Why the Elecotoral College

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

What I posted had zero to do with Floridaman
But with you it’s all about defending him and claiming you don’t really like him.
Sort of like a beaten wife saying it’s not his fault.
You just keep believing, your children will pay for your obedience.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I did not defend trump, i said it’s funny that youd tease someone else for the act of repeatedly posting articles that serve their agenda, when no one does that nearly as much as you.

On this forum i have defended trump and criticized him. Because i’m rational and fair.

My children will be fine. Don’t worry yourself. One of the reasons they will be fine, is because of the ridiculous market gains i’ve realized in the last three years. if i was a paranoid thoughtless Trump hater like you, id have converted everything i had to cash the day after the election, and me and my kids would have missed out on the gravy train.

I see things as they are, not only as I wish they were. Trump is a repulsive individual who in my opinion based on a rational review of everything he has done, happens to be making life better for most of us. Id say the same thing about Bill Clinton. Trumps overt cockiness and bluster are just words. The Supreme Court has struck him down when he had overreached as they do with every administration. We’re no closer to a dictatorship then we were in 2016. All the checks and balances are still in place. Thank God. Your side never stops shrieking that hes a threat to our democratic institutions, there’s exactly zero evidence of that. Zip.

The left never saw his victory coming ( neither did I), and they just can’t accept it. That’s all this is, a temper tantrum from a bunch of spoiled brats who have zero ability to cope with disappointment.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Oscar, go crawl back in your can, obviously a number of people here are just blindly reciting baloney they have heard or read.
I realize that history and education are antithetical to belief in Trump, but I still have hope for America.

Liberal fool with liberal views🤡🤡🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Wyoming) has as much as four times the voting power of California. not sure how thats overly Democratic

California has way more electoral college votes than Wyoming.

Congress is constitutionally responsible for creating federal laws. In terms of federal legislation that will affect all the states, California has way more electoral power than Wyoming. The electoral college affects the Presidency, not the Congress. The President does not have the constitutional power to legislate.

Is the way Congress elected Democratic? Yes and no. The Founders rightly did not trust pure Democracies as historically they all had turned into tyrannies . So they created a Constitution that had various checks against that. As far as how it is Democratic--it is so by state not by pure popular vote. in the Senate each state has an equal vote of two. In the House Each state is allotted a number of Representatives proportional to its population, and it is those Representatives who decide legislation, not the individual citizens. So, again, it is the states, through representation, not each individual who have the power to legislate federal law.

So you might also want to quarrel with the undemocratic nature of how Congress is voted for and how smaller states have what you consider more "voting power."

The same fear of "popular" power went into how the President was elected. Various plans, including popular vote, were considered, but there were again fears, as in the choosing of the number of Senators allotted to each state, of larger states totally dominating the choice, as well as other considerations. And slavery was not much of a factor in finally choosing which method was adopted. Actually, several slave states were initially against the electoral college plan and some for the popular vote. See:
https://medium.com/@tomasmcintee/sla...e-1de2b9c22ffe) (or google Slavery and the Electoral College by Tomas McIntee).

As you can tell from how the Founders decided on how Congress and the President were elected, that the states were instrumental in how it all worked. The Founders were meticulous in creating a combination of a national (central) and a federal (federation of states) governance with the states actually having most of the power and responsibility of governing for the people. And the national (we now refer to it as the federal) government was limited to only the few enumerated powers given to it in the Constitution.


Funny in America we have changed dramatically in our history and have managed but many still don't want the Constitution to evolve to reflect modern day realities that our founders in all their wisdoms could never have foreseen. Change is needed .. leave the college allow a legitimate 3rd party to break the log jam. no isnt a defense
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It is not particularly funny how we have dramatically changed the relationship of the states to the national government. You say vague things like " we have changed dramatically in our history," but WE have not changed. We are the same human species that have the same essential desires and needs. We humans have instituted various kinds of governments, not, for the most part in the history of nation states, because of essential needs of WE the people. WE were usually the afterthought, the grist, the labor for the benefit of various ruling governments, ruling classes. Our founding was a unique flipping of that order--the creation of government being for the benefit of WE.

And the essential feature of our constitutional republic was not the power of the national, central, government, but the power of local and state government and the necessity of WE ultimately governing ourselves.

Nothing has changed in our nature, in who we are since then. Size of nation, of the world, technological advancement, whatever, nothing has changed the nature of what we are. The dichotomy still exists. Is the government close to home that we can more personally affect and control the one that suites us, or is it the distant one size fits all government that we can barely touch yet in actuality has near total control of our lives the one we desire. That is a simple question with volumes of debate to consider.

Thank you for at least responding to the question that went so long unanswered. But you didn't actually answer it. The undeniable fact is the national government has grown immensely in power over the states. And that is not an accident. Progressive government thrives on central power, on government's ability to do what its experts consider the good and the right without impediments like being restricted to a few enumerated powers. The constitutional order of divided government closer to the hands of the people is in the process of being flipped back to the previous old order of the nation state governed totally by centralized control which is more and more serving, as that old order required, the needs of the powerful few.

In light of all that, I'll ask again, are states necessary?

I think that if it is the Progressive notion of government that you prefer, then you would not actually see the need for impediments to unhampered power of government by things like different states and cities with their competing laws and statutes and populations who vote for their local self-interest against the national rules which would more efficiently bind us to the rule of those who supposedly know best. And so, also, how you would prefer that every election would be by popular vote--how you would prefer a Progressive pure democracy to a constitutional republic. In spite of the lessons of history which tell us what such democracies ultimately become.

[detbuch]

Gosh, another thread disintegrating into talking about Trump. Who'd of thought that would happen?

The thread is about the electoral college. States are the reason for the electoral college.

wdmso--is it necessary for America to have 50 separate units of government with different constitutions, various different laws, different educational concepts, different tax structures, different economic conditions and needs, differences that often are obstacles that the national government has to overcome, and the only reason for the cumbersome problem that you want to eliminate--the electoral college?

Wouldn't it be more efficient and cheaper if we were the United State of America rather than the United States of America? There certainly would be no need of something like the electoral college. And we could easily, basically unopposed, have the purely democratic popular vote that you want.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Gosh, another thread disintegrating into talking about Trump. Who'd of thought that would happen?

Yeah, it looks like Scott and Jim started talking about Trump and the Dotard starting talking specifically about the last election.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Yeah, it looks like Scott and Jim started talking about Trump and the Dotard starting talking specifically about the last election.

Do you think hanging on to the old perhaps outdated notion of 50 different sovereign states is a good idea, a necessary one for us to move on towards the Progressive notion of government that suits our new and future times? Or would it be better to just consolidate the whole mess into one efficient and less expensive model of a unitary state?

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Gosh, another thread disintegrating into talking about Trump. Who'd of thought that would happen?

The thread is about the electoral college. States are the reason for the electoral college.

wdmso--is it necessary for America to have 50 separate units of government with different constitutions, various different laws, different educational concepts, different tax structures, different economic conditions and needs, differences that often are obstacles that the national government has to overcome, and the only reason for the cumbersome problem that you want to eliminate--the electoral college?



Wouldn't it be more efficient and cheaper if we were the United State of America rather than the United States of America? There certainly would be no need of something like the electoral college. And we could easily, basically unopposed, have the purely democratic popular vote that you want.

never said abolish said tweak but all you hear is abolish shocking

[Pete F.]

I did hear a Trumplican call in to a radio show today and say something to the effect "He should just declare martial law, arrest all the Democrats in government and lock them all up, because they want to make us be Communist/Socialists"
I wouldn't suggest death camps to that guy, he sounded like he was ready to start on his own campaign.

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I did hear a Trumplican call in to a radio show today and say something to the effect "He should just declare martial law, arrest all the Democrats in government and lock them all up, because they want to make us be Communist/Socialists"
I wouldn't suggest death camps to that guy, he sounded like he was ready to start on his own campaign.

That was me
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

never said abolish said tweak but all you hear is abolish shocking

I apologize if I mistakenly thought that you wanted to get rid of the electoral college. But I did hear, contrary to your opinion, more than that. I did hear you're questioning the unfairness of the e.c. and the anti-democratic nature of it. I admit that I didn't hear you say that it should be tweaked. I checked back in the thread but couldn't find that. And most discussions about the controversy are portrayed as the e.c. versus the popular vote.

In any event, my question to you was not if the electoral college should exist, or even if it should be "tweaked." My question is "is it necessary for America to have 50 separate units of government with different constitutions, various different laws, different educational concepts, different tax structures, different economic conditions and needs, differences that often are obstacles that the national government has to overcome, or would it be better, more democratic, more efficient and cheaper if we were the United State of America rather than the United States of America? There certainly would be no need of something like the electoral college. And we could easily, basically unopposed, have the purely democratic popular vote.