The Electoral College is racist and should be abolished

a reply to: ketsuko

Oh now that’s a cute gambit. Tossing out one of the darlings of right-wing political correctness.

My goodness how I have attracted such attention! I wonder why ...

Nope. A “participation trophy” is pejorative term for something given for no reason aside from being in the race. I’m suggesting that we equitably distribute the Electors at the State level to reflect the actual vote of the population plus suggesting that the “first past the post” crowd be awarded two votes reflecting the equal representation for each State in the Senate.

The fact that we would assign Electors to REPRESENT the actual votes, rather than some “winner take all” scheme where all the minority candidates are cheated and their voters disenfranchised and the Republicans and Democrats are kept in a perpetual cycle of exchanged power.

No, you are not disenfranchised just because your candidate lost when all Electors are tallied across the nation. Your vote counted toward an Elector who voted for your candidate, whereas as we stand now, your vote is lost, stripped from you and given to the party that was “first past the post.”

You are making a similar argument to previous arguments. My idea is wrong because you say it is. It’s an idea that you are desperately trying to discredit when in reality, it increases the representative democracy that our Republic is based on.

I wonder why you want to keep the two-party system in power so ... badly?

a reply to: TheRedneck

I'm emotionally involved? Who is the one talking about blowing away balloons with a shotgun in crowded areas because its interferring with your ability to enjoy a football game?

As far as the idea that using a system that more closely resembles the popular vote leads to mob rule and all the dangers associated with it.. well you dont need a majority to have a mob. Matter of fact, usually the majority is left to their own means to defend themselves because the govt is either unwilling or unable to protect them from the mob. We have a few things built into the constitution that protects us from the dangers of mob rule. The main one being our constitution and bill of rights. It doesnt matter if 99.999999% of the population believes that the smaller group should have their rights stripped of them their rights are guaranteed. And we have a rather strong legal system that no one is above..... not even the president.
That means that even if 99.999999% of the population has voted a president into office, if he stays too far outside the rule of law or betrays the oath of office, the constitution has provided a path for the congress to remove him from office. We can argue over weather or not trump has strayed too far, weather or not the process is fair, ect... but no, the fact that he has managed to win the election does not give any president the right to hold that office regardless of what he does while in office or what hes done to get in office.

As far as the freedom of speech goes, yes we all have the freedom to say just about whatever we want. With the proper permits, we might be able to float our silly balloons. That freedom, like all freedoms comes with some responsibility though. You might have the freedom to post the kind of crap that seems to be posted on a daily basis on the forum, but is it really wise to do so? Is it really wise for people to talk about the future civil war they seem to want on practically a daily basis? I think it would be rather stupid to think that somewhere in some govt office, there isnt a staff of employees tracking down the identities of these people and making a list. Ot that some time in the near future, those govt employees will head out in force and start knocking on doors.
Maybe I just think it's rather fun debating those on ATS with opposing views and really dont want to see them hauled away because they didnt accept the responsibility that came with their rights and the govt took our banter more seriously than we did.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
a reply to: Gryphon66

You can't even use the term disenfranchise correctly, and you think you have presented evidence and reasons?

...

Good night, gryph.

Good night, Teikiatsu.

disenfranchise
verb
dis·​en·​fran·​chise | ˌdis-in-ˈfran-ˌchīz disenfranchised; disenfranchising; disenfranchises

transitive verb : to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, or of some privilege or immunity especially : to deprive of the right to vote

Webster

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.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Still losing an election is not being disenfranchised.

Look at your ballot every election cycle. Can you say that you pick every single race perfectly? Do you pick every winning item, top to bottom? If not, are you "disenfranchised" on the items/races where you picked the losing side? How can your vote not count if you picked some winning votes and some losing votes?

How can it only count when you pick the win, but magically not count if you picked the losing side?

That's basically sophistry. You win some, you lose some. None of it means your vote was never counted at all which is an entirely separate issue and truly being disenfranchised.

As an example, let's say I voted for Sam Graves, against Tod Akin, and for Mitt Romney a couple cycles ago. Was I disenfranchised when I came to the presidential race, but empowered at the state level since I picked winners in both those races? No. I wasn't. I simply picked two winners and one loser. My vote was counted either way as all three votes were on the same ballot.

a reply to: ketsuko

Losing an election is not being disenfranchised. Having your vote negated by the arbitrary FPTP system however most certainly is voter disenfranchisement.

We're talking about the Presidential Election ... Try to refrain from the normal Gish gallop.

Americans vote at the State level for Electors to represent them in the Electoral College. State level laws take away the votes for the candidates that come in second, third
, Etc.

This is wrong and is arguably taxation without representation. Why should Trump voters in CA not have Electors to represent them?

Answer: they should according to the percentage of their votes in their State. They have a right to be counted and represented in the EC.

a reply to: Gryphon66

That seems like a state issue more than a national issue. California does have 55 electors and as long as the Dems continue to be the majority in that state, they are not going to recognize the minority. That is why mob rule (popular vote) nationally would be so harmful to our election process.

I agree with you that states should recognize all votes and have their electors distributed accordingly. That was how it was meant to be. That doesn't mean do away with electoral voting in favor of popular voting. It means some states need to return to our original representative electoral voting as it was intended.

I do believe each state has their own indivisible rights and it is up to those state's citizens to ensure their state represents them. Federal laws should not hinder freedoms of state. I may not agree with California laws, thus why I don't live nor wish to visit that State.

Individuals need to be more involved more locally and at state level to ensure they have a voice to ensure they are represented. Thus why all elections are important and not just the Presidential ones.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Not really.

It'd dimply losing an election. Just because the outcome of that loss kicks into another system than direct doesn't matter. The end result is the same. You are voting on what the electors are pledged to do. You win; they vote one way. You lose; they don't. Still simple cause/effect.

Why do you think there was such an uproar over the idea of an elector revolt? That would be disenfrachisement or the negation of people's votes.

a reply to: CynConcepts

I am absolutely not advocating for establishing a national popular vote for President.

I’m not for changing the Electoral College structure at all.

I’m suggesting that by making a change at the State level to end the First Past the Post system that assigns all State Electors to the first place winner and excludes all other votes usually at 30-45% for the second place and

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Not really.

It'd dimply losing an election. Just because the outcome of that loss kicks into another system than direct doesn't matter. The end result is the same. You are voting on what the electors are pledged to do. You win; they vote one way. You lose; they don't. Still simple cause/effect.

Why do you think there was such an uproar over the idea of an elector revolt? That would be disenfrachisement or the negation of people's votes.

I disagree. There is no reason why the Electors cannot represent their voters in a fair and proportional way.

Thanks for the conversation.

a reply to: Gryphon66

And it was never an issue until 2016. Can you explain that?

a reply to: RickinVa

The left will abolish the electoral college until they need
it to win an election.

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: Gryphon66

And it was never an issue until 2016. Can you explain that?

Incorrect again.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Trump was a joke in 2012. He would have been laughed out if he'd tried running that year. It wasn't until obama royally effed this country up that Trump's words became popular. We didn't really need someone like him before 2016.

Got anything else?

a reply to: LSU2018

LOL. Fascinating.

Google "ending FPTP at the State level" if you're interested.

If not...

a reply to: dawnstar

I'm emotionally involved?

Pretty obviously... to the point you seem unable to even comprehend what thread you are posting in.

I particularly like how you seem so reverent of the Constitution, but at the same time are vociferously arguing against part of it. The states get to choose how to select electors. Period. If you want to change that, call a Constitutional Convention. Most states have chosen to award electors on a winner-take-all basis; a few have not. That is their right under the Constitution. That is our right under the Constitution. It is not your right to be given or taken away from us depending on whether or not your team won.

I am pretty arrogant when it comes to football; I think most Alabama fans are. I tend to make crude jokes, like talking about the "poor kitty-cats" when referring to the LSU Tigers and how it looked like we were going to have to "spank them" for being so "uppity" and "taking our (#1) spot." But when the game is over, the game is over. The winner is announced and I don't go around claiming that the rules need to be changed because my team lost. I eat my crow and wait for the next game. I don't seek "revenge," other than wanting even more to beat them next time we meet, and I certainly don't denigrate the other team because they won... as a matter of fact, I tend to compliment them for doing the "impossible" and beating the mighty Crimson Tide.

I see no reason why an election cannot be the same way. OK, you talked the smack, you played your game, and you still lost. A person of integrity would simply acknowledge the results, eat their crow, and try harder next time. But not the far left, oh, no! No, you want to stage "protests" (known in other parts of the world as riots), get in everyone's face, stall the country from accomplishing anything, wish ill on everyone who didn't vote the same way you did, and even try to play legal games to change the outcome. Stop. Just stop. All you have done is convince others around you that you are nothing more than a sore loser with no shred of humanity left and do not deserve to even be playing in the same game.

Getting back to the subject of the thread, does your state apportion electors? Does Gryphon66's state apportion electors? I would hazard a guess they do not, since very few do. So my question is, why aren't you trying to change that? Why aren't you writing to your state legislatures? Why aren't you talking to your neighbors and friends to convince them of your position and try to actually change the laws in your state to reflect what you want? I'll tell you why: despite all the words, the true goal is not equality, or fairness, or anything like that; the goal is to get other states to change their laws so you can win next time... to change the rules so you have an unfair advantage.

Claim otherwise all you want; everyone can see what you have in mind.

The answer is no. If you change your state, maybe the rest of us will consider your argument. Until that happens, you are just whistling in the wind and being a sore loser.

TheRedneck

a reply to: LSU2018

So you're a late Trump Dispensationalist?

Anything before 2016 doesn't matter ?

How convenient.

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.

a reply to: TheRedneck

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

As far as yous knowing what is on my mind...
Gee, ya know, it's amazing, not only do yous have the ability to peer into alternate universes and tell us how we would act if this or that existed rather than what does, but yous can read minds also! Makes me wonder, just how many of yous have managed to get yourselves lost in my insanity??

a reply to: dawnstar

(1) Good job of cutting through mounds of extraneous material, and (2) you are many things but crazy ain’t one of them.

Well said Dawnstar!

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: shooterbrody
We cant win
Lets change the rules

Perhaps simply change your platforms that people dislike?

I’m not a Democrat.

Also, the rules that I am suggesting we change would benefit Republicans and Democrats AND minority party candidates and voters. The current system cheats the minority parties; I am recommending a equitable solution.

SURE you are not
El oh el

Play bu the rules loser