Jump to content
  • Hey There!

    Please register to see fewer ads and a better viewing experience:100_Emoji_42x42:

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

NanuqoftheNorth

Why The Electoral College Ruins Democracy

Recommended Posts

Just now, JARROD said:

Born in Charlotte not a transplant. 

Oppressive?

 Did anybody put you in a breadline? Did you get to vote? Do you own firearms? What the hell are you talking about? 

I voted for Hillary and I still don't say that

the majority of the country is having their vote oppressed. voting is arguably America's most important institution, and the current broken system was not designed to handle the population we have now, and it has been made completely outdated by modern technology.

your argument amounts to insisting we keep dirt roads instead of creating highways because they had dirt roads when the FOUNDING FATHERS were alive and it's how they wanted it.

there are better systems that are more representative. it's time to switch to one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


5 minutes ago, rodeo said:

the majority of the country is having their vote oppressed. voting is arguably America's most important institution, and the current broken system was not designed to handle the population we have now, and it has been made completely outdated by modern technology.

your argument amounts to insisting we keep dirt roads instead of creating highways because they had dirt roads when the FOUNDING FATHERS were alive and it's how they wanted it.

there are better systems that are more representative. it's time to switch to one.

 On the contrary, the system makes individual votes matter more than what you want. The 2000 election came down to 612 votes in Florida. The 2004 election came down to 1028 votes in Florida. 

 Under your system when it's positive or -1,000,000 votes or more how does your single vote count? 

What you're saying makes no sense

 In the founding fathers wanted it to work this way except for George Washington who hated political parties and said they would be the downfall of the country. 

In your case that would be true

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 If we went to a simple majority, votes in North Carolina in most states wouldn't matter at all. All the campaigning and all the money would go to California and New York. The rest of the states we get very little funding and go depressed. 

 That's what happens in a lot of other countries that are so called democracies. Their big cities get all the money in the country they get nothing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, JARROD said:

 On the contrary, the system makes individual votes matter more than what you want. The 2000 election came down to 612 votes in Florida. The 2004 election came down to 1028 votes in Florida. 

 Under your system when it's positive or -1,000,000 votes or more how does your single vote count? 

What you're saying makes no sense

 In the founding fathers wanted it to work this way except for George Washington who hated political parties and said they would be the downfall of the country. 

In your case that would be true

And in 2000 the will of the American people was overruled by a partisan court.

In my system the ONLY thing that counts is an individual's vote. In your system, the majority of votes might as well be cast into a garbage can.

In my system, it doesn't matter where you live, what race you are, if you are old or young, disabled, elderly, or a billionaire. 1 person = 1 vote. The most timid voice in Mississippi counts exactly as much as the loudest scream in New York.

Under the system you favor, only a small group of states decide the election for everyone, and if you don't live in the right state, your voice is ripped out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are wrong dude. Arguing out of emotion rather than logic, like I said butt hurt arguments seldom win.

And you are wrong about the 2000 and 2004 elections. 

Its fair to all the states under the constitution. A simple majority would take the funding and campaigning out of the little states and into having The United States of California for all decisions.

maybe you should move there and take up with the Chargers or Rams. You would get heard every time.

oh, until a Ronal Reagan or an Arnold come along.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually we have a simple majority now, in all the states.

taking that away from the states would say we are no longer the United States and might as well make a new country with a new constitution and have no states.

your voted counted in NC or where ever you live, mine counted in Florida.

the individual states ARE given weight for population so that balances out what you are arguing.

the majority still gets their say without taking away each states individuality.

you could always go live in France or England and try that out. Been there done that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/7/2017 at 3:45 AM, darrybear said:

 smh you still don't get that's your vote does count is just within your state every individual vote is counted it's just going to wards your state honey if we didn't do it that way those smaller states would not get a say even if it was all individual that would not benefit more people you would think that but it doesn't  in fact I would even go as far to say that it would disenfranchise more voters what's the point of voting if one segment of the population gets to determine the whole thing 

That is why each state gets two senators honey, so the small states get their say... and then some.

Quote

 

How did we get such an insane, undemocratic system for choosing our president? The answer, oddly enough is because of slavery. The system was explicitly designed to protect slavery. One hundred and fifty years after the Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery, this proslavery provision lurks in our political backyard, like some horrible monster, waiting to spring on us to undermine the very notion of democratic government in the world’s oldest constitutional democracy.

How did we come up with the Electoral College? The classic explanations are that the Framers feared the common voters and that the Electoral College was needed to protect the small states from the large states. But, except for a complaint about voters from Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, there is no evidence in the records of the Constitutional Convention to support the first contention. On the second issue, delegates rejected allowing governors to choose the national executive precisely because the delegates feared the governors from the more numerous small states would outvote the larger states. Thus, both explanations are essentially urban legends that hide the real origin of the Electoral College.  https://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/the-electoral-college-was-explicitly-designed-to-protect-slavery/

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JARROD said:

taking that away from the states would say we are no longer the United States and might as well make a new country with a new constitution and have no states.

What a B.S. response this ^^^ is.

So who elects representatives of the US House and Senate? 

Answer: Each and every INDIVIDUAL State. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, NanuqoftheNorth said:

That is why each state gets two senators honey, so the small states get their say... and then some.

 

Actually the Senators were initially appointees and were usually the higher classes so that the higher class could have a voice against the middle class.

Weird I know.  But Senators were not created to give people a voice, but wealthy landowners

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, teeray said:

Actually the Senators were initially appointees and were usually the higher classes so that the higher class could have a voice against the middle class.

Weird I know.  But Senators were not created to give people a voice, but wealthy landowners

While there is merit in your statement as far as how the Senators were once chosen, the reason each state has two regardless of population was due to the "Great Compromise" between the most/least populous states.

Read more here.

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Constitution_Senate.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, this is butt hurt logic. Had Hillary won the same way, everyone would be defending the system from the Republicans who would be crying. 

The system has nothing to do with Slavery, as slavery was legal in all states when it was drafted. 

This is some butt hurt revisionist narrative made to play on the uneducated and the poor for click bait.

to ratify the constitution, the system was put in place to protect smaller states from the bigger. 

Keep in mind, there was almost a system out in place to have all the governors choose be president. I wonder how that would turn out now?

the truly broken is the 2 party system we have right now. 

The other broken piece is the divisionist attitudes of the parties. Most of them are best buddies. 

Its like professional wrestling, best buddies behind closed doors, enemies to sway the stupid masses into being divided.

united we stand, divided we fall. The country is divided, thats the way the blue and reds like it. Makes us all ants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, NanuqoftheNorth said:

While there is merit in your statement as far as how the Senators were once chosen, the reason each state has two regardless of population was due to the "Great Compromise" between the most/least populous states.

Read more here.

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Constitution_Senate.htm

True

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, NanuqoftheNorth said:

What a B.S. response this ^^^ is.

So who elects representatives of the US House and Senate? 

Answer: Each and every INDIVIDUAL State. 

Under this system of simple majority, voting for the president would be nationalized which is against the intent of the constitution.

Any civics professor will tell you that. 

BS response? Did you go to school?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, JARROD said:

Again, this is butt hurt logic. Had Hillary won the same way, everyone would be defending the system from the Republicans who would be crying. 

The system has nothing to do with Slavery, as slavery was legal in all states when it was drafted. 

This is some butt hurt revisionist narrative made to play on the uneducated and the poor for click bait.

to ratify the constitution, the system was put in place to protect smaller states from the bigger. 

Keep in mind, there was almost a system out in place to have all the governors choose be president. I wonder how that would turn out now?

the truly broken is the 2 party system we have right now. 

The other broken piece is the divisionist attitudes of the parties. Most of them are best buddies. 

Its like professional wrestling, best buddies behind closed doors, enemies to sway the stupid masses into being divided.

united we stand, divided we fall. The country is divided, thats the way the blue and reds like it. Makes us all ants.

You'd be right except for the fact that you are wrong.

Don't believe me... get it straight from the words of those making the decisions at the time...

Quote

 

South Carolina’s Charles Pinckney opposed direct election of the president because the “most populous States by combining in favor of the same individual will be able to carry their points.” This statement cannot, however, be taken at face value. The issue here was not population, but the voting population. Half the people in South Carolina were slaves, and Pinckney could not support the direct election of the president, because that would hurt the South.

Hugh Williamson of North Carolina made this point directly, bluntly noting that the South could not support popular election because the people would “vote for some man in their own State, and the largest State will be sure to succeed. This will not be Virginia. However. Her slaves will have no suffrage.” This was a critical observation. If the president were directly elected by the people, then southerners, especially Virginians, might not get elected. Virginia had the largest population of any state, but about 40% of its people were slaves and none of them could vote. The same of course would be true for the rest of the South.

Somewhat later James Madison, conceded that “the people at large” were “the fittest” to choose the president. But “one difficulty … of a serious nature” made election by the people impossible. Madison noted that the “right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes.” In order to guarantee that the nonvoting slaves could nevertheless influence the presidential election, Madison favored the creation of the Electoral College.

The Convention then accepted the idea of an Electoral College. By this time the Convention had already agreed to count slaves for representation under the three­ fifths compromise, counting five slaves as equal to three free people in order to increase the South’s representation in Congress. Thus, in electing the president the political power southerners gained from owning slaves (although obviously not the votes of slaves) would be factored into the electoral votes of each state.

 

https://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/the-electoral-college-was-explicitly-designed-to-protect-slavery/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, NanuqoftheNorth said:

While there is merit in your statement as far as how the Senators were once chosen, the reason each state has two regardless of population was due to the "Great Compromise" between the most/least populous states.

Read more here.

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Constitution_Senate.htm

Fair enough.  Just one of those weird things a lot of people are not aware of

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      19,327
    • Most Online
      2,867

    Newest Member
    Chase Anderson
    Joined
  • Topics

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      140,717
    • Total Posts
      4,482,142
×