The Electoral College is racist and should be abolished

Wilfred Codrington III has no real argument so he is jumping on the racist bandwagon. When this dolt is cornered, he'll use the next big out claiming Russian/Ukrainian deep fakes are to blame. Adam Schiff will lead the way.

originally posted by: pteridine
Wilfred Codrington III has no real argument so he is jumping on the racist bandwagon. When this dolt is cornered, he'll use the next big out claiming Russian/Ukrainian deep fakes are to blame. Adam Schiff will lead the way.

In the popular social justice parlance, if white men made it, it's racist by default, likely sexist and homophobic too.

Without the formation of the electoral college, the United States of America wouldn't exist as a nation. It would be separate nation states instead. The electoral college gives each state equal representation in our constitutional republic. There's a legal process to eliminate the electoral college. Its the same process which is needed to be used to eliminate the 2nd amendment. This process is outlined in article 5 of the U.S. constitution.

Amendments may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a convention of states called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures. To become part of the Constitution, an amendment must be ratified by either—as determined by Congress—the legislatures of three-quarters of the states or state ratifying conventions in three-quarters of the states. The vote of each state (to either ratify or reject a proposed amendment) carries equal weight, regardless of a state's population or length of time in the Union.

Any other process to end the electoral college or to ban/regulate guns is in violation of our constitution. Democrat politicians should all be tried for sedition. They're domestic enemies of the U.S.. They routinely violate  their oath of office without any consequences for their actions. They swore an oath to 'support & defend the constitution'. Most Democrat politicians violate the 2nd amendment with calls for restrictions/bans on guns. They violate the 12th amendment with calls to end the electoral college. They violate Article I, Section 2, Clause 3: Article I, Section 9, Clause 4, as well as, 4th & 5th amendments when they call for wealth & estate taxes. They also violate the 1st amendment by violating religious freedoms & freedom of speach. They're also against due-process.
 
Congressional Oath
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

a reply to: Veryolduser

Lol... just out of curiousity..
Where were the failures of democracy? They saw plenty of failures in the monarchy system, but I dont really think they had much experience with any system that was based on the popular vote. The rest of your post seems to be utter nonsense to be. Theres just as many people in the rural areas as there are in the cities that are more inclined to vote according to party loyalty despite what is in their best interest.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
Wonder what is going to happen when Trump nails the popular vote and Cali has to give him all 55 Electoral votes because of that silly and highly unconstitutional treaty with some other traditionally blue states?

I’ll say it goes beyond just sky screaming and people start kicking trees or turning over apple carts...all the while saying no, no, no we can’t honor that agreement. It wasn’t legal.

It would be funny, but the agreement doesn't actually activate until a certain number of states agree, and they aren't there yet.

And it certainly isn't constitutional.

originally posted by: RickinVa
According to Wilfred Codrington III, who wrote this piece for the Atlantic Star:

www.theatlantic.com...

Critics of the Electoral College are right to denounce it for handing victory to the loser of the popular vote twice in the past two decades. They are also correct to point out that it distorts our politics, including by encouraging presidential campaigns to concentrate their efforts in a few states that are not representative of the country at large. But the disempowerment of black voters needs to be added to that list of concerns, because it is core to what the Electoral College is and what it always has been.

The race-consciousness establishment—and retention—of the Electoral College has supported an entitlement program that our 21st-century democracy cannot justify. If people truly want ours to be a race-blind politics, they can start by plucking that strange, low-hanging fruit from the Constitution.

Here is a bio of the author:

www.brennancenter.org...


There you have it....the Electoral College is racist and should be abolished.


Agree or disagree? Personally, I think it's pure poppycock


Discuss.

What is sad is this guy a law professor... at a NYU no less.

a reply to: TonyS

For that to ever have a chance to become reality, God forbid, there would need to be this little thing called a Constitutional Amendment.

Which would then require a convention. Then the ratification by 2/3 vote by both Houses of congress, or a Constitutional convention called by 2/3 of state legislatures. I certainly can't see either happening, at this time.

a reply to: RickinVa

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: TonyS

For that to ever have a chance to become reality, God forbid, there would need to be this little thing called a Constitutional Amendment.

Which would then require a convention. Then the ratification by 2/3 vote by both Houses of congress, or a Constitutional convention called by 2/3 of state legislatures. I certainly can't see either happening, at this time.

That's why progressives were trying to push the National Popular Vote proposal, which sought to have each* State pass laws that bound the State electors to the outcome of the popular vote of the nation instead of being influenced by the popular vote of their individual State.

Then the SCOTUS ruled earlier this year that an Elector can't be forced to vote for any candidate based on popular vote.

Oh well.

*EDIT: Oops my bad. The NPV sought to convince just enough States to overcome the 270 electoral votes needed, then all the remaining States could go pound sand.

a reply to: RickinVa

Bull#.

2nd line.

a reply to: RickinVa

Yeah, even if it were true it would be easier to encourage Blacks, Latinos, and Asians to move to Iowa or New Hampshire, en masse, than to get 38 states to ratify a constitutional amendment.

a reply to: JBIZZ

The Electoral College does NOT give each State equal representation. It mirrors the makeup of the Congress.

originally posted by: Mach2
Your statement, however, is so superficial, that it might as well be the punchline of a joke.

Maybe humor was your intent, IDK.

I was going for poignant humor.
Thank you for noticing

To say Hillary won the popular vote fair and square, is like saying she didn’t throw a fit election night. Neither are true.

are there actually ANY "free countries" that elect their leaders by "popular vote (where it is the total number of votes and nothing else that a person receives)?

we keep hearing about how unfair the electoral collage is, yet it seems most countries do similar. like for instance in Canada, and i believe pretty much all nations that were one under British rule, instead of an electoral collage instead use the number of seats a political party wins in parliament (their version of congress). the leader of that party that wins the most seats becomes the leader of the country by default. which simplified means that the leader of the party that wins in the most areas, becomes the leader of the nation. rather like whichever candidate in the US wins in the most areas, becomes President.

in fact the ONLY thing that needs to be changed about the electoral collage is that some areas can actually give their "vote" to someone other than has won the most votes in their area. they should be held to cast their vote for the candidate that does win the most votes in their area. no matter how any other areas and thus electoral collage votes in their state, or elsewhere in the country have majority voted for someone else. so for examp0le in a state that has say 55 electoral votes, if 54 areas vote in the majority for one person, and in one area they vote for someone else. then the electoral collage in that state would have to cast 54 electoral collage votes for that one candidate, and one electoral collage vote for the other.

a reply to: generik

So, what are you proposing? It seems to me that you’re saying

1. There should be no “faithless Electors” ... in other words they should vote as their State instructed.

2. Then it sounds like you’re suggesting that the popular vote should split the Electors in some way? You said “area” did you mean Congressional District, as Maine and Nebraska divide their Electors?

a reply to: Gryphon66

How about by county?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: JBIZZ

The Electoral College does NOT give each State equal representation. It mirrors the makeup of the Congress.

Congress represents each state. Each state is apportioned a number of seats which approximately corresponds to its share of the aggregate population of the 50 states. Hence equal state representation.

Since we live in a time where "Hearsay is often better than direct evidence". I thought I heard a rumor about how T. Jefferson stated that California was going to be the only state that can override this Constitution thing, and any state that goes along with them should be exempt from the Bill of Rights as well.

Using the rules of Impeachment, Prove me wrong.

Not only does the EC provide fairness to national elections, I personally believe that since each state has amassed such large populations that an EC type of system should be used in the states to determine how the Votes in the EC are utilized.

Something else that is being displayed is how everything one side disagrees with is Racist/Sexist/somethingist when if facts most of the issues are nothing more than Stratusism at work. So that unless you are part of the elite of that particular area, you mean nothing. It's all pure S/T at it's finest. My Ethics and Morality Professor said: "when people start using false ideologies to push agendas and others start to follow them, then it's time for intellect to either rise above or die off". Ladies and Gentlemen; have we gotten to that point where all is lost for the academic world?

White Power!