BREAKING: Democrats Introduce Bill To Eliminate Electoral College

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: chr0naut

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

The Communists never do. Ever.

It'll work THIS time we promise!!!!!

a reply to: darkbake

This country was not set up to be ruled by the majority. That's what people like you can't understand. The United States is a "Constitutional and representative Republic", where the rights of EVERY INDIVIDUAL are guaranteed. But democrats for a long time have wanted to rule only by their majorities in states like California and New York.

originally posted by: amazing

Again, every presidential election has gone the popular vote except for 3 or 4 and two of those wouldn't have surprised anyone anyway...Clinton and Al Gore. Clinton and Al wouldn't have gotten second terms though because they are terrible leaders.

Again, that's no excuse to take away a check and balance that will give the vote only to democrats time and time again in states with the largest populations.

I gotta say the bit about president pardoning himself and family can only be good.

As for messages about with the electoral college it’s a bold move. I personally think it’s a dated system that can lead to some really funky results. Would depend on what they propose to change it to.

I don’t think anyone really expects them to pull of changing the EC though.

a reply to: seagull

How many people thought before 1913 that democrats would pass the Federal Reserve Act, giving the power of our economy to an agency that has had no oversight from Congress, when the U.S. Constitution specifically states that only Congress can issue and control the economy?

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: narrator

Every vote does count the same under the existing election rules.

If that were truly the case, Clinton would be president, as she got about 3,000,000 more votes than Trump.

But, as we all know, she isn't (praise be to all higher powers). That means votes actually don't count the same, in the truest sense.

The US is a Union of 50 states and has 52 seperate elections.
Each citizen in each state has their votes counted exactly the same, with equal weighting to decide the State outcome.

Californians do not get to decide the wishes of Nebraskens.

The system works well as it is.
What you are suggesting is that 3-4 states determine the outcome for all 50.
That's pure majority rule and a recipe for disaster.

Have more faith in the scribes of the Constitution. They thought about this stuff and were far smarter than those who want to undo their considered work.

One other little small detail about the Electoral College is that those are actually the only votes that are cast for the president. What we the people really vote for in November is which set of electors to the Electoral College will be casting the vote for our respective state.

And the other part not often spoken is what if 100% of the popular vote went to a candidate in November that turned out to be ineligible (or in retrospect, undesired to be the president, like they ran a drug running operation that was discovered until after the election)? The EC can “correct” that slight problem before we are stuck. Of course someone will mention that Congress confirms the EC vote, but there is no provision of Congress having the power nor the authority to overturn the EC vote. So really, we are dependent on feckless electors saving us at that point.

Introducing that bill should be illegal. Each state needs representation, not just the states with high population cities. If that law passes, four big city areas who produce little real food for the country but have a lot of population can enslave the population of the rest of their states and even the farmers and small communities of their state

That is so wrong.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Dated system? There is nothing particularly clever about people today that would suggest they could come up with something better than what is, perhaps, the greatest docuement ever written on the organisation of govt.

As for pardoning - I tend to think, on balance, it has been used to good effect. There are some cases of abuse due to corruption, especially under Bill Clinton and George Bush... and of course President Ford, but generally speaking it's not much of an issue. The only reason it is being made an issue now is because Trump is president, and yet I don't seem him abusing that power at all. Quite the contrary. It's just another example of Democrats dreaming up things Trump could possibly do and attempting to steal power from the Executive Branch. That's a bigger issue than the President's constitutional power to issue pardons.

This is all because Hillary lost, and they began ranting about the "electoral college" being outdated. It sure was a definite hurdle they couldn't get over. They are still ranting about "the popular vote" as if they forgot that the electoral college was put there to STOP a popular vote victory by itself. And then the media pretended the electoral college wasn't legitimate.

When democrats can't win elections legitimately, they want to do it by changing the system into something that will make it much easier to grab that power they imagined a Hillary win would have gave them.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Exactly correct - the issues the democrats have with the EC is that it worked as intended.

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

"A dictatorship of the majority"

LOL.

Yes... it's called being a Democracy.

Which we most certainly are not... in fact the founding fathers stated many times that becoming a Democracy was what they feared the most.

History is fun!

Yet a state with about 500,000 people has the same power as a state with 35 million. And if you analyze the whole Electoral College system, the votes of only 270 actual people decide the President in a country of 320 million.

While those numbers might have worked for a new confederacy, it is totally out of whack for a modern nation with such a vast population.

The current system also gave you a choice between two really bad candidates for the Presidency at the last election.

Perhaps it IS time for revision?

Did you complain when 9 judges decided on gay marriage legality for 320 million? Of course not because it went your way so you didn't have to cry.

A state with 500,000 gives about 4 electoral votes. CA gives 55. Any other excuses?

I am neither homosexual or American.

Despite the shuffle bait and switch, the election of the POTUS comes down to 270 voters.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

"A dictatorship of the majority"

LOL.

Yes... it's called being a Democracy.

Which we most certainly are not... in fact the founding fathers stated many times that becoming a Democracy was what they feared the most.

History is fun!

Yet a state with about 500,000 people has the same power as a state with 35 million. And if you analyze the whole Electoral College system, the votes of only 270 actual people decide the President in a country of 320 million.

While those numbers might have worked for a new confederacy, it is totally out of whack for a modern nation with such a vast population.

The current system also gave you a choice between two really bad candidates for the Presidency at the last election.

Perhaps it IS time for revision?

Actually, it is working exactly as the founding fathers wanted it to, because again their biggest fear is that someday what they put together would morph into a Democracy.

Alexander Hamilton asserted that "We are now forming a Republican form of government. Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of a dictatorship." Hamilton, in the last letter he ever wrote, warned that "our real disease is DEMOCRACY."

Thomas Jefferson declared: "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

Benjamin Franklin had similar concerns of a democracy when he warned that “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!” After the Constitutional Convention was concluded, in 1787, a bystander inquired of Franklin: "Well, Doctor, what have we got a Republic or a Monarchy?" Franklin replied, "A Republic, if you can keep it."

John Adams, our second president, wrote: “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.”

James Madison, the father of the Constitution wrote in Federalist Paper No. 10 that pure democracies “have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

The Constitution itself, in Article IV, Section 4, declares: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” Obviously the Framers were not speaking of a political party, as no political parties existed at that time. The Pledge of Allegiance, although not a founding document, does strike the right chord when it asks Americans to " pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands"

Democracy is the bizarre belief in the collective wisdom of individual idiots, nothing more.

They want to do away with the college to remove the 2 votes per state as each state has only two Senators. We have 50 UNITED STATES, each state has equal power by only having 2 Senators. The house makes up the differences in population, but you can't just have 2000 house members because that once again would make the States being equal moot.

Do people want to suggest that CA should have more power in our Republic than 20 other states combined?...Remember 50 united states forming a perfect union.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

"A dictatorship of the majority"

LOL.

Yes... it's called being a Democracy.

Which we most certainly are not... in fact the founding fathers stated many times that becoming a Democracy was what they feared the most.

History is fun!

Yet a state with about 500,000 people has the same power as a state with 35 million. And if you analyze the whole Electoral College system, the votes of only 270 actual people decide the President in a country of 320 million.

While those numbers might have worked for a new confederacy, it is totally out of whack for a modern nation with such a vast population.

The current system also gave you a choice between two really bad candidates for the Presidency at the last election.

Perhaps it IS time for revision?

Did you complain when 9 judges decided on gay marriage legality for 320 million? Of course not because it went your way so you didn't have to cry.

A state with 500,000 gives about 4 electoral votes. CA gives 55. Any other excuses?

I am neither homosexual or American.

Despite the shuffle bait and switch, the election of the POTUS comes down to 270 voters.

Almost all the Electoral College Delegates are mandated to vote according to the actual vote totals.

It's all State Law.

😎

I guess what bothers me the most is we have people in power who do not have a clue to what our Republic is all about. What makes us special over other democracies, why we are 50 united states in a union. Each state is like its own country that all come together for a Federal Government.

These idiots are in power...geez

originally posted by: Blaine91555
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.

Why does his job title matter?
Also college dropouts: Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Michael Dell, on and on and on. College dropout definitely does not mean “not smart”.
I don’t care where a message comes from; if it’s a good point it’s a good point. Jesus was a homeless dude that hung out with prostitutes and outcasts. He had some good ideas.

I don’t think new is better. I think better is better. I’m not ignoring history at all. Politics change all the time.

If the Constitution were a perfect document, the amendments wouldn’t exist.

originally posted by: Carcharadon

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: chr0naut

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

The Communists never do. Ever.

It'll work THIS time we promise!!!!!

You are aware that a lot of countries have dispensed with electoral colleges or similar without undue problems:
- Finland, replaced theirs in 1994.
- Spain, replaced theirs in 1939.
- France, replaced theirs in 1962.
- Britain, had a sort of electoral college that elected Labour Party leaders, replaced in 2010.
- Brazil, replaced theirs in 1989.
- Argentina, replaced theirs in 1995.
- Chile, replaced theirs in 1925.

and so on...

Nothing to do with Communists.

or with some vague and inexact allusion to "lessons of history".

The idea of democracy has been around since Ancient Greece and countries who undertook to decide 'who governed' by it are enormously less tyrannical than countries where power is allocated using other systems.

That is the lesson of history.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

"A dictatorship of the majority"

LOL.

Yes... it's called being a Democracy.

Which we most certainly are not... in fact the founding fathers stated many times that becoming a Democracy was what they feared the most.

History is fun!

Yet a state with about 500,000 people has the same power as a state with 35 million. And if you analyze the whole Electoral College system, the votes of only 270 actual people decide the President in a country of 320 million.

While those numbers might have worked for a new confederacy, it is totally out of whack for a modern nation with such a vast population.

The current system also gave you a choice between two really bad candidates for the Presidency at the last election.

Perhaps it IS time for revision?

Did you complain when 9 judges decided on gay marriage legality for 320 million? Of course not because it went your way so you didn't have to cry.

A state with 500,000 gives about 4 electoral votes. CA gives 55. Any other excuses?

I am neither homosexual or American.

Despite the shuffle bait and switch, the election of the POTUS comes down to 270 voters.

Almost all the Electoral College Delegates are mandated to vote according to the actual vote totals.

It's all State Law.

😎

That same state law usually says that the winning side of the state elections gets to choose all of its electoral college electors. So they are all supposed to vote the same way.

Regardless of flips and shuffles, 270 votes elect the President.

Also, the system is open to corruption by electors being induced to invalidate their votes (as happened for 10 of the EC electors in 2016. Interesting to note that those who did invalidate their votes were ALL expected to vote Democrat. Perhaps a Republican was paying them off to influence the election?).

originally posted by: Xtrozero
They want to do away with the college to remove the 2 votes per state as each state has only two Senators. We have 50 UNITED STATES, each state has equal power by only having 2 Senators. The house makes up the differences in population, but you can't just have 2000 house members because that once again would make the States being equal moot.

Do people want to suggest that CA should have more power in our Republic than 20 other states combined?...Remember 50 united states forming a perfect union.

I don’t care about which states have “more power”, I look at it in terms of: there are x number of people in the country eligible to vote. Y number of democrats, Z number of Republicans. (S number of 3rd party if we pull our collective heads out from between our cheeks). If more people vote Y, Democrats win. If more vote Z, Republicans do.
The only reason it’s looked at as which state is in power is because of the EC, that’s how the EC divides it. If you get rid of the EC, you get rid of which “state” controls the votes. You’d be left with the popular vote, the most pure form of voting. More people vote one way, that side wins. States have nothing to do with that, it’s based on the total population of the country.