It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why do Democrats want to dump the Electoral College?

page: 6
24
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Gryphon66

You're missing my point. On a local level, mob rule makes some sense. Like attracts like and you end up with communities that share similar values and priorities setting their own policies. I clearly said on the national level it doesn't work at all.


I don't think I am missing your point. I think you're mistaken.

Mob rule makes sense on a local level??? You mean, where any of us are more likely to be directly affected than on the national level??? So for example, all those cities, counties and States that have chosen to remove offensive statues are perfectly justified??? After all, mob rule is okay on the local level; as long as more want something, that's okay?

Sorry, no. At every level of our governments, we are republican in form if not in actuality.

On the national level, "mob rule" elects our Presidents! With the exception of TWO STATES each State is "winner take all."

Winner-take-all means that the majority wins, i.e. the majority "of the mob" wins. Democracy, pure and simple.

The Electors from each State are based either directly or indirectly (2 states) on the POPULAR VOTE winner.

The "defense" against "mob rule" in this country is the Congress, not the Presidency.
edit on 13-9-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted




posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The argument in general here is that the EC somehow protects the US from "mob rule" by empowering the smaller States. Given that the whole thing is a numbers game (Electors are awarded based on winner-take-all from the popular vote, the EC winner is winner-take-all) there's really no way to argue this.

...

Winner take all is used in 48 of the 50 States. California and NY tend to go Democrat, Texas Republican, and FL varies.

While you are semi-correct, there's not always a law in the state that mandates that the electors vote this way, and even in states where there are laws mandating a WTA system, or that an elector must vote with the candidate associated with the party under which they were voted in as an elector, the law is not always enforced.

But the reality that these laws or traditions exist doesn't negate the reality that the WTA system is the problem, not the existence of the EC.


As far as your comments regarding "parties don't matter" :

...

If you aren't talking about "political parties" in these comments, what are you talking about?

If you are, my observation stands.

I said show me where I said it in the context that you were using it--I did not.

Regardless, I need to move on in life, so I wish you the best, appreciate the civil debate, and will see you on here in the future, I bet. Right now, though, I must end this discussion on my behalf.

Best regards.



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Now you're diverging into the specious and losing my interest. You know as well as I do that the EC as it currently exists and "how we have always done it" is based on the popular vote in each state, winner take all.

I stated above that it's up to the States how they want to choose their Electors.

Context is a matter of your opinion, which I can respect but not agree with. You stated several times variations on "the political split" in the States was the issue. If so that "political split" is evidenced by the political parties. Six in one, half-dozen in the other.

Thanks for a reasonable conversation!
edit on 13-9-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Is your intent to nit pick at anything I say here, completely ignoring my actual points, or is that a byproduct of something else going on with your mental model? I said it makes "SOME sense" at the local level, as in "In some circumstances, direct democracy is appropriate on the local level." Why you jumped straight toward histrionics of statues is anyone's guess, but no, I'm not going to play that bitchy game over something as ridiculously simple as this.



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Gryphon66

Is your intent to nit pick at anything I say here, completely ignoring my actual points, or is that a byproduct of something else going on with your mental model? I said it makes "SOME sense" at the local level, as in "In some circumstances, direct democracy is appropriate on the local level." Why you jumped straight toward histrionics of statues is anyone's guess, but no, I'm not going to play that bitchy game over something as ridiculously simple as this.


Ah, now you want to sidestep and talk about me.

You're saying that mob rule is okay sometimes when you approve. I say that's ridiculous. Community action and harmony is not "mob rule" and you're merely conflating the two. You know this, I know this.

"Statues" are an issue that is near and dear to your heart according to your postings on here, but, at the local level, you are against "mob rule" or community consensus on that issue, eh?

That's a direct and personal example of the flaw in your argument.

Don't take it personally.


edit on 13-9-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 01:37 PM
link   
The concept of "mob rule" is that society should be defended at large from the actions of a violent few. It's become identical in the "right-wing" lexicon with democratic rule or majority rule (which it is not per se.)

"Mob rule" as used is merely dog-whistle for "places where Democrats are in the majority" ...



Ochlocracy, or mob rule, is often incorrectly equated with tyranny of the majority; however, ochlocracy involves illegal action and does not necessitate a majority. Democracy has been labeled by some as a form of mob rule where the majority forces its will on the minority.


Wikipedia

As I've pointed out, no one wants to break up Texas or Florida, because those are either Republican or very nearly split.

So, this component of the argument is not about fairness or republicanism ... it's about party.



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 01:53 PM
link   
It is generally the losers that call for doing away with the electoral college. I know both parties have called for it a one time or another. But the real problem isn't the electoral college to these people. It is the Constitution that is the problem for these people. You can see the Constitution under attack every day from both sides.



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bob350
It is generally the losers that call for doing away with the electoral college. I know both parties have called for it a one time or another. But the real problem isn't the electoral college to these people. It is the Constitution that is the problem for these people. You can see the Constitution under attack every day from both sides.



Who are "these people" again?



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: jjkenobi
Electoral college is fine.

Having 3 states that pretty much determine every election is not. We need North Cali, South Cali, North NY, and South NY. Or something similar.


Why don't you want to split up Texas or Florida? Seems a bit one-sided.


Split them up too. The point is all our votes are not equal. Your vote matters more in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida than it does in California, Texas, or New York. Your vote never matters in Indiana, Wyoming, , etc.



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: jjkenobi

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: jjkenobi
Electoral college is fine.

Having 3 states that pretty much determine every election is not. We need North Cali, South Cali, North NY, and South NY. Or something similar.


Why don't you want to split up Texas or Florida? Seems a bit one-sided.


Split them up too. The point is all our votes are not equal. Your vote matters more in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida than it does in California, Texas, or New York. Your vote never matters in Indiana, Wyoming, , etc.


Fair enough. Where does it stop? Smaller and smaller partitions ...

Followed to a logical extreme, the EC merely becomes equal to the popular vote?
edit on 13-9-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I'd go on board with a popular vote. If EVERYONE had to show a picture ID to vote. Cut out the crap of busing people in major cities around to all the polling places and voting all day long.



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: jjkenobi
a reply to: Gryphon66

I'd go on board with a popular vote. If EVERYONE had to show a picture ID to vote. Cut out the crap of busing people in major cities around to all the polling places and voting all day long.


I'm okay with National ID as long as it's free and easy to get and it has some sort of biometric component for security.

Can you prove the claim about "busing folks around all day long for multiple votes?"
edit on 13-9-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I respect your opinion but, I think you kinda missed my point? When I said that the country would be a colony ruled by California and New York, I was essentially pointing out what your map below your response points out. The Coasts are where the majority of the population lives and the population count in the urban centers way out numbers the number of rural red zones in fly-over-country. Considering the Democrats have firm majorities on the coasts and key population centers and considering, to my knowledge, we've never seen a Democrat zone magically flip to the Republicans, every Presidential election without the EC would go to the Democrats. And in honesty, my guess is that the Dems only need one more term in the White House to seal the deal by drastically re-openning the flood gates at the borders to gain a substantial margin in nearly ALL the major metro areas. In Texas for example, the Dems have long controlled Houston, San Antonio, Dallas and Austin and that's never going to change because that's where their welfare voter farms are. Another 8 years of open borders and they'll seal the deal.

Albeit all the hype about how well and fast the cities are growing, the truth is that monied Republicans are leaving the cities in droves to escape high taxes. They're also slowly moving their business interests to the "corridors" that link the cities because taxes are so much lower, school districts are better (can attract employees with that), commutes are shorter and more convenient. This will leave the cities as basically financial, insurance and banking centers, much like St. Louis is today.

And therein lies the big divide. Cities ruling fly-over-country without the EC. There may be one hope and that is that the Dems and their Leftist allies in the metro areas give up on the Red Zones and simply pursue their own interests and legislative agendas for their nascent City-States; they've already started to do that in the sense that they don't enforce Federal Immigration laws; California has its own EPA emissions standards that exceed the requirements of the EPA. I can see the Cities nullifying State conceal carry laws so that the Cities become free-fire kill zones much like Chicago. If the cities are allowed to go their own way at least the rural/exurban Red zones will be able to maintain some of their Constitutionally guaranteed rights and liberties.



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: TonyS

We may well disagree, but I think you're still falling prey to the idea of "Red State/Blue State."

Also, we are talking about the election of the President in regard to the EC, not the Congress. The Congress is the body that is intended to reflect the varied makeup, sizes and population, of the nation in the bicameral structure. The Presidency is the ONLY nationally elected Office.

As far as the claim "every Presidential election without the EC would go to the Democrats" is concerned, that's not a foregone conclusion, although I understand the rhetorical value. With exceptions like the last election, the disparity between the raw popular vote and the EC totals is not usually a factor.

The claim that the population centers are only "on the coasts" is true only in the most factual sense that States with coasts are the most populous in the US, but every coastal state is not "Blue."

For example: here's the top ten most populous US states.

California
Texas
New York
Florida
Illinois
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Georgia
Michigan
North Carolina

Which is a mix of coastal and interior and includes several "Red States."

Sure we've seen Blue States flip to Red. Consider Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, or any southern State etc. from 1960-1990.

"Fly over county" (although not specific) is composed of Democrats as well.

I submit you're thinking purely in terms of those Election maps that show only Red and Blue.

We're all mixed up in reality.

And we're all Americans.

And the "urban vs. rural" schism has been an issue since the beginning of the Republic.


edit on 13-9-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Although most the population live on the coast and vote Democrat, the bread basket of the nation is in the fly over country and vote Republican. It is true that Democrat voters outnumber Republican voters, but food is a national security matter. I agree with the founders that the bread basket is important to the nation even though it has very few people. Because of the geography of the nation, the president should not be decided by popular vote.



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: zipruna
Although most the population live on the coast and vote Democrat, the bread basket of the nation is in the fly over country and vote Republican. It is true that Democrat voters outnumber Republican voters, but food is a national security matter. I agree with the founders that the bread basket is important to the nation even though it has very few people. Because of the geography of the nation, the president should not be decided by popular vote.


Are you aware that there was no "midwest" when the Constitution was written and ratified? (The Northwest Territory was established in 1787.)

Are you aware that there are Democratic farmers in the "bread basket" as well?
edit on 13-9-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 08:30 PM
link   
The Queen of the Democratic party, Hillary, is on CNN Anderson Cooper 360 tonight.

She says that the "Electoral College no longer works as intended, and should be abolished."

I haven't read every post in this thread. WHO/WHAT can get rid of the electoral college?



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 08:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
The Queen of the Democratic party, Hillary, is on CNN Anderson Cooper 360 tonight.

She says that the "Electoral College no longer works as intended, and should be abolished."

I haven't read every post in this thread. WHO/WHAT can get rid of the electoral college?


Constitutional Amendment.



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 08:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: carewemust
The Queen of the Democratic party, Hillary, is on CNN Anderson Cooper 360 tonight.

She says that the "Electoral College no longer works as intended, and should be abolished."

I haven't read every post in this thread. WHO/WHAT can get rid of the electoral college?


Constitutional Amendment.


OK..thanks! I'm going to read this thread now, and see what members think about the idea. Hillary is overcomplicating everything in her CNN interview.



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 09:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: Gryphon66
How's that? California and New York have Democrats and Republicans and Libertarians and Greens and Constitutionalists and all the rest.

Go beyond the hype.


Yes, and all of our toothbrushes have fecal-matter particles on them, but not enough to make a difference to the health of our bodies.


Is that true!? Where does it come from? Can it be prevented?







 
24
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join