The need to reconsider the Electoral College (and it has nothing to do with Trump)

archives said:
"Demographic trends also are straining the American model. Because of the way the Electoral College works, two of the past three presidents first won office while losing the popular vote. And David Birdsell, dean of the school of public and international affairs at Baruch College, notes that by 2040, about 70% of Americans are expected to live in the 15 largest states. They will have only 30 senators representing them, while the remaining 30% of Americans will have 70 senators representing them."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-variedand-globalthreats-confronting-democracy-1511193763

Currently, the State of Wyoming has more say in electing a President then the Buffalo, New York metro area which is twice the size of Wyoming in population

Down the road it appears we will not be the representative democracy that the Founding Fathers has imagined
Click to expand...

I would ask you to cry harder; but I'm worried that you might see it as a goal.

:facepalm:
 
"I'll take Thumper's word on this." R6 #60
Click to expand...
Excellent.
Who is "Thumper"?
"I'll take Thumper's word on this. He was there" R6
Click to expand...
He was WHERE?

Had he been there at the time the comment was made you seem to find indicative?
What did he learn while there that would make your mention of it relevant?
"Were you there?" R6
Click to expand...
You tell me where there is. Then we can talk.
 
Yaya said:
We are a republic. Read the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Read the Constitution and a dictionary we are both. The argument that we are a republic and not a democracy is a false dichotomy. We are a Republic, a representative democracy and a constitutional democracy. These are not mutually exclusive concepts.
 
blackascoal said:
Absolutely the obsolete and out-dated Electoral College must be addressed ..as well as putting in place checks and balances that will prevent a moron unfit for office from ever being given the nuclear codes ever again.

If that requires a constitutional amendment, so be it as the constitution itself should be updated.
Click to expand...

With a post like this, I don't think you should be calling other people "morons". Just sayin'.
 
Thumper said:
First off let me say that I never thought that we should have gone into Iraq. But I also do not believe we were lied to. Every intelligence agency in the world believed that Iraq had restarted it's various weapons programs. They believed that because Saddam wanted them to believe it. He wanted his neighbors to fear that he might have them and would be willing to use them.

Second. While we waited for the order to go into Iraq I sat on the border and watched convoy after convoy go into Syria.

Anyone remember the talking heads who spoke about the possible mobile biological production trucks we found? But those same talking heads had an expert say they couldn't have been used for biological production because of the absence of an autoclave. Know what an autoclave does? It sterlizes equipment after use. It's essentially a high tech pressure cooker. If you aren't worried about secondary contamination after production you don't need an autoclave.

Fourth. Since we stepped foot into Iraq to present we have found in excess of a thousand chemical weapons. Many were left over from the Gulf War. Remember the ones he said he destroyed but couldn't prove were destroyed. And others had been produced at various times after the Gulf War.

Lastly. During our time there more than 4 million government documents were found. Many of which showed they did pay various groups who had proven they killed westerners. The program that was decoding and documenting those findings was defunded after Obama entered office when there were still around a million and a half documents left to decipher.


But still. Even given all this I don't think we should have gone into Iraq. That does not mean we were lied to.
Click to expand...
We were purposely mislead about Iraq which was irrelevant as Iraq was obviously not a clear and present danger to our national security and the notion of pre-emption an ill advised standard for basing military action. Those conditions alone made the decision to invade Iraq an immoral one.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
We were purposely mislead about Iraq which was irrelevant as Iraq was obviously not a clear and present danger to our national security and the notion of pre-emption an ill advised standard for basing military action. Those conditions alone made the decision to invade Iraq an immoral one.
Click to expand...

Like I said. I did not agree with the decision to go there. Even though I spent so much time going to places I didn't believe we should be, I was able to see past the rhetoric of the Bush lied crap.

Did ya notice how both of you made no attempt to refute anything I said?

As for how we can get actual represntation? Get the government out of the business of business and make it so politician can not be a career choice.

People are greedy. Even the most giving of us will still look for a way to gain the most with the least possible effort.
 
Cypress said:
So the vote of a rural voter should count proportionally more than an urban voter?

I don't think so.

Rural states already are given undue and disproportionate influence due to the structure of the United States senate. 2 senators represent 30 million Californians, while 20 senators represent 10 million people in sparsely populated rural states.


When in looked like a strong possibility that George Dumbya was going to lose the EC to Gore while wining the popular vote, the Bush campaign had contingency plans in place to discredit the electoral college and Gore's presumptive victory. In state elections, for governor, I have never heard a conservative demand there be an proportional, electoral-college system at the state level to ensure rural voters have a more proportionate say in electing the Governor. For those reasons, when I hear rightwingers sing the virtues of the EC, I am sure there is actually another reason for it - one they are not willing to articulate publically.

What we really need is something akin to an meritocracy. Aristotle was on the right path, in the right ball park. We have way too many bozos, incompetents, dunces, and dunderheads who are able to attain positions of power because of money, wealth, and the trappings of inheritance and aristocracy. Just look at Trump. Getting money the fuck out of politics, making college free for all, making more of an effort towards gender and racial equality, and a permanent constitutional ban on giving money to politicians would all be significant steps to making our representative democracy more like a meritocracy.
Click to expand...

That right there would solve 99% of it.
 
Cypress said:
So the vote of a rural voter should count proportionally more than an urban voter? I don't think so.
Click to expand...
it doesn't. quit crying.

Cypress said:
Rural states already are given undue and disproportionate influence due to the structure of the United States senate. 2 senators represent 30 million Californians, while 20 senators represent 10 million people in sparsely populated rural states.
Click to expand...
1. blame the 17th Amendment and the power grabbers of the federal government, as well as the losers of that era that voted for it. 2. California is represented by 55 electoral college votes, the most in the nation, 17 more than the next most populous state, Texas, which only has 38. So NO, the rural states are not given undue and disprportionate influence. If Anything, California has too much.
 
countryboy said:
With a post like this, I don't think you should be calling other people "morons". Just sayin'.
Click to expand...

I don't give a fuck what you think country dude.

Like Jefferson, I believe the constitution should be reviewed, and when necessary, rewritten every 20 years or so.

Why should I give a damn about what a Trumpy like you thinks?
 
blackascoal said:
I don't give a fuck what you think country dude.

Like Jefferson, I believe the constitution should be reviewed, and when necessary, rewritten every 20 years or so.

Why should I give a damn about what a Trumpy like you thinks?
Click to expand...

Evidently you do give a damn; because otherwise it wouldn't trigger you to respond. :D
 
Cypress said:
So the vote of a rural voter should count proportionally more than an urban voter?

I don't think so.

Rural states already are given undue and disproportionate influence due to the structure of the United States senate. 2 senators represent 30 million Californians, while 20 senators represent 10 million people in sparsely populated rural states.


When in looked like a strong possibility that George Dumbya was going to lose the EC to Gore while wining the popular vote, the Bush campaign had contingency plans in place to discredit the electoral college and Gore's presumptive victory. In state elections, for governor, I have never heard a conservative demand there be an proportional, electoral-college system at the state level to ensure rural voters have a more proportionate say in electing the Governor. For those reasons, when I hear rightwingers sing the virtues of the EC, I am sure there is actually another reason for it - one they are not willing to articulate publically.

What we really need is something akin to an meritocracy. Aristotle was on the right path, in the right ball park. We have way too many bozos, incompetents, dunces, and dunderheads who are able to attain positions of power because of money, wealth, and the trappings of inheritance and aristocracy. Just look at Trump. Getting money the fuck out of politics, making college free for all, making more of an effort towards gender and racial equality, and a permanent constitutional ban on giving money to politicians would all be significant steps to making our representative democracy more like a meritocracy.
Click to expand...

I advocate the EC system for electing the governor of WA.
 
blackascoal said:
I don't give a fuck what you think country dude.

Like Jefferson, I believe the constitution should be reviewed, and when necessary, rewritten every 20 years or so.

Why should I give a damn about what a Trumpy like you thinks?
Click to expand...

do you also hold the same belief about a revolution and watering the tree of liberty with blood every 20 years?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top