“We should elect the president the way we elect governors, senators, mayors, represen

SmarterthanYou said:
that is hyperbole, traitor.


more lies, just like dutch karen is lying. the EC was intended to help protect the rights of the minority from the will of the majority. it has more place now than it did back then, with you traitors wanting to ignore the rights of millions of middle americans.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand what the word "traitor" means.

And I haven't lied, at all.

But that isn't why they put the electoral college into place. It was a compromise to enlist support from the slave states.
 
BartenderElite said:
Kind of an irrelevant point in the context of this discussion.

Theoretically, states representing less than 20% of the population can elect a Senate majority. The Senate, obviously, is a pretty influential body in terms of setting U.S. policy.

It's essentially tyranny, from a certain perspective. Potentially less then 1/5 of the country deciding policy for everyone.
Click to expand...

You have it backwards. The US was not intended to have a strong central / federal government. The People and States were to be in charge. Each state was to be largely like a semi-independent nation that had been grouped together as the USA under a weak federal government.

That has been increasingly turned on its head as the federal government gains power and the states and people lose it. The tyranny comes when the central / federal government controls most everything and the fiction that the people are deciding stuff by popular vote is nothing but that--and it's pretty damn close to that today.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
You have it backwards. The US was not intended to have a strong central / federal government. The People and States were to be in charge. Each state was to be largely like a semi-independent nation that had been grouped together as the USA under a weak federal government.

That has been increasingly turned on its head as the federal government gains power and the states and people lose it. The tyranny comes when the central / federal government controls most everything and the fiction that the people are deciding stuff by popular vote is nothing but that--and it's pretty damn close to that today.
Click to expand...

That's a goalpost move. We're talking about representation - not about power. The Senate has the same power regardless of what you think it was intended to be, which means that people in sparsely populated states have disproportionate representation.

It completely refutes the idea that the "rights" of people in those states will be less than their more urban counterparts if we moved to a popular vote.
 
“We should elect the president the way we elect governors, senators, mayors, representatives, everybody else – whoever gets the most votes wins,”
Click to expand...


The president has too much individual power. You'd think that, after the debacle of El Trumpo, the country would want a different system.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Pure Diesel the Weasel response: lies and personal attacks.

TBH, I don't expect much more out of you, Diesel. Part of your problem, I expect, is trouble at work...which you are obviously not doing now. LOL
Click to expand...

Lol, this dumbass is like, "Lies and personal attacks," as he lobs lies and personal attacks. Dutch, name us one person in your personal life who respects you. You don't need to worry about my work schedule this week -- or ever. I have come so much farther than you ever could.
 
Diesel
Diesel-2.jpg
Lol, this dumbass is like, "Lies and personal attacks," as he lobs lies and personal attacks.
Click to expand...


But you're a classic troll, kapo, attempting to denigrate and lie about members left, right and center. You're known as a libelous, prosemitic hypocrite.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
actually the electoral college allows two people to vote as the people in their states choose, in addition one for every 500k or so people......every single elector is chosen by the people's vote......
Click to expand...

If all the electors vote for the candidate who won the popular vote of that state. Not all of them do although it has never affected the election outcome.

2016 is a good example.
 
Diesel said:
Lol, this dumbass is like, "Lies and personal attacks," as he lobs lies and personal attacks.

Dutch, name us one person in your personal life who respects you.

You don't need to worry about my work schedule this week -- or ever. I have come so much farther than you ever could.
Click to expand...
Identifying you as a Weasel isn't a lie, but I'll concede it's an insult, no matter how appropriate a label it is for you.

No thanks on the doxxing, Weasel. :)

How awesome for you, Weasel! You're rich, have your own business, drive a fancy car, have a mansion and a bevy of beauteous men and women pining for your attention. You must be very, very happy....which begs the question: why does an old retiree in Texas bother you so much?

Since you were so interested:
75kvow.jpg
 
BartenderElite said:
Calling someone a "traitor" for wanting to move on from the electoral vote is such ridiculous hyperbole. Making that change could only be done within the framework of the Constitution's rules for amending such a process. Advocating for that kind of change is as American as it gets.

The electoral college was originally intended to appease the slave states. It doesn't really have a place in modern America. If we stick w/ it, we stick with it - but advocating for that change is logical & fair.
Click to expand...

Appeasing the slave states is the Project 1619 revisionist explanation. The original debate was a compromise between those wanting Congress to select the president and those wanting a popular vote.
 
Flash said:
Appeasing the slave states is the Project 1619 revisionist explanation. The original debate was a compromise between those wanting Congress to select the president and those wanting a popular vote.
Click to expand...

Compromise. Isn't that a dirty word for both the Democrats and Republicans these days?

If the Founders refused to compromise just like today's Congress, there'd be no United States. World history would have changed from the War of 1812 to the Cold War.
 
Flash said:
Appeasing the slave states is the Project 1619 revisionist explanation. The original debate was a compromise between those wanting Congress to select the president and those wanting a popular vote.
Click to expand...
No, it’s not, otherwise explain the words of James Madison “The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.” James Madison
 
T. A. Gardner said:
You have it backwards. The US was not intended to have a strong central / federal government. The People and States were to be in charge. Each state was to be largely like a semi-independent nation that had been grouped together as the USA under a weak federal government.
Click to expand...

That is what existed under the Articles of Confederation--most power was in the states.

The purpose of holding a constitutional convention was to strengthen the powers of the central government because there were major flaws in a confederation. Each state coined its own money and regulated trade between the states and the central government could not raise an army, tax citizens, etc.

The Anti-Federalists did not want a stronger central government and did not attend the convention leaving only the Federalists to create the new document. Clearly, they included several provisions to limit federal power, but the purpose of creating the new government was to increase that power--coin money, regulate commerce, raise an army, raise taxes.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Compromise. Isn't that a dirty word for both the Democrats and Republicans these days?

If the Founders refused to compromise just like today's Congress, there'd be no United States. World history would have changed from the War of 1812 to the Cold War.
Click to expand...

Most of the Constitution was compromises. Almost no major provision was the original idea of most members.

You are right, today a compromise is seen as selling out your principles.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Because Senators were supposed to represent the STATE not the people. That's why prior to the 17th Amendment they were appointed by state legislatures and governors and not elected at fucking all.

The House represented the People
The Senate represented the States
The President represented the Nation

That's how it was supposed to work, not all three being beholden to the People alone. That idea started with more radical Leftist nonsense.
Click to expand...

So you agree or disagree with the way it turned out in practice?
 
BidenPresident said:
“We should elect the president the way we elect governors, senators, mayors, representatives, everybody else – whoever gets the most votes wins,” Raskin said. “We spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year exporting American democracy to other countries, and the one thing they never come back to us with is the idea that, ‘Oh, that electoral college that you have, that’s so great, we think we will adopt that too’.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...skin-electoral-college-danger-american-people
Click to expand...

You prefer tyranny of the majority. Youre a filthy moron
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top