BREAKING: Democrats Introduce Bill To Eliminate Electoral College

a reply to: ketsuko

Exactly, it's a trap!

originally posted by: chr0naut

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.

You are from New Zealand, correct?

The island that the UK owns and your monarch is Queen Elizabeth?

Wasn't it not till the 1990's that you were given permission to have three branches of government?

I think they are called the Judicial, Executive and Legislative branches?

Since y'all seem to be cribbing from America's notes, here is a suggestion.

Become a sovereign nation. Write your own laws for a change, wait a few hundred years to see if your laws actually work...

Then you may have earned the right to criticize our nation.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

This is all because Hillary lost, and they began ranting about the "electoral college" being outdated.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.

Great assessment
Well posted

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

The Electoral College simulates voting by individuals by giving one vote per Senator and one vote for each congressional district for each State.

originally posted by: chr0naut

You need to avail yourself of a dictionary.

Next you'll be telling me I'm triggered or crying "REEEEEEEEEEE", or some other inane non-think.

You are the one who needs to unplug whatever you have covering your eyes and ears. Most of the time you write sentences that make no sense and seem to point to a person that lives in a fantasy world and not the real world.

Dictatorship of the majority occurs when minority votes don't count, and that's exactly what democrats want by abolishing the EC.

originally posted by: narrator
I'm 100% for abolishing the EC. Power to the people and all that good stuff. If we're all for a smaller government, shouldn't we want the government to not be involved in how the country votes? One man one vote, equal representation, etc. etc.

Let every vote count the same. Whichever side gets the majority of the votes, wins. Any other way makes zero sense to me.

To head off the inevitable, ridiculous reply at the pass: Yes, a majority used to be in favor of slavery. But voting for a politician can not be compared to voting to violate human rights. Don't sully your argument by comparing the two.
...

Of course you are. I am sure you are also for pushing other "beliefs of yours" on others even if they disagree with such beliefs.

BTW, it is not ridiculous to point out that majority can and do take away rights of minorities if only the vote of the majority counts. But of course, those rights are those people like you probably don't want others to have. Such as the second amendment.

If somehow democrats pass this, the only POTUS and VP that would be elected are those the left want. Not to mention that states like New York and KKKalifornia are among states which have decried that they will protect illegal immigrants, and make it easy for illegals to vote in our elections...

originally posted by: narrator
...
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.

States have "everything to do with that." I have already explained that if this were to pass, then all other states would have to be ruled by the voting laws of states like California. The EC stops your "pure democracy" which is nothing more than "dictatorship of the majority (with a lot of help from illegal votes, dead people, etc)" and it also guarantees that every state can have their own sovereignty, and their own voting laws.

BTW, don't come up with the "ridiculous claim about a benevolent dictator" as we have seen in the past in these forums. No dictator is benevolent, and democrats have shown that they want Americans who lean to the right in the political spectrum to have no "rights." Under the guise of "fighting right-wing extremism and fake news" the left have shown a disposition to suppress the voices of Americans who lean to the right. That's a form of dictatorship.

We have also seen the left, with a corrupt rino, Mueller, go after the duly elected President with fake claims about "Russian collusion." Heck, even after it has been shown that the claims by Crowdstrike about "Russia hacking the DNC" is false. Crowdstrike even invented that "the same Russian hackers hacked Ukraine's artillery units," which the Ukraine and the intelligence source that Crowdstrike used have stated Crowdstrike invented this attack, because it never happened. Yet to this day the left keeps claiming "Russia hacked the DNC and influenced our elections" trying to claim that the election result was not legitimate. As I wrote earlier, democrats have shown that they will use illegal means, and every dirty tactic they can come up with to deprive half of the nation their rights.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: narrator
I'm 100% for abolishing the EC. Power to the people and all that good stuff. If we're all for a smaller government, shouldn't we want the government to not be involved in how the country votes? One man one vote, equal representation, etc. etc.

Let every vote count the same. Whichever side gets the majority of the votes, wins. Any other way makes zero sense to me.

To head off the inevitable, ridiculous reply at the pass: Yes, a majority used to be in favor of slavery. But voting for a politician can not be compared to voting to violate human rights. Don't sully your argument by comparing the two.
...

Of course you are. I am sure you are also for pushing other "beliefs of yours" on others even if they disagree with such beliefs.

BTW, it is not ridiculous to point out that majority can and do take away rights of minorities if only the vote of the majority counts. But of course, those rights are those people like you probably don't want others to have. Such as the second amendment.

If somehow democrats pass this, the only POTUS and VP that would be elected are those the left want. Not to mention that states like New York and KKKalifornia are among states which have decried that they will protect illegal immigrants, and make it easy for illegals to vote in our elections...

You think your idea is better than mine and would rather see the EC stay the same... by default that means you are “pushing your beliefs” onto me, even if I disagree with them. So you are no better than I. People want what they think is best for them and their loved ones, it’s a totally natural thing.

The second amendment? Who said anything about that? But mah guns! Paranoid much? Relax, no one is going to come try to grab your guns. For what it’s worth, I own several myself, including the dreaded AR-15.

I don’t want to push my own beliefs onto everyone. My beliefs aren’t the same as the majority of the country, I know that my political beliefs wouldn’t benefit everyone. But the folks who live around me...our beliefs would benefit us way more than LA beliefs. Or Jackson, MS beliefs. Which is why I’ve said several times now that the US government as it stands is not the best representation of the population, and something needs to change.

That would be the case only because there are more Democrats than Republicans in the country. Meaning, it’s a better representation of the country as a whole. However, it isn’t fair to the minorities of the country. Which again shows that it makes sense to split the country up according to what’s best for each individual region. The Midwest feels differently about politics than California. Why should they all have to be represented by the same federal government if their beliefs are diametrically opposed? They should have their own, more accurate, representation.

Oh, illegals. Hitting all the talking points. I’m pro immigration. You’re against it. Yet another reason why your area/region should have different representation than mine. Where I live, immigrants are vital to the economy and a ton of jobs just flat out wouldn’t get done if it weren’t for them. It makes sense for my region to allow/ease up on immigration rules. If you disagree, your region can put their own rules in place.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: narrator
...
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.

States have "everything to do with that." I have already explained that if this were to pass, then all other states would have to be ruled by the voting laws of states like California. The EC stops your "pure democracy" which is nothing more than "dictatorship of the majority (with a lot of help from illegal votes, dead people, etc)" and it also guarantees that every state can have their own sovereignty, and their own voting laws.

BTW, don't come up with the "ridiculous claim about a benevolent dictator" as we have seen in the past in these forums. No dictator is benevolent, and democrats have shown that they want Americans who lean to the right in the political spectrum to have no "rights." Under the guise of "fighting right-wing extremism and fake news" the left have shown a disposition to suppress the voices of Americans who lean to the right. That's a form of dictatorship.

We have also seen the left, with a corrupt rino, Mueller, go after the duly elected President with fake claims about "Russian collusion." Heck, even after it has been shown that the claims by Crowdstrike about "Russia hacking the DNC" is false. Crowdstrike even invented that "the same Russian hackers hacked Ukraine's artillery units," which the Ukraine and the intelligence source that Crowdstrike used have stated Crowdstrike invented this attack, because it never happened. Yet to this day the left keeps claiming "Russia hacked the DNC and influenced our elections" trying to claim that the election result was not legitimate. As I wrote earlier, democrats have shown that they will use illegal means, and every dirty tactic they can come up with to deprive half of the nation their rights.

Whole lotta nonsense in here, going off on tangents not even remotely related to the argument here. But, for the sake of discussion:

Currently, as the EC stands, yes states have a lot to do with it. If the EC were abolished, it would no longer be a state-by-State election, it would be one national election. By definition, states would have nothing to do with that. Dictatorship of the majority is a fun, scary sounding buzzword, but if you step back and think, a lot of the time in elections, the majority wins. Therefore, we already have a “dictatorship of the majority”. That’s why each party wants a majority in the house/senate, so they can get more done. What you’re using as a scare tactic is exactly what is already happening. Not that bad right now...why would it be worse if we took government control out of the equation?

I said nothing about a dictatorship, benevolent or not. You don’t get a democratic vote In a dictatorship. We aren’t a dictatorship. Problem solved.
That’s not a form of dictatorship. The right wing calls a lot of news “fake” too (CNN in particular), does that make the right wing dictators as well?

This has nothing to do with the conversation, but since you brought it up...special counsel Mueller’s investigation:
As of November, five former Trump aides/advisers, 26 Russian nationals, three Russian companies, one Californian, and one London-based lawyer have been indicted or found guilty. Seven of these people (including all five former Trump aides) have pled guilty.
For being a witch hunt, Mueller is finding an awful lot of witches. Especially Russian ones. Hmmm...makes one think, why so many Russians, if none of this has anything to do with Russia?

Can't really blame them, look at an electoral map of 2016 by county, it's about 95 % red. Get rid of the electoral system and one percent of the geographic area of the country would rule the rest. The dims wouldn't even half to campaign anywhere but California, New York, and Florida.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I like this part.

"Presidents should not pardon themselves, their families, their administration or campaign staff," Cohen continued. "This constitutional amendment would expressly prohibit this and any future president, from abusing the pardon power."

But I think we need the electoral collage. Otherwise there would be many that never get their voice heard.

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: chr0naut

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.

You are from New Zealand, correct?

I am an Australian citizen, resident in New Zealand.

The island that the UK owns and your monarch is Queen Elizabeth?

New Zealand territory covers several Islands. It is a sovereign country, but was established as a British colony with the English monarchy as sovereign and head of state. Like the US, New Zealand has not been a British colony for more than 150 years.

The UK does not own New Zealand. New Zealand is a member nation of the British Commonwealth of Nations, of which Britain itself is no longer a member.

Our local Parliament holds legislative power over the country and has right of rule. Generally, the monarchy and the representative of that monarchy, the Governor General, have no involvement in the processes of legislation. The head of government here is the Prime Minister, not the monarch or governor general.

The Economist Intelligence Unit rated New Zealand as a "full democracy" in 2016. The country ranks highly for government transparency, and has the lowest perceived level of corruption in the world. It also shares equal rank of highest standard of living in the world with Iceland.

Wasn't it not till the 1990's that you were given permission to have three branches of government?

New Zealand has had a Westminster style government consisting of three branches since 1853, when it transitioned from being a British colony with the 'New Zealand Constitution Act' and voting was introduced.

I think they are called the Judicial, Executive and Legislative branches?

Since y'all seem to be cribbing from America's notes, here is a suggestion.

The US did not invent the three branch government structure.

Ancient Greece (approx 400 BC) had its government divided into Senate, Consuls and Assemblies. This continued into the Ancient Roman Republic.

Britain had a democratic political system with separation of powers since the 1500's.

New Zealand's constitution is based on the principle of separation of powers through a series of constitutional safeguards, many of which are tacit. The Executive's ability to carry out decisions often depends on the Legislature, which is elected under the mixed member proportional system. This means the government is rarely a single party but a coalition of parties. The Judiciary is also free of government interference. If a series of judicial decisions result in an interpretation of the law which the Executive considers does not reflect the intention of the policy, the Executive can initiate changes to the legislation in question through the Legislature. The Executive cannot direct or request a judicial officer to revise or reconsider a decision; decisions are final. Should there be a dispute between the Executive and Judiciary, the Executive has no authority to direct the Judiciary, or its individual members and vice versa.

Become a sovereign nation. Write your own laws for a change, wait a few hundred years to see if your laws actually work...

Then you may have earned the right to criticize our nation.

We've been all that for hundreds of years.

Politics of New Zealand From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Right earned, in spades!

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: chr0naut

You need to avail yourself of a dictionary.

Next you'll be telling me I'm triggered or crying "REEEEEEEEEEE", or some other inane non-think.

You are the one who needs to unplug whatever you have covering your eyes and ears. Most of the time you write sentences that make no sense and seem to point to a person that lives in a fantasy world and not the real world.

Dictatorship of the majority occurs when minority votes don't count, and that's exactly what democrats want by abolishing the EC.

Meaning of “dictator” in the Cambridge English Dictionary

Meaning of “majority” in the Cambridge English Dictionary

A dictatorship means that only one person's vote counts (the dictator).

originally posted by: narrator

You think your idea is better than mine and would rather see the EC stay the same... by default that means you are “pushing your beliefs” onto me, even if I disagree with them. So you are no better than I. People want what they think is best for them and their loved ones, it’s a totally natural thing.

Wrong... Your idea is what will deprive people in several states the right to be represented and be heard. The EC allows the voices of EVERYONE to be heard and to be represented.

It seems obvious that you really have no idea what you are talking about.

originally posted by: narrator
That would be the case only because there are more Democrats than Republicans in the country. Meaning, it’s a better representation of the country as a whole. However, it isn’t fair to the minorities of the country. Which again shows that it makes sense to split the country up according to what’s best for each individual region. The Midwest feels differently about politics than California. Why should they all have to be represented by the same federal government if their beliefs are diametrically opposed? They should have their own, more accurate, representation.

Is that why democrats have been making it easier for illegals to get driver licenses which automatically get entered to vote in various democrat states?

originally posted by: narrator
Oh, illegals. Hitting all the talking points. I’m pro immigration. You’re against it. Yet another reason why your area/region should have different representation than mine. Where I live, immigrants are vital to the economy and a ton of jobs just flat out wouldn’t get done if it weren’t for them. It makes sense for my region to allow/ease up on immigration rules. If you disagree, your region can put their own rules in place.

Yet again another response which shows you have no idea what you are talking about. Illegal immigration is not "immigration." I am against ILLEGAL immigration, but in favor of LEGAL immigration. I am a LEGAL immigrant myself and it took us almost 10 years to get accepted LEGALLY into the U.S. Why should anyone cut the line when there are millions of people who want to enter LEGALLY? Not to mention the slap in the face to all the LEGAL immigrants who, like my family and I, had to go through the LEGAL process and wait our time.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse


Do the Democrats do anything for their country or people? Seems like they just sit there all day trying to kick trump out. At tax payers expense of course. Not a bad job considering their pay bracket. Thinking of new ways to fail at getting trump out again and again and again..

And Americans seem quite happy with this if supporting Democrats.

originally posted by: chr0naut

Meaning of “dictator” in the Cambridge English Dictionary

Meaning of “majority” in the Cambridge English Dictionary

A dictatorship means that only one person's vote counts (the dictator).

What in the world?... You see, it is responses of yours like the above that make me question your ability to understand English syntax, and also makes me question your sanity...

dictatorship of the majority

Noun

dictatorship of the majority (countable and uncountable, plural dictatorships of the majority)

(politics) A situation in which a government or other authority democratically supported by a majority of its subjects makes policies or takes actions benefiting that majority, without regard for the rights or welfare of the rest of its subjects. quotations ▼

Synonyms

tyranny of the majority

en.wiktionary.org...

Here is another dictionary explaining what "dictatorhisp of the majority" is...

www.yourdictionary.com...

It seems that the one in need of a dictionary, and maybe more than that, is you...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse



How many times has a Dem won the popular vote, in the past 30 years, only to have the college, give it to the Republican candidate? If it were the other way around, I am certain Republicans would want it eliminated. When it comes to millions, more voting for the other guy, I think that should at least count for something. Basically, less than 30,000.00 people in three swing states, is the reason trump is president.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: narrator

You think your idea is better than mine and would rather see the EC stay the same... by default that means you are “pushing your beliefs” onto me, even if I disagree with them. So you are no better than I. People want what they think is best for them and their loved ones, it’s a totally natural thing.

Wrong... Your idea is what will deprive people in several states the right to be represented and be heard. The EC allows the voices of EVERYONE to be heard and to be represented.

It seems obvious that you really have no idea what you are talking about.

originally posted by: narrator
That would be the case only because there are more Democrats than Republicans in the country. Meaning, it’s a better representation of the country as a whole. However, it isn’t fair to the minorities of the country. Which again shows that it makes sense to split the country up according to what’s best for each individual region. The Midwest feels differently about politics than California. Why should they all have to be represented by the same federal government if their beliefs are diametrically opposed? They should have their own, more accurate, representation.

Is that why democrats have been making it easier for illegals to get driver licenses which automatically get entered to vote in various democrat states?

originally posted by: narrator
Oh, illegals. Hitting all the talking points. I’m pro immigration. You’re against it. Yet another reason why your area/region should have different representation than mine. Where I live, immigrants are vital to the economy and a ton of jobs just flat out wouldn’t get done if it weren’t for them. It makes sense for my region to allow/ease up on immigration rules. If you disagree, your region can put their own rules in place.

Yet again another response which shows you have no idea what you are talking about. Illegal immigration is not "immigration." I am against ILLEGAL immigration, but in favor of LEGAL immigration. I am a LEGAL immigrant myself and it took us almost 10 years to get accepted LEGALLY into the U.S. Why should anyone cut the line when there are millions of people who want to enter LEGALLY? Not to mention the slap in the face to all the LEGAL immigrants who, like my family and I, had to go through the LEGAL process and wait our time.

Wrong. The EC deprives people of the right to be heard. Case in point: The majority of the country voted Democrat. But the Republican won. By definition, that means that the voice of the people was not heard. Approximately 3,000,000 people’s votes didn’t matter in the last election, because even though there were that many more votes for dems than repubs, the repubs still won. To me, that’s illogical. If you don’t see that as being wrong, I’m not going to take the time to explain it again. Reverse the scenario, and tell me that you genuinely would be ok with this outcome: Trump gets 3,000,000 more votes than Clinton, but Clinton still wins because of how our voting system is structured. Being 100% honest, you would be completely okay with that outcome? Trump got millions more votes, but Clinton wins. Take a step back and think about that.
I know exactly what I’m talking about. You just disagree with it. That’s okay.

That had nothing to do with what I said. But, a lot of states don’t even require drivers licenses to vote. Some states on that list: Wyoming, Kentucky, Alaska, Montana, West Virginia, Oklahoma, Nebraska.
Lot of red states don’t even require ID. But yea, it’s only a Democrat issue.

I’m also against illegal immigration. But I don’t see it as a big of an issue for the country as most of ATS does. Pretty much no one did until Trump whipped everyone into a frenzy about it. And the wall is dumb. It would cover what, MAYBE 1/10th of our entire borders? That isn’t a great percentage. Plus, there was a story on here not too long ago about someone using homemade aircraft to go over the current wall. They were caught by border patrol, but still...proof of concept that the actual wall would be useless and the funding (if any) should go to actual border control, i.e. people and technology, rather than a glorified fence.
None of that has anything to do with abolishing the EC though.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Typical Democrat scum move, I'm ashamed it was proposed by the a$$wip3 from Tennessee where I live.

originally posted by: seagull
I'm not so gone to reality that I don't know the odds are long in the extreme, but they aren't none. That's quite aside from the time the House is going to waste by pursuing what is virtually impossible.

The odds, in my opinion, of them getting 67 votes in the Senate and 290 in the House are zero.