News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

End The Electoral College

Started by Cavebear, November 17, 2016, 04:04:41 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Cavebear

Not for political reasons, but because I think States don't really matter and are  and are just annoyances these days.  Let's live nationally, not "stately". 

The worst problems are from on State to another.  States exist for local problems.  Most of our disputes are among States.  Let's just decide these disputes nationally and be done with them.   
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Baruch

There are times when having the Fed step in, is a good thing (local idiots).  There are times when having the Fed step in, is a bad thing (DC idiots).  That is the problem with circumstantial political advocacy ... it is only true for one election cycle.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

AllPurposeAtheist

But, but, but eliminating the electoral college would be unconstitutional .
Right now there is no way in hell republicans would ever consider it as it's the only reason Trump will be our next president. Good luck with getting them to go along. In fact the last two republican presidents only got to the white house was because of the electoral college. They don't represent the majority, but still get the prize.
All hail my new signature!

Admit it. You're secretly green with envy.

Munch

Quote from: Cavebear on November 17, 2016, 04:04:41 AM
Not for political reasons, but because I think States don't really matter and are  and are just annoyances these days.  Let's live nationally, not "stately". 


But see, if that happened, and there were no borders, all the swamp dwellers and southern hill billies would merge with the northern parts, edumacation would crumble, and chickens would be running around the white house lawn!
'Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners' - George Carlin

Baruch

Quote from: Munch on November 17, 2016, 11:31:42 AM
But see, if that happened, and there were no borders, all the swamp dwellers and southern hill billies would merge with the northern parts, edumacation would crumble, and chickens would be running around the white house lawn!

Free range chickens ... who support open carry ;-)
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

widdershins

It's not going to happen any time soon.  There have only been 5 presidents in history who lost the popular vote, but still one the election.  Two of those, fucking 40%, were Republicans elected within a 16 year period, just 5 elections.  And shit gets even worse for them when you go with the popular vote for all elections.  Gerrymandering is their main source of power and a popular vote makes that disappear over night.

Personally, I don't think the laws should be different between states.  States DEFINITELY should not be able to enact laws which effect elections on the national level, such as barring convicted felons from voting and voter ID laws.  The states shouldn't even be in charge of anything to do with the election process for offices at the federal level, including deciding polling places and hours.  They have proved themselves to be irresponsible when doing so at every chance.
This sentence is a lie...

Feral Atheist

Quote from: Cavebear on November 17, 2016, 04:04:41 AM
Not for political reasons, but because I think States don't really matter and are  and are just annoyances these days.  Let's live nationally, not "stately". 

The worst problems are from on State to another.  States exist for local problems.  Most of our disputes are among States.  Let's just decide these disputes nationally and be done with them.   
Thus all states must have input into the election of president. 

Nor do I recall any real disputes between states, at least not since 1865, most disputed are between states and the overbearing federal government, mandating that every state must have a voice, and the electoral college does that.

In dog beers I've only had one.

Baruch

Before 1861, there was Bloody Kansas ... but that was mostly a war between settlers within Kansas.  Abolitionists in the North fought slavery, but were mostly impotent ... only John Brown (from Kansas) raised a weapon in anger, and he was shut down pronto.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Hijiri Byakuren

Oh no, we definitely need to keep the electoral college system. This shit is way too entertaining.

Speak when you have something to say, not when you have to say something.

Sargon The Grape - My Youtube Channel

Baruch

No need to keep the Constitution, if you aren't going to follow it (since 1950).  Go to the Chinese system ... one party authoritarian state ... only party members get to vote on party candidates.  Both R and D agree on this, they only disagree as to who the One Party is going to be.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Hydra009

Quote from: Cavebear on November 17, 2016, 04:04:41 AMNot for political reasons, but because I think States don't really matter and are  and are just annoyances these days.  Let's live nationally, not "stately".
Agreed.  It's really odd how much things change from one state to another.  Marijuana legality, education, minimum wage, gun laws, and until recently, gay marriage.  It's less like one country and more like 50 countries.

Atheon

#11
I do like the idea of states being like little public policy laboratories, to see how political ideas work out in the real world. However, certain things like human rights should be nationwide. No state should have the right to oppress its people.

But the electoral college should go. Rinky-dink states like Wyoming are over-represented. The president should be the sole representative of the people. There should be other mechanisms in place to ensure that dangerous demagogues don't get voted in.
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." - Seneca

reasonist

Quote from: Baruch on November 18, 2016, 05:12:03 AM
No need to keep the Constitution, if you aren't going to follow it (since 1950).  Go to the Chinese system ... one party authoritarian state ... only party members get to vote on party candidates.  Both R and D agree on this, they only disagree as to who the One Party is going to be.

But it shouldn't be carved in stone either. Things change, we evolve. That's why you have 'amendments'.

China, Russia and other authoritarian states had to adapt to a more capitalist system with free enterprise and ownership. Otherwise they would not be competitive in a global market. I guess having no say in the political process is more tolerable when people have opportunities otherwise. North Korea is the extreme authoritarian state. It's a necrocracy, Kim Jong-il is president forever, despite being dead for years. No private enterprise, no private ownership.

The last time I checked (some votes are still counted), Hillary Clinton had over 800,000 votes more that Trump. So all these votes are ignored. That can't be the best system.
Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities
Voltaire

Baruch

Unfortunately there are many uncounted ballots in Utah ... and reports of ballots elsewhere that shouldn't be counted at all.  Since we aren't going to be honest about it (trillions of dollars at stake), I see no reason to allow elections at all, except in the D-Party Congress ... they can be very careful who they let into the Commissariat (sorry Bernie) .. which commissars are allowed to vote (sorry Elizabeth) .. if there is any problem, the Chairman can treat them like Saddam Hussein treated the Iraqi Parliament at times (please invite Comrade Abdul outside for a little chat ... "sounds of shots being fired").
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

_Xenu_

#14
People have been complaining about the electoral college since Al Gore in 2000, but getting rid of it would be a really bad idea. The problem with moving to the popular vote is corruption. The money needed to actually run in all fifty states would be much more than whats normal now, and would give corporations and lobbyists even more say in government than they already have. Getting rid of the electoral college makes sense at a glance, but would have serious unintended consequences.
Click this link once a day to feed shelter animals. Its free.

http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/clickToGive/ars/home