Get rid of Electoral College? But, the Framers rightfully feared the tendency of Pure Democracy, which we and the Framers want to be the case, to descend into Mob Rule and run roughshod over the rights of disfavored minorities. (What Marauder and Sonhouse want to be the case)
The Constitution is full of anti-majoritarian safeguards, a primary one being the Electoral College.
Please read this. Why is it so difficult to agree with ? Why?
There is a reason for the College. The nation is a diverse place, and voters living in rural Indiana quite likely have a different set of issues and concerns than do voters living in downtown San Francisco. The Electoral College gives greater weight to the former group, encouraging campaigns to focus on assembling broad coalitions that span regions and interests.
The alternative—election by pure popular vote—flips the tables. If pure turnout is the end goal, candidates will inevitably focus their efforts on the biggest states—California, for example—and major urban centers like Chicago and New York City.
@AverageJoe1
What is your constant babbling on about mob rule ?
And why are you always complaining about the majority ruling a country ?
Are you perhaps more aware than you are admitting that conservatism is on a slow but gradual decline.
You know ........ Because the evangelical religious right is always preaching a model for America that has been left behind last century.
btw, I have nothing against the electoral system.
Just stop screwing around with it.
All that gerrymandering and so called voting restriction laws are giving it a bad name.
@mghrn55 said"What is your constant babbling on about mob rule ?"
@AverageJoe1
What is your constant babbling on about mob rule ?
And why are you always complaining about the majority ruling a country ?
Are you perhaps more aware than you are admitting that conservatism is on a slow but gradual decline.
You know ........ Because the evangelical religious right is always preaching a model for America that has been left behind last centur ...[text shortened]... d with it.
All that gerrymandering and so called voting restriction laws are giving it a bad name.
It's simple, really. He wants the right kind of mob to rule.
@mghrn55 saidWhy?….because you people want to get rid of it. Is this just another thing you liberals want to ban? My babbling about it? You also want to ban Barbie Dolls, and the Pledge of Allegiance, ban the word welfare from the government vocabulary.
@AverageJoe1
What is your constant babbling on about mob rule ?
And why are you always complaining about the majority ruling a country ?
Are you perhaps more aware than you are admitting that conservatism is on a slow but gradual decline.
You know ........ Because the evangelical religious right is always preaching a model for America that has been left behind last centur ...[text shortened]... d with it.
All that gerrymandering and so called voting restriction laws are giving it a bad name.
And To Kill A Mockingbird!!!!! Are you hitting Tom Sawyer next? Oooo, Sonhouse does not like when govt exercises power.
And when I complain about the majority ruling a country, I am right in line with the framers. So you must not agree with the framers?
Ha. then you go off on a tangent about conservatism, evangelical religious right, and gerrymandering.
Would you happen to have a comment on my post, the subject thereof?
@zahlanzi saidNo, read me again. I don’t qualify what kind of mob. You messin’ with average Joe?
"What is your constant babbling on about mob rule ?"
It's simple, really. He wants the right kind of mob to rule.
Frankly this post is too much for all of you. You cannot give it a straight answer.
16 Oct 22
@averagejoe1 saidDo you consider conservatives to be a minority ?
Why?….because you people want to get rid of it. Is this just another thing you liberals want to ban? My babbling about it? You also want to ban Barbie Dolls, and the Pledge of Allegiance, ban the word welfare from the government vocabulary.
And To Kill A Mockingbird!!!!! Are you hitting Tom Sawyer next? Oooo, Sonhouse does not like when govt exercises power.
An ...[text shortened]... right, and gerrymandering.
Would you happen to have a comment on my post, the subject thereof?
That seems to be what you are implying.
btw, I am Canadian. We don't have electoral colleges up here.
But we are a democracy. In case you didn't realize that.
17 Oct 22
@mghrn55 saidI don't realize Canada. I know we get a lot of paper from there.
Do you consider conservatives to be a minority ?
That seems to be what you are implying.
btw, I am Canadian. We don't have electoral colleges up here.
But we are a democracy. In case you didn't realize that.
I have never implied that conservatives are a minority. Even when you progressives win, which you will**, we will not necessarily be a minority, you will win with your barraging tenacity and street signs.
**. Most obvious evidence, is what you are doing to our school curriculum. I thought I was cool with having all of my family's school children in private schools, but hell, y'all are infiltrating there. Sonhouse has warned me about Power!!
17 Oct 22
@AverageJoe1
I have never implied that conservatives are a minority. Even when you progressives win, which you will**, we will not necessarily be a minority, you will win with your barraging tenacity and street signs.
-----------------------
No, Joe. They will cheat, as always
@averagejoe1 saidThe electoral college has the absurd effect of disenfranchising rural voters in states that happen to have large cities in them. The interests of voters in rural Indiana are represented in elections, but those of voters in upstate New York are not. The ballots of the six million Californians who voted Republican in the 2020 election went for nothing because they were outweighed by Democratic voters in the state's big cities.
There is a reason for the College. The nation is a diverse place, and voters living in rural Indiana quite likely have a different set of issues and concerns than do voters living in downtown San Francisco. The Electoral College gives greater weight to the former group, encouraging campaigns to focus on assembling broad coalitions that span regions and interests.
The ...[text shortened]... n the biggest states—California, for example—and major urban centers like Chicago and New York City.
In fact the electoral college ensures that candidates needn't address the interests of the country as a whole, but rather, are obliged to target a small number of swing states. Indiana is just as much a loser here as California, since the outcome of elections in both states can be taken for granted.
17 Oct 22
@averagejoe1 saidMob rule or rule by a minority?
Get rid of Electoral College? But, the Framers rightfully feared the tendency of Pure Democracy, which we and the Framers want to be the case, to descend into Mob Rule and run roughshod over the rights of disfavored minorities. (What Marauder and Sonhouse want to be the case)
The Constitution is full of anti-majoritarian safeguards, a primary one being the Electoral ...[text shortened]... n the biggest states—California, for example—and major urban centers like Chicago and New York City.
What is democracy?
We don’t have electoral colleges in Europe, but we don’t have mob rule either. Mhmmm… maybe there are other methods of keeping democracy, but making sure minority opinions are allowed and safe.
Google: deep democracy decision making.
(As an example).
The electoral college gives minority groups a massive say in who becomes president.
The same as the senate.
It’s not a healthy system. It basically keeps the republicans in power (or with a near-equal chance of being in power), which is not representative of the electorate.
This in turn keeps the two-party system alive and well, which isn’t representative of the electorate either.
Communists and capitalists with liberal moral values have to vote for the same party.
Conservatives and neo-nazis have to vote for the same party.
It would be far healthier to have a scala of parties and that they had to work on each issue in coalitions. That way the decision making would be more representative.
But you won’t want that. Because extreme right-wing conservativism would have less of a voice.
17 Oct 22
17 edits
@averagejoe1 saidCandidates *already* do that. It only takes 12 out of 50 states to get 270 electoral votes. Campaigning in just 12 states could win the election. The electoral college allows the very thing you're claiming to be against.
The alternative—election by pure popular vote—flips the tables. If pure turnout is the end goal, candidates will inevitably focus their efforts on the biggest states—California, for example—and major urban centers like Chicago and New York City.
The EC promotes "mob rule". Whoever wins the majority in a state gets ALL of that state's electoral votes.
What if there was no electoral college? If 51 percent voted a for Democrat and 49 percent for a Republican, than at least the votes for Republicans would still matter and be counted under a popular vote system. But with the electoral college, they would all go to Dems in that scenario.
You support the electoral college because it helped the last two Republican presidents win an election they got less votes in.
17 Oct 22
@vivify saidThat is NOT why I support the EC. I support it so that the large 'groups' (NY, CA) cannot rule the lives of the samall groups (WY,ID)
Candidates *already* do that. It only takes 12 out of 50 states to get 270 electoral votes. Campaigning in just 12 states could win the election. The electoral college allows the very thing you're claiming to be against.
The EC promotes "mob rule". Whoever wins the majority in a state gets ALL of that state's electoral votes.
What if there was no electoral colleg ...[text shortened]... college because it helped the last two Republican presidents win an election they got less votes in.
And your comment that who wins the majority in a state gets all of that state's votes is not totally right, as each state gets to decide the way they will vote, and tally their votes.
Your comment that if there were no EC, and the Dems get 51%, it would result in all the repubs votes being absorbed into the whole.......the whole being the newly established world of the winning side, the Dems. This is EXACTLY what should be avoided. This is what is being said in the article that I linked as OP.
One of us must be reading it wrong? It still all boils down to a mob rule, which the Constitution attempted to avoid, OR a more fair system where each state has an equal voice.
If mob rule is fair to you, tell us why some Senate votes require a 2/3 majority? Why does a Condominium Association require a 2/3 majority to change its rules? I wish you feller would respond to simple questions such as this. Can you tell us what the condominum association is thinking, to require this?
17 Oct 22
@averagejoe1 saidSome states have "faithless elector" laws that require electors to abide by what the voters choose.
And your comment that who wins the majority in a state gets all of that state's votes is not totally right, as each state gets to decide the way they will vote, and tally their votes.
Your comment that if there were no EC, and the Dems get 51%, it would result in all the repubs votes being absorbed into the whole.......the whole being the newly established world of the winning side, the Dems. This is EXACTLY what should be avoided.
I agree it should be avoided, which is why we need to get rid of the electoral college that allows this to happen.
17 Oct 22
1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidThe electoral college gives even more power to those "large groups". It only takes winning12 out of 50 states in order to win an election. The 12 largest states can decide for the rest of the country who should be president.
That is NOT why I support the EC. I support it so that the large 'groups' (NY, CA) cannot rule the lives of the samall groups (WY,ID)