The Electoral College is racist and should be abolished

First Past the Post (Winner Take All) keeps the two-sided party system in power. They may trade once in a while, but it’s still effectively only A or B.

How many times have we heard that there’s no reason to vote for C, D or E ... because there’s no way they can win?

That’s true, because the “two power system” shanghaied the American electoral system as soon as George Washington stepped down.

Have you ever wondered why in his Farewell Address, Washington gave the following warning?

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally. This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

Washington's Farewell Address

Yet, in the very first national election after Washington left office, the country had been split in two, those who favored strong central government and those who favored strong distributed power. The North versus the South. Which then became East vs. West and is now Both Ends Against the Middle.

Always at or very near a 50/50 split. Who wins in such a system? The politicians, the men and women of party.

The question is always asked “why should California tell Wyoming how to vote” ... as if the fact of their overwhelming disparity isn’t already evident.

It isn’t California or Wyoming or New York or Alabama that’s telling us how to vote ... it’s the lesser of two evils, but always the same two evils.

Why do so many try to keep us from even considering a different way?

That was a rhetorical question: the answer is Us v. Them.

Divide and Rule.

Primate xenophobia.

Everything is a fight between two sides. A poster above compared it quite aptly to Pay Per View.

But ONLY two sides. There’s no place in this extremist system for nuance, shades of meaning, or more accurately, the independent moderates that most Americans are.

Washington warned us about this geographic factionalism, and you see it in every defense of the current FPTP system.

Now instead of North vs. South or East vs. West ... it’s the Elitist Coasts vs. Fly Over Country.

SSDD.

a reply to: Gryphon66

it’s the lesser of two evils, but always the same two evils.

That's a very nice appeal, Gryph, but sorry... it rings hollow.

I have watched the two party system since I can remember, and I'm an old fart. In just my lifetime, I have seen it go from corrupt to elitist to tyrannical, and the whole time it happens because the people not only allow it... they praise it! Why? Because some idiot on that boob tube told them to. Some guy they have never met, know nothing about, and who doesn't care enough about them to step over them if they were lying in a gutter, tells them what to think, what to say, what to do, where to eat, what to eat, what to buy... who needs zombie movies? Just look out the window in any town or city. It's remote control automatons, walking around thinking they're alive, when they're nothing but an expendable... nay, a nuisance... pawn just going through the motions they were programmed with until they are deemed no longer useful and swept aside by the very things they cheered for.

But three years ago, somebody broke that mold and threatened to rip the two-party system asunder. Both parties hated him; both parties disparaged him. When the people overrode the wishes of the parties and put him in office, one party backed off, at least part of them, but the other went into hysterics. The boob tube erupted with hatred and anger, and the people who had finally found a crack in the system they claimed to hate, went into full attack mode at the bequest of their masters. They began to cheer the very two-party system they had claimed to hate for untold years.

I have watched you, personally, do this exact thing. So don't give me this lecture. The end of the two party system was at your fingertips, but you rejected it for your masters.

I will add that come next year, for the first time in my life, I will vote FOR someone instead of against the lesser of two evils. He can run on the Green Martian ticket if he likes... he has my vote.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Just because both party hates a candidate doesnt mean the candidate would make a good president. I mean I imagine both parties would be strongly opposing someone as crazy as me if I decided to run... and they'd be quite right to do so.

a reply to: TheRedneck

You can’t conceive that other people have different opinions than you? My god, and people call me arrogant.

Fair enough. It must be amazing to have a President that you believe in.

Aside from that, your personal summation regarding why you’re questioning what I said is nothing more than an appeal to emotion ... you don’t like my opinion, and so, you “question” what I just wrote.

You don’t deal with the argument, you don’t offer a counter, you just have the DESPERATE need to make excuses for Trump when I haven’t made any reference to him or his Administration at all IN THIS ARGUMENT.

Frankly, that’s cult-like behavior.

Frankly, to make another personal comment, that doesn’t surprise me at all, given what I’ve come to know about you.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: TheRedneck

Just because both party hates a candidate doesnt mean the candidate would make a good president. I mean I imagine both parties would be strongly opposing someone as crazy as me if I decided to run... and they'd be quite right to do so.

I’m sure you noticed my argument here is about the flaws in the way the Electors are chosen. It is not critical in any way of Mr. Trump, and in fact, I am arguing specifically that I think that Trump voters should have had their votes counted in every State, particularly California. It’s wrong to disenfranchise any American. It’s not a complicated argument.

Yet, the ardent Trump supporters can only swarm and post fallaciously ... because there is some hive-instinct that what I am saying is not quite complementary of their ... leader.

Sad.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Yep, and I dont think either of us are saying get rid of the electoral system but rather correct it so it's closer to what the founders intended.
They never intended to negate close to half the voters by turning their votes from red to blue or blue to red. Theres alot of Republicans in some areas of ny just like there are alot of dems in some areas of tx... their votes should mean something. And, we all deserve a system that provides the most accurate reflection of the country and I dont believe just disregarding such a large number of votes this way can be considered accurate in any way.
To be honest, I dont really know which side this would benefit.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Wow, that’s a convoluted justification for first past the post eh?

I disagree.

Good for you.

There’s no reason to create the “negation” system that you’re trying to sell. Clinton only “won” California because that’s the way California defines “winning” because first past the post was the English tradition.

I don't need to create anything, that system already exists.

The claim that the current system “protects” votes in smaller states is absurd on its face. California has 55 votes, Wyoming has three under the current system ... so your claim is that with a margin as low as 1% in any state, almost half the voters IN THAT STATE should be disenfranchised and THAT somehow magically protects the interests of smaller States?

My claim (if I had one) is that it protects the majority interests of that one State without infringing on the majority interests of other States and prevents one population-dense radical region from drowning out the voice of less-populous regions with less radical views.

No. The Founders left the manner of each States Electors TO that State. This is obviously a recognition of State sovereignty. If a State decides FPTP is inequitable, that State changes it. The only thing the current system protects is the hegemony of the two-party ‘system”

I wasn't talking about FPTP. Your mention of it was lost in the rest of your civics lesson and I apologize for the confusion. You may disregard my statements about California votes affecting other States.

Personally, I like how Nebraska and Vermont(?) models that use the "Congressional District - Popular (CDP)"

A good breakdown of how different systems would look for 2016 hindsight:
www.270towin.com...

I don’t agree with you. I won’t agree with you. No matter how hard you try to spin.

I'm not spinning anything, but you are welcome to think so.

I think we can agree that one State's Electoral Votes should be controlled by that one State and not influenced by any other States, but I could be wrong.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

So do you support disenfranchising Trump voters in every Blue State?

a reply to: Gryphon66

It must be amazing to have a President that you believe in.

It is.

I've otherwise said my peace. Keep those eyes closed.

TheRedneck

a reply to: dawnstar

Exactly Dawn.

I really don't care whether it's the psychopath in the red hat or the blue hat ... Because they they're on the same side and it's against me and you. I am absolutely not against the EC, because I am in support of our Constitution.

Winner take All does one thing ... It keeps the two power system in place.

If you take what the Framers did as exactly the pattern they intended then the State legislatures can pick two electors (as they did for the he Senate originally) and the rest are assigned to reflect the popular vote in the State.

What happens then? People have a reason to vote "third" party.

That's what the hegemony doesn't want. They want two teams with the People basically split between them.

a reply to: RickinVa

I don't think anyone living in reality cares what democrats have to say because it's like they think of the most unintelligent thing they can think of and then blurt it out because they know the people living in that bubble are dumb enough to adjust to the idea and believe it.

originally posted by: GreenGunther
If it’s racist, how did America get a black president for 2 terms?

4 terms. Remember, Clinton called himself the first black president, too. Funny how hie Confederate Flag campaign logo didn't offend anyone until 16 years later when they were told to be offended. Really puts into perspective how far this country fell after obama was elected.

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: RickinVa

I don't think anyone living in reality cares what democrats have to say because it's like they think of the most unintelligent thing they can think of and then blurt it out because they know the people living in that bubble are dumb enough to adjust to the idea and believe it.

If you believe that, then the programming has been successful. I know many intelligent Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Trump supporters, Trump haters, etc. It's foolish to believe that one side is for you, because there is only one side with two faces and it's against us.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
How could the Electoral College have been created as a racist establishment when the individual States didn't allow most black men to vote, along with women? (There might have been some northern states that allowed black businessmen to vote but I'm not sure.)

How was dis-empowerment of black voters 'established' into something in that time period of US history?

Democrats NEVER think about the past, though ironically live in it when they want to. They seem to think the country started 10 years ago.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Gothmog

Votes are tallied by Counties, not credited by Counties.

Counties do not count as a unit, they count as a number of individual votes.

And what did I say ?
You have just ad-libbed a direct quote from my post.
Why ?

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Gothmog

Votes are tallied by Counties, not credited by Counties.

Counties do not count as a unit, they count as a number of individual votes.

And what did I say ?
You have just ad-libbed a direct quote from my post.
Why ?

I’m glad we agree then.

There’s no rational reason to use counties as the unit for the Electoral College.

(Perhaps I misread, Goth ... beg pardon.)

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
How could the Electoral College have been created as a racist establishment when the individual States didn't allow most black men to vote, along with women? (There might have been some northern states that allowed black businessmen to vote but I'm not sure.)

How was dis-empowerment of black voters 'established' into something in that time period of US history?

Democrats NEVER think about the past, though ironically live in it when they want to. They seem to think the country started 10 years ago.

Dis-enmpoiwerment/dis-enfranchisement was built into the system because the electoral college is weighted by both population and effective amount of land per capita. In this case, your vote counts for more if you own a lot of land. It was not merely coincidental that all the 'undesirables' of that era owned little if any land.....

a reply to: Wayfarer

The Federalists wanted land-ownership to be a requirement for voting. From time to time, one will see a right-wing argument here for the same thing.

originally posted by: LanceCorvette
There is not and never has been a "popular vote" for the American President.

When anyone tells you "Hillary won the popular vote" - including Hilary herself, they're either lying or ignorant of the process.

There is a "Popular Vote" and has always been one.

It has never determined who is elected to be a US President, although it usually correlates.

It is a number relevant to political pundits and political analysts.

I view with skepticism any argument that looks to erase basic factual talking points from the discussion.