BREAKING: Democrats Introduce Bill To Eliminate Electoral College

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: narrator

Point.

One, I'm a smart ass, get over it.

Two, you are negating the rights of individuals in lessly populated states, thus disenfranchising the voters there.

You are for the tyranny of the majority.

Own it.

I don't think he can get it. If after several posts that perfectly explain the beauty of the Electoral College and how it negates mob rule (big Dem pops...or even Big Rep Pops), then he just doesn't have "eyes to see".

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: narrator

Point.

One, I'm a smart ass, get over it.

Two, you are negating the rights of individuals in lessly populated states, thus disenfranchising the voters there.

You are for the tyranny of the majority.

Own it.

I don't think he can get it. If after several posts that perfectly explain the beauty of the Electoral College and how it negates mob rule (big Dem pops...or even Big Rep Pops), then he just doesn't have "eyes to see".

We already have mob rule in California and New york. The popular vote would negate that mob rule and enable all Republican votes in those two states to finally count in an election.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Dems "gerrymandering is bad."
Also dems "lets gerrymander the presidential election!"

a reply to: queenofswords

Yeah.

Lead a horse to water. . . . .

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: narrator

It may not be perfect, but it works and it works really well. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Tinkering with the Constitution or splitting the country up is a very, very bad idea.

All that would be is a knee jerk reaction to partisan bickering which has been with us all along. Breaking us apart would go down in history as the worst political blunder in history IMO. Breaking us apart is something our enemies would no doubt be thrilled to see. Russia and China would be holding celebrations and cheering in the streets as they nudged us off the world table.

"United we stand, divided we fall" is not just a cute old saying, it's a fact.

We'll have to agree to disagree then, as we differ on a fundamental level. I don't believe that tinkering with what the founding fathers wrote is a bad idea at all. To paraphrase Joe Rogan: "If Thomas Jefferson came back to life, the first thing he'd say is 'you guys didn't write any new sh!t? Dude, I wrote that with a feather!'"
Times change. What was good 250ish years ago won't always apply.

a reply to: amazing

Also, there are 5-6 million registered repulican voters in California. Less then half of them voted this past election.

Trump got just shy of 4.5 million votes in California. I can't imagine that he picked up that many independent voters but failed to carry his own party if we're going to use that logic and your numbers.

I disagree only because in most elections the person that wins the presidential electoral vote also wins the popular vote.

I don't dispute that. But the EC is in place to prevent something from happening (tyranny of the majority), not to guarantee it. And that, by and large, is what it does.

I don't pretend that it's the perfect system, and I'll readily admit that as somebody who doesn't live in either CA or NY and has absolutely no desire to, I am biased in favor of the EC because it means the likelihood of where I live being run as if it was one of those states is lessened. That being said, I also think that while it's not perfect, it's pretty darn good and it works a lot more often than it doesn't.

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: narrator

Point.

One, I'm a smart ass, get over it.

Two, you are negating the rights of individuals in lessly populated states, thus disenfranchising the voters there.

You are for the tyranny of the majority.

Own it.

I don't think he can get it. If after several posts that perfectly explain the beauty of the Electoral College and how it negates mob rule (big Dem pops...or even Big Rep Pops), then he just doesn't have "eyes to see".

To both you and DB (since you replied to him)...I disagree with you. That isn't a crime. You view my opinion as ridiculous. That's fine. I view yours as ridiculous. That's fine too. In your eyes, the posts perfectly explained why the EC is so great. I disagree with those reasons. It doesn't make sense to me. In my opinion, the EC is pretty far from "beautiful".

DB said that by abolishing the EC, it would negate the rights of individuals in less populous states. So, he's saying that we need the government to make sure people get what they need? In order to be a well-functioning country, our government needs to intervene to make sure that the country runs smoothly during elections and that the population is fully taken care of?

Sounds an awful lot like Socialism to me. ETA: Bunch'a Commies.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: amazing

Also, there are 5-6 million registered repulican voters in California. Less then half of them voted this past election.

Trump got just shy of 4.5 million votes in California. I can't imagine that he picked up that many independent voters but failed to carry his own party if we're going to use that logic and your numbers.

I disagree only because in most elections the person that wins the presidential electoral vote also wins the popular vote.

I don't dispute that. But the EC is in place to prevent something from happening (tyranny of the majority), not to guarantee it. And that, by and large, is what it does.

I don't pretend that it's the perfect system, and I'll readily admit that as somebody who doesn't live in either CA or NY and has absolutely no desire to, I am biased in favor of the EC because it means the likelihood of where I live being run as if it was one of those states is lessened. That being said, I also think that while it's not perfect, it's pretty darn good and it works a lot more often than it doesn't.

I can't wholly disagree with anything you said here. I only think that if you're a republican in California or New York, you know your presidential vote won't count. There has to be a way to fix that?

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: chr0naut

Yes, the dictatorship of the majority.

Look at history before you scoff. I'll leave it to you to find examples that exemplifies that very concept.

I know the history.

Still scoffing.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: queenofswords

Yeah.

Lead a horse to water. . . . .

See my reply to queen of swords. Put simply, I disagree with you. You disagree with me. That's ok.

a reply to: narrator

It's not that disconnected.

Advocating for someone's destruction while not actually insulting them is still not going to be well received.

What you propose is so disconnected, so far from the will of the country as a whole, that I can't take the conversation any further since first and foremost I oppose your ethos. I defy it to the core of my being since it is vying for existence OVER mine.

Your way will not accommodate me. It eliminates me.

So NO. Kill me first. Don't JUST disagree over that. That is not just for thinking.

It is for doing.

What you want done, undoes my country. My home and in my eyes, my very people.

I hate you for that.

I don't want to go quietly into the god damned night.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: narrator

It's not that disconnected.

Advocating for someone's destruction while not actually insulting them is still not going to be well received.

What you propose is so disconnected, so far from the will of the country as a whole, that I can't take the conversation any further since first and foremost I oppose your ethos since it is vying for existence OVER mine.

Your way will no accommodate me. It eliminates me.

No. Kill me first. Don't disagree over that. That is not just for thinking.

It is for doing. I don't want to go quietly into the god damned night.

To be fair, your ethos is is vying for existence over mine too. That's true equality, in my mind. To each their own, may the best person win, however you want to say it.

I know it's disconnected from the will of the country as a whole. I know it's an unpopular opinion. But, it's just an opinion. My opinion means nothing in the grand scheme of things.

I disagree with you. You disagree with me. That's fine, because in the end none of that matters and the powers that be will do whatever they want, they don't care about either of us. My proposal involves minimizing what control the powers that be have. With the EC, they exert even more power over us. That rubs me the wrong way.

Before we go about abolishing the Constitution (temporally or not) how about we try following it to the absolute letter for a change and see what happens?

This is NOT the Mud Pit!!!

All rules for polite political debate will be enforced.
Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

a reply to: narrator

You exist. You are wrong. No one stopped you from saying your ideas

Your ethos is at war with mine. Mine allows it.

a reply to: narrator

Joe Rogan the college dropout, comedian, pod-caster Joe Rogan?

Political realities do not change with the times, they remain the same. The arguments now are the same as they have been. Take a look at old political cartoons and op-ed's from the 1800's and you will see there is nothing new.

The EC is as important as it ever was. To think new is better, is to ignore history.

a reply to: Ahabstar

There's a thought...

Abolish the electoral college for the simple reason that you don't like the results isn't a good reason to do so.

It worked precisely as it was supposed to. If we do away with the electoral college, that process should mean the Senate should go, too... Right?

a reply to: chr0naut

Then it's fairly safe to say, you didn't learn the lessons correctly.