

If a democrat wins put loses the popular vote the system still worked and the supporters of the college would still support it.

Trump wanted to get rid of it in 2012. Bush's team was preparing an all-out blitz against it if they won the popular vote but lost the EC (and conservative columnists and radio hosts were ready to help with that). I think if we're being honest, we have to face up to the fact that the modern GOP simply has no principles and will say and do whatever to hold power. But that's not symmetrical. Liberals genuinely think it's a bad system and would think that even if it advantaged them so the moment the right doesn't see it as being to their advantage, there will be bipartisan support for fixing it.

 

[oldshadow]

No, I want everyone to have equal say. It's interesting how rightists ITT can't seem to even imagine others having genuine principles. I think you guys are saying more than you intend to.



Trump wanted to get rid of it in 2012. Bush's team was preparing an all-out blitz against it if they won the popular vote but lost the EC (and conservative columnists and radio hosts were ready to help with that). I think if we're being honest, we have to face up to the fact that the modern GOP simply has no principles and will say and do whatever to hold power. But that's not symmetrical. Liberals genuinely think it's a bad system and would think that even if it advantaged them so the moment the right doesn't see it as being to their advantage, there will be bipartisan support for fixing it.

Trump was stupid to even suggest it and the overwhelming number of conservatives that support the constitution will fight it.

By the way Trump is a NYC republican so he says some dumb shit.

 

[Jack V Savage]

We were formed as a union of states, with all states having and equal say in the running of the country.

It was one of the stipulations the less populated states wanted before they signed up.

Otherwise they would have done away with the states

That has nothing to do with why the EC was set up the way it was. The discrepancy we have now is an unintended result of the capping of the size of the House of Representatives, which happened in 1929.

 

[Beaver Brownlee]

It's not "dictating". But each citizen should have an equal say, instead of citizens from small states having political privilege.

It most certainly is. And less populated states still do have less say because of the imbalance of electoral votes.

I don't know why it's so hard to understand that heavily populated states already have a greater say and insist they should have the entire say because of their population. It's retarded.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

We are the United States not one huge single state and that’s the way it was intended.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

No shit? Taking away people from small states' privilege wouldn't make the US "one huge single state".