The Electoral College is racist and should be abolished

a reply to: dawnstar

I dont have to call a constitutional convention. The constitution doesnt need to be changed.

You do if you want to eliminate the electoral college or to tell other states how to choose their electors.

I can however talk to my fellow residents of my state and present my argument as to why the state should change the way they chose to handle our delegates, that maybe those delegates should be assigned in a manner that better reflects the voters of the state.

That you can, and I have no issue with that whatsoever. My only issue is that this complaint about the way the election is run has become so prevalent exclusively since the 2016 election. It was also quite prevalent in the years following the 2000 election (when Bush won out over Al Gore). The years from 2008-2016 no one was speaking about it. The election process was fine in the years where a Democrat won the Presidency.

And, I can present it on a more national level to convince the residents of other states to work to change the system in their own state.

Which will do absolutely no good whatsoever, outside of exercising your fingers, until your state agrees. Until that happens, you come across looking like a hypocrite.

As far as yous knowing what is on my mind...

I don't, and to be honest, I don't think I want to. I have a feeling just the attempt to understand your thought process would cause me to lose IQ points, and I really would like to hang on to what I have in that department.

What I can do is see through the obvious attempts to change the way we do things in this country. That's fine, but if you want to convince me and those like me, you have to maintain a fair and honest presentation (which would require having the exact same argument while a Democrat holds the Presidency) and take action unilaterally to demonstrate your sincerity (which would include changing the law in your state first). Do those and I'll listen. Otherwise, nope, dog don't hunt.

We down here have a long history with "yous guys" coming down here and immediately trying to turn us into New York City. That's actually the difference between a Yankee and a Damn Yankee in my culture: Yankees come down here to visit; Damn Yankees come down here to stay, and try to change us into the very place they just tried to get away from. So without some proof of honesty, integrity, and sincerity, nope, not gonna fly.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Gryphon66

The EC *is* a disaster for a democracy. It's a good thing we aren't one, isn't it?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The essence of the right to vote is that the vote be counted. In first past the post, all Electors are awarded to the candidate in first place, thus votes that were cast for other Electors are negated, ignored, made of no effect.

I suppose you could make a semantic argument (I know how you favor those) that the votes are counted technically, but having no effect according to the intent of the voter, that would be ... kinda dumb.

There are no semantics. There is no 'intent of the voters.' The Electoral College represents the State as a whole, not the 'intent of the voter.' If the State says 'winner takes all' then it's winner takes all. If the State says 'each district is winner-take-all then the 2 senatorial votes go to State popular vote' then so be it.

So please drop the 'intents' and 'equities' and any other sound bites, they are meaningless. Oh I mean ... REALLY dumb.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Some are suggesting that this plan (which is not my invention) is intended to hand the election to Clinton rather than Trump.

Here’s the outcome if we gave 2 votes from every state to first place winner, and a percentage of the votes for each state based on the voting in that State:

Trump 263
Clinton 253
Johnson 16
Stein 6

Why, look at that, Mr. Trump would still be President of the United States. So much for ignorant or deceptive misrepresentation.

Actually in that scenario the President is elected by the Congress. I don't have time to look up the details but it's possible that even Pence could have been elected, but I'm a little fuzzy on the specifics.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

I believe you’re trying to say that in the case of a tie in the Electoral College, the matter is decided by vote in the House.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Ain't never been to NY City. Been to Syracuse a few times, saw someone get shot while driving through buffalo once but there's alot a farmland around the lake onterio/fingerlakes area. I am much more comfortable when theres open fields, running creeks, cows escaping from their confines and intoxicating themselves on the fermenting apples growing across the street. A pond full of fish across the cornfield and roosters crowing in the morning. Big cities ain't my thing so no I am not trying to change the little corner of the appalachians into New York city. Just like I never tried to change the little corner of texas we were living in. In both cases there were little quirks in the cultures, differences that i totally enjoyed discovering and exploring. There is some aspects of Texas that are, in my opinion, preferable to New York.

But, gee, how about you take what you are saying to me about butting into your state's business and try to reconcile it with the idea of the unite the righters grabbing their guns, shields, torches, dressed for war, traveling across country to my state to butt into my neighborhood over a city's plans for a city park!! You say not in your state when it comes to a stupid balloon floating outside a stadium. Well I say not in my state when it come to open warfare on our city streets!

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The essence of the right to vote is that the vote be counted. In first past the post, all Electors are awarded to the candidate in first place, thus votes that were cast for other Electors are negated, ignored, made of no effect.

I suppose you could make a semantic argument (I know how you favor those) that the votes are counted technically, but having no effect according to the intent of the voter, that would be ... kinda dumb.

There are no semantics. There is no 'intent of the voters.' The Electoral College represents the State as a whole, not the 'intent of the voter.' If the State says 'winner takes all' then it's winner takes all. If the State says 'each district is winner-take-all then the 2 senatorial votes go to State popular vote' then so be it.

So please drop the 'intents' and 'equities' and any other sound bites, they are meaningless. Oh I mean ... REALLY dumb.

You’re arguing about words and claiming there are no semantics. LOL.

The Electoral College mirrors the Congress. I guess in your mind that is accidental? Of course, the Electors represent the will of the voter, what else?

You can bray all day long that The State decides ... as if that is some entity hovering over something somewhere. The State legislatures (to be precise) are also representatives chosen by ... wait for it... the popular vote.

Were you trying to refer to sound bytes? Jeez. That’s unfortunate right before you call someone else dumb, eh?

Dude ... I really don’t know what you’re on about. I made an argument and defended it. You’re just ... acting kinda whiny if I may say so.

Let it go.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

The EC *is* a disaster for a democracy. It's a good thing we aren't one, isn't it?

Talk to God’s Holy Anointed at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

2nd line

a reply to: dawnstar

Ain't never been to NY City.

I have... nice place to visit. They do things their own way, and it works for them. I damn sure couldn't live there, but I can respect them and point out the good things about them. The people of New York City are a proud people.

Just like Texas. Texans are a proud people. Fast, too... I had to chase one almost two miles to get my hat. Just like Iowans... Oklahomans... Wyomingians (is that a word?).

What I am demanding is respect for my culture, just as I give respect to other cultures. No more, no less.

I am not one of those you complain about waging war on your streets... I am one of those who would, if the respect were reciprocated, stand with you against it. You'll not find this old redneck starting trouble in New York, but you may well find him ending it in Alabama. I'm not even sure you are being honest about that complaint... I know of no one here who even wants to go to New York, much less who wants to go there and start trouble. I can point you to entire communities around here that are nothing more than Damn Yankees hiding behind those gates and constantly complaining about the culture while trying to push for the same kind of regulation that oozes from the gutters up there.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Teikiatsu

I believe you’re trying to say that in the case of a tie in the Electoral College, the matter is decided by vote in the House.

No, I'm say that if no candidate can achieve the minimum number of votes needed then the Congress elects the new President and it doesn't have to be any of the existing nominees. As I understand it, the Prez and VP choices of the top three would be up for ballot, meaning Pence could win the Presidency and Johnson's VP pick could have become the new VP.

Or maybe it restricts Presidents and VPs to their specific tiers... the language isn't very clear and I'm having a difficult time really caring much at this time.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I live in virginia now, not really that far from charlottesville. Matter of fact one of my sons occasionally has to travel there for his job. So while your getting so bent out of shape over the idea of the words of the crazy lady on one single forum on the huge internet venturing into your state and forcing change onto your life to suit my desires, the unite the righters descended into my turf and basically waged war on the streets my kids drive down trying to force their will onto that city. Kind of makes me wonder, just who is trying to force whom. I mean, like I said, I'm just words on your computer screen for you to accept or reject. I have no gun to threaten you with. I have no shield to protect me from your onslaughts. Just words...

originally posted by: Gryphon66

You’re arguing about words and claiming there are no semantics. LOL.

You're arguing statements that don't exist.

The Electoral College mirrors the Congress. I guess in your mind that is accidental? Of course, the Electors represent the will of the voter, what else?

The EC votes mirrors the numbers of Congressional representatives. No it's not an accident. No, they are not mandated to represent the will of the voters, the SCOTUS made that clear earlier this year (Baca v. Colorado Department of State).

You can bray all day long that The State decides ... as if that is some entity hovering over something somewhere. The State legislatures (to be precise) are also representatives chosen by ... wait for it... the popular vote.

Bray? Really?

Yes, legislatures are voted in by popular vote. Last I checked, the President isn't... wait for it... a legislator. And don't try to point at how Governors are elected, each State can determine how their internal executives are elected and if they want popular vote that's up to each of them.

Were you trying to refer to sound bytes? Jeez. That’s unfortunate right before you call someone else dumb, eh?

brians.wsu.edu...
A “sound bite” is a brief snippet of recorded speech, usually used in the context of news reporting. The term originated around 1980, long before the recording of such snippets on personal computers was common; so those who argue that the correct spelling is “sound byte” are mistaken.

That's extremely unfortunate, yep.

Dude ... I really don’t know what you’re on about. I made an argument and defended it. You’re just ... acting kinda whiny if I may say so.
Let it go.

Sure you defended it, badly.

You can say anything you want, it's never stopped you before. It doesn't mean you are correct.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

NOTE: You were right about sound bite. I was mistaken. Well done, thanks for the lesson!

Now, In rough order:

No I’m not incorrect about anything. I’ve made arguments that you don’t agree with. You’re clearly not an authority on any subject except for sound bites.

Every State currently awards its Electors based on the popular vote. The first place winner takes ALL the Electors.

You’re quite simply being dishonest about the Supreme Court ruling in Baca ... that hasn’t happened. It has been appealed to the SCOTUS. Interesting that you choose to misrepresent so much in this argument. The case also doesn’t regard what you claim but rather deals with the matter of “Faithless” Electors. So far, the decisions have been that a State has no power to remove an Elector once chosen. (Guess how they’re chosen.)

The Legislatures are not the President. Good for you. I didn’t say that, another intentional dishonesty on your part.

The State legislatures ARE ELECTED by popular vote. United States Representatives and Senators ARE ELECTED by popular vote. This TERROR that so many of you two-party supporters seem to feel at the power of what you call “raw” democracy is quite telling. You support the two-party system, pure and simple. Are you financially connected to one party or another? I see no reason for this slavish mentality.

I’ve told you repeatedly, and you’re just muddying the issue, so I’ll tell you again.

The State legislatures decide how Electors are chosen. Electors are and have been chosen via the popular vote. Most States continued the tradition of “first past the post” from the British Parliament, but ours is not a parliamentary system, and that doesn’t necessarily fit our situation.

The States could choose to give the two votes that mirror the Senators from each State via the “first past the post” method, and the remainder of the States votes could reflect the will of the ENTIRE people proportionally, by not disenfranchising the voters for every candidate that doesn’t come in first. This is not a radical change, it actually brings the Presidential election in line with our other elections while maintaining the traditions of the Electoral College and requirements of the Constitution..

Further, just as a reminder, the Electoral College does nothing to protect “smaller states” from larger ones. CA has 55 votes; Wyoming has 3.

Why do you want to cheat 40-50% of American voters out of their votes? Why do you want to maintain the hegemony of the “two party system”?

a reply to: dawnstar

You know, I typed out a long, detailed response to that... and deleted it. Not because what I said wasn't true, and not because it was intended to be mean, but because it came across that way when I proofed it.

So I typed out another detailed response, this time trying to be as tactful as I knew how and still honest. I proofed it, and deleted it as well.

Third time's the charm? Not really... third time was not tactful enough either. Deleted.

So, I realized that we are already off topic anyway, and the English language is simply insufficient to address that post in a way that is both honest and tactful. So, I won't address it directly. I'll just say this:

If anyone is capable of witnessing the Charlottesville riots and then cannot comprehend how dangerous it is to interfere with and denigrate other cultures, I cannot continue to debate them within the confines of the T&C. Such a debate would require an ability to differentiate between argument and insult, and I honestly don't think you fall into that category. The best we could accomplish would be you refusing to even address my points, and me becoming far too upset with your refusal to do so... in other words, the best we could expect would be in violation of ATS policy and less than worthless as well. You will have to find the truth in your own way. May you and yours survive it.

Be well.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Teikiatsu

NOTE: You were right about sound bite. I was mistaken. Well done, thanks for the lesson!

Now, In rough order:

No I’m not incorrect about anything. I’ve made arguments that you don’t agree with. You’re clearly not an authority on any subject except for sound bites.

Says the guy who isn't seeing clearly...

Every State currently awards its Electors based on the popular vote. The first place winner takes ALL the Electors.

Nope. States get a number of Electors based on census data. The political party which wins the popular vote of each state has their own cabal of specific Electors selected. Two States assign Electors based on District plus 2 Senatorial.

Should I keep a tally of your incorrect statements, or are we just good to say you don't know what you are talking about?

You’re quite simply being dishonest about the Supreme Court ruling in Baca ... that hasn’t happened. It has been appealed to the SCOTUS. Interesting that you choose to misrepresent so much in this argument. The case also doesn’t regard what you claim but rather deals with the matter of “Faithless” Electors. So far, the decisions have been that a State has no power to remove an Elector once chosen. (Guess how they’re chosen.)

I already said how, above. Sorry, I'm not reading ahead. Yep, looks like I jumped the gun on Baca. Oh well. From what I see it was Colorado that is appealing the District ruling so the current decision is that Baca has his own discretion.

The Legislatures are not the President. Good for you. I didn’t say that, another intentional dishonesty on your part.

You said that State Legislatures are elected by popular vote, which I agreed with. The Founders were well aware of the dynamics of popular vote and instituted that method of election it for federal Representatives because they are direct analogs for the interests of the citizens in their districts, and represent their inherent ability to rule over themselves. At one time federal Senators were selected by State legislators to represent the concerns of the State governments to the Federal Government, something we foolishly amended roughly 100 years ago into popular vote. (Something I think should be repealed but that is not a discussion for this thread.) Supreme Court Justices are not elected by popular vote. And finally, neither is the President elected by popular vote.

So we have multiple examples where the Founders wisely chose to avoid direct popular vote for most of the powerful positions in the federal government, and kept the popular vote for the direct Representative in the Federal Government that must convince the People to re-elect them every 2 years instead of 4+ years. How odd. It's almost like they thought the popular vote was not the most optimal approach for distributing federal power.

The State legislatures ARE ELECTED by popular vote. United States Representatives and Senators ARE ELECTED by popular vote. This TERROR that so many of you two-party supporters seem to feel at the power of what you call “raw” democracy is quite telling. You support the two-party system, pure and simple. Are you financially connected to one party or another? I see no reason for this slavish mentality.

As stated above, the intent (a word you love to use) for Senatorial election was not originally popular vote. It could be argued that the two-party system gained more power when the election of Senators was taken away from the individual States and put in the hands of political parties who could consolidate their power on the federal level and effectively ignore the regional concerns of those States.

I’ve told you repeatedly, and you’re just muddying the issue, so I’ll tell you again.

I'm not muddying anything. Politics is muddy by nature.

The State legislatures decide how Electors are chosen. Electors are and have been chosen via the popular vote. Most States continued the tradition of “first past the post” from the British Parliament, but ours is not a parliamentary system, and that doesn’t necessarily fit our situation.

That's pretty ambiguous - "our situation" - I'm pretty confident that the description of "our situation" would vary from person to person.

The States could choose to give the two votes that mirror the Senators from each State via the “first past the post” method, and the remainder of the States votes could reflect the will of the ENTIRE people proportionally, by not disenfranchising the voters for every candidate that doesn’t come in first. This is not a radical change, it actually brings the Presidential election in line with our other elections while maintaining the traditions of the Electoral College and requirements of the Constitution..

It has not been established that the Presidential election needs to be 'brought in line' with other elections. I have presented an opinion that bringing non-Representative elections in line with popular vote has actually made "our situation" with the two-party system worse, not better.

Further, just as a reminder, the Electoral College does nothing to protect “smaller states” from larger ones. CA has 55 votes; Wyoming has 3.

I've never said anything about the EC protecting smaller states in this thread. Was that someone else? I'm not going to debate that in this thread.

Why do you want to cheat 40-50% of American voters out of their votes? Why do you want to maintain the hegemony of the “two party system”?

At least you stopped using the term 'disenfranchise'

It's not cheating *and* I don't like the two party system either. I just don't think dividing EV's by proportions will solve anything. Using your example above dividing EV's 40/60 still 'cheats' the votes if the majority of the 60% came from a single congressional district where a city is majority Democratic but represents 10-20% of the state's actual regional area. Why should New York City control the majority EV's of the entire state, or Chicago control the majority of Illinois, or Lincoln control the majority of Nebraska? It'd just be a soft version of the Hunger Games, with districts and capitols.

Personally I'd prefer the districting method used by Nebraska and Maine to prevent urban areas from overwhelming the rural areas. Alternatively I wouldn't mind if we actually had the Electors on the ballots instead of the Presidential candidates, and those Electors pledged who they would vote for up front.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Alternatively I wouldn't mind if we actually had the Electors on the ballots instead of the Presidential candidates, and those Electors pledged who they would vote for up front.

That's pretty close to how we do it here. The ballot contains the name of the elector and the person he/she has pledged to support.

Of course, the other side of that is that nobody really knows who the elector is, and no one I know actually considers the elector when casting their vote. They go for the name of the Presidential candidate supported. The electors are usually politically active people from the Montgomery area who see their name on the ballot as some sort of reward for their party allegiance. I can only suppose they use their trip to DC on the taxpayer's dime to drum up some lobby money or work on their networking skills for a future political campaign.

I honestly don't know if they are allowed to change their vote after becoming elector.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Teikiatsu

I don’t see clearly because I don’t agree with you? I was incorrect about a point of fact, and admitted that clearly. You have misrepresented and mislead for post after post now, and yet you keep going on this agenda ... one wonders why.

Nope, States get a number of Electors based LITERALLY on each’s representation in Congress; two from each State reflecting the Senate and the rest based on the number of Congressional districts (number of Representatives). Read the Constitution.

Sure, keep any tally you wish. Shall I start one for your blatant misstatements and outright misrepresentations?

Just remember, your disagreement doesn’t make me wrong.

You “jumped the gun” by claiming that the Supreme Court had ruled? Is that what most people call being wrong or is that just being dishonest? I was wrong about a commonly misused term, you’ve been wrong (or dishonest) on what ... three items already in your post? Wow. Perhaps you shouldn’t encourage keeping up with it.

Right, the way Senators are elected changed. You may also have heard we no longer consider Black Americans as 3/5ths of a person. We evolve over time and change ... like changing the way we assign Electors at the State level, eh?

Politics is muddy? Sure. Then you back up the dump truck and turn on the water hose.

Our situation in the United States as opposed to Great Britain? The difference between Parliament and our Separation of Powers? I’m sure you might think that varies from person to person, as long as they agree with your rather unique way of looking at it?

Did I mention that you misrepresent arguments on a regular basis? How many times is that now in this post? Ten or eleven?

The President is elected by popular vote. How does one win a slate of Electors in a State? Stop obfusticating.

Further, at the State level (while we are tallying things) the great majority of judges are elected by popular vote. As are Sheriffs. As are Solicitors and District Attorneys, Mayors and Governors, all representatives of the Executive, by the way.

In fact, the only office in the country that is NOT directly elected by the people of the United States is the President ... which is why I said that making a change toward proportional representation at the State level would bring the EC more in line with the rest of our practices.

You have presented an opinion that things are fine as they are, that is correct. I have not told you that you are wrong, incorrect or dishonest because you want to keep the two-party system in power, unlike you that has misdirected, misconstrued and misrepresented a very simple straightforward argument that DECREASES the unconstitutional stranglehold that “the two parties” have on American politics.

You have referenced our previous discussions and so have I. Please don’t suggest that you don’t claim that somehow, magically, the EC protects the few from the many, the poor struggling “Red States” from the populous “Blue” inner cities.

That dog whistle is broken.

I used the term disenfranchise several times, as appropriate. Remember, that’s what denying 30-50 percent of voters of their votes means when your FPTP system awards all of the State’s Electors to one party.

It is cheating. If you don’t like a proportional system, why don’t you suggest a way to preserve the Constitution’s requirement for the Electoral College with an equitable way to ensure representation of all voters in the process.

Many States do make it clear that one is casting a ballot in reality for a slate of Electors, most, however, imply that it’s based on the popular vote (like the argument in Baca in Colorado).

Show me a system that preserves the integrity of every vote without scrapping the Electoral College. My way is not the only way, only the most fair I have yet conceived. But please, stop with this full-throated praise for a system that perpetuates the two party hegemony and excludes any possibility of us ever getting out of the mess we have ourselves in.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Every State currently awards its Electors based on the popular vote. The first place winner takes ALL the Electors.

Nebraska and Maine aren't states?

a reply to: Gryphon66

I still like the idea of going back to the way it was to begin with, since so many seem to like the electoral college so much. Just divide the states into districts according to population and the number of delegates. We need to come up with a way to address the gerrymandering problem anyways, maybe throwing the presidential race into the mix might cause more people to be concerned about that. And let the people in those districts select one of their own to be their delegate via the election process. They pick the person they feel will best represent their interests and send them off to washington for a month long dinner party where they are wined and dined by the presidential candidates who spend time clarifying their positions. And those delegates, who have to go back home to their communities choose the candidate that they feel will best meet the needs of that community.
Yes, the delegates would probably be bribed, but then we have one dem candidate promising to give a thousand dollars a month to everyone if hes elected. But it would reduce the need for campaign funds considerably, clear the airwaves of most of the political ads, reduce the headache of political rallies, and give the people one go to person that they can more easily approach and voice their concerns to.
And well, it's far more traditional than this winner take all bit which maybe I am wrong but I seem to remember a time when it wasn't like that which makes me think it doesnt have that much history behind it.
But, basically, I am just curious as to how it would turn out and doubt if the results would be any worse than what we have.