New Bill to eliminate the Electoral College

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Nov 11, 1999
49,801
631
126
You're right, but, as has been pointed out several times, the USA is NOT a democracy. We are a federal republic and a constitutional representative democracy.
So what? The Republic needs honest egalitarian democracy to function properly in the modern age. It's the only way for us to reconcile our differences & maintain Faith in the system.

Winning the EC & losing the popular vote is a cheat we need to eliminate. It defies the Will of the People.
 
Dec 18, 2010
18,340
7
91
www.countrylifenet.com
The US is inarguably a democracy. Sometimes people try to argue it is a republic and not a democracy but that’s because they are ignorant of the definition of democracy.
I respectfully disagree. We have a mix of democracy and a republic. Hopefully we will never become a straight democracy.

It's almost like you have no argument to make in favor of the EC and so regurgitate meaningless phrases.
I have posted my opinion in this thread several times.

The EC college makes sure a handful of counties and cities do not elect presidents.

We should be very afraid of a democracy electing the president
 

pmv

Diamond Member
May 30, 2008
3,474
93
126
I respectfully disagree. We have a mix of democracy and a republic. Hopefully we will never become a straight democracy.
How come your leaders sound off about democracy so much then? Not to mention going to war or imposing sanctions etc on the grounds that some other country isn't a democracy.

Democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man.
- Ronald Reagan

The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerated the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That in its essence is fascism: ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power.
- Franklin D. Roosevelt

etc etc
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
59,479
817
126
I respectfully disagree. We have a mix of democracy and a republic. Hopefully we will never become a straight democracy.
A republic such as ours is a form of democracy. There is no ambiguity here.

I have posted my opinion in this thread several times.

The EC college makes sure a handful of counties and cities do not elect presidents.
Then the electoral college is failing at its job because that’s exactly what happens now. A handful of cities and counties in a select few states select presidents.

With presidents as with all other offices in the entire country they should be selected by giving the office to the person who gets the most votes. It works for mayors, it works for governors, it works for representatives, it works for senators, it would work here.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
59,479
817
126
How come your leaders sound off about democracy so much then? Not to mention going to war or imposing sanctions etc on the grounds that some other country isn't a democracy.

Democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man.
- Ronald Reagan

The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerated the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That in its essence is fascism: ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power.
- Franklin D. Roosevelt

etc etc
Because they, unlike Texashiker, understood the basics of our system of government.
 
Dec 18, 2010
18,340
7
91
www.countrylifenet.com
How come your leaders sound off about democracy so much then? Not to mention going to war or imposing sanctions etc on the grounds that some other country isn't a democracy.
....... edited for length
Gullible people are easy to sway.

For example, look at hillary clinton and her 2016 campaign. One of the issues she addressed was equal pay for women, which played on the emotions of women.

We already have a federal equal pay law on the books. Listening to hillary one would believe equal pay has never been addressed. Chances are the people chanting equal pay for women had no idea a federal law already exists.

Another example is Ocasio-Cortez and her taxing the rich at 70%. Under a democracy the majority could tax the rich at whatever rate they wanted. Someone tweeted everyone should vote to tax the rich.

Ok, and when the government spends all the money from taxing the rich, what then? Taxes will move down the ladder to the middle class. After all, someone has to pay for all the free stuff people are voting themselves.

Casio-Cortez saying "everyone should pay their fair share" plays on the emotions of the havenots. Let's take, take, take.... until there is nothing let to take.

Democracy is nothing more than mob rules, where the many take away from the few.

Democracies will eventually become destabilized by the majority voting themselves free stuff.
 
Nov 11, 1999
49,801
631
126
I respectfully disagree. We have a mix of democracy and a republic. Hopefully we will never become a straight democracy.



I have posted my opinion in this thread several times.

The EC college makes sure a handful of counties and cities do not elect presidents.

We should be very afraid of a democracy electing the president
That's bullshit. Both the EC & the popular vote gave the same result in every presidential election from 1888 until 2000.
 
Dec 18, 2010
18,340
7
91
www.countrylifenet.com
Nov 29, 2006
12,769
60
126
We should be very afraid of a democracy electing the president
You mean the GOP should be very afraid of a true democracy. Be honest with yourself and the rest of us. I mean they could adopt a more widespread good message that people would flock to and vote for...oh who am i kidding. Its the GOP. They dumb as fuck.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
59,479
817
126
You elect people to vote on your behalf, right? Then we have a republic.

However, on the state level citizens can put issues on the ballet, which is a form of democracy.
The United States is both a republic and a democracy. Here’s something you can use to educate yourself:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...d-a-democracy-because-democracy-is-like-cash/

If you think the US is not a democracy then you’re saying the founding fathers such as John Adams didn’t know what they were talking about.
 
Dec 18, 2010
18,340
7
91
www.countrylifenet.com
You mean the GOP should be very afraid of a true democracy. Be honest with yourself and the rest of us. I mean they could adopt a more widespread good message that people would flock to and vote for...oh who am i kidding. Its the GOP. They dumb as fuck.
Don't you mean lie, mislead and manipulate to get votes, like what democrats do?

Something people need to understand, GOP is the party of the people. Our stance kn abortion and family values aligns with a far greater number of people than abortion, open borders, and gun control.

One of the big reasons why people vote democrat is because of the fear mongering and the "us vs them" mentality. Take Ocasio-Cortez and her proposal to tax the rich at 70%. Well, who exactly are the rich? First we start out with people making 10 million, spend all their money; then tax people making 1 million, and spend all their money. In the end we run out of people to tax.

But hey, if someone makes so little they do not pay taxes, taxing everyone else seems like a good idea - thus the typical democrat voter.

Why do you think democrats push welfare? Once people get hooked on welfare it is difficult to get off, and people sure are not going to vote to take their welfare away.

A true democracy will eventually collapse, as the people will vote themselves all the free stuff they can.
 
Dec 18, 2010
18,340
7
91
www.countrylifenet.com
The United States is both a republic and a democracy. Here’s something you can use to educate yourself:

If you think the US is not a democracy then you’re saying the founding fathers such as John Adams didn’t know what they were talking about.
Reading comprehension much?

Yes, we have traits of a democracy, but are mainly a republic, and it needs to stay that way.

The election of 2016 and hillary winning the popular vote with fearmongering is a good example of why we need the EC.

We need people who can think logically, and see through the weasel words to elect presidents, and not people who vote off emotion and fear.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
59,479
817
126
Reading comprehension much?

Yes, we have traits of a democracy, but are mainly a republic, and it needs to stay that way.
It’s obvious you didn’t read the link I sent because otherwise you wouldn’t be continuing with this nonsense.

The US is both a republic and a democracy. You were wrong. If you aren’t going to admit it you could at least stop repeating the same wrong stuff.

The election of 2016 and hillary winning the popular vote with fearmongering is a good example of why we need the EC.

We need people who can think logically, and see through the weasel words to elect presidents, and not people who vote off emotion and fear.
Haha, is the GOP is the ‘party of the people’ but you think we need the electoral college because ‘the people’ keep voting against them.
 
Mar 17, 2010
55
3
71
. . . .

The EC college makes sure a handful of counties and cities do not elect presidents.
The Founders did not mention "counties" in the Constitution as the basis for electoral victory

"The reality is: Given our Electoral College and our current politics, national elections are decided in this country in a few precincts, in a few key swing states," former DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson
The current secretary of DHS, Kirstjen Nielsen, echoed those comments– 3/21/18

According to Tony Fabrizio, pollster for the Trump campaign, the president’s narrow victory was due to 5 counties in 2 states (not in CA or NY).

In 2012, under the current state-by-state winner-take-all system (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), voters in just 60 counties and DC could have won in states with 270 electoral votes to elect the president in 2012 – even though they represented just 26.3% of voters.
 
Mar 17, 2010
55
3
71
@kohler explained this State voter compact thing well. Effectively multiple States whose votes add up to 270 electoral votes are saying

Fuck you all! We decide who is President and we’re tired of stupid hats, stupid fairs, funnel cake and Politicians serving barbecue. We’ll give all our EC votes to whomever wins the popular vote.

Only question I have is the plan falls apart if a couple of States say I don’t like playing this game because it backs candidates our voters don’t like or the other scenario of a state doesn’t follow the mandate because they don’t like the result.
The National Popular Vote bill states: "Any member state may withdraw from this agreement, except that a withdrawal occurring six months or less before the end of a President’s term shall not become effective until a President or Vice President shall have been qualified to serve the next term."

This six-month “blackout” period includes six important events relating to presidential elections, namely the
● national nominating conventions,
● fall general election campaign period,
● Election Day on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November,
● meeting of the Electoral College on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December,
● counting of the electoral votes by Congress on January 6, and
● scheduled inauguration of the President and Vice President for the new term on January 20.

Any attempt by a state to pull out of the compact in violation of its terms would violate the Impairments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and would be void. Such an attempt would also violate existing federal law. Compliance would be enforced by Federal court action

The National Popular Vote compact is, first of all, a state law. It is a state law that would govern the manner of choosing presidential electors. A Secretary of State may not ignore or override the National Popular Vote law any more than he or she may ignore or override the winner-take-all method that is currently the law in 48 states.

There has never been a court decision allowing a state to withdraw from an interstate compact without following the procedure for withdrawal specified by the compact. Indeed, courts have consistently rebuffed the occasional (sometimes creative) attempts by states to evade their obligations under interstate compacts.

In 1976, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland stated in Hellmuth and Associates v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority:
“When enacted, a compact constitutes not only law, but a contract which may not be amended, modified, or otherwise altered without the consent of all parties.”

In 1999, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania stated in Aveline v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole:
“A compact takes precedence over the subsequent statutes of signatory states and, as such, a state may not unilaterally nullify, revoke, or amend one of its compacts if the compact does not so provide.”

In 1952, the U.S. Supreme Court very succinctly addressed the issue in Petty v. Tennessee-Missouri Bridge Commission:
“A compact is, after all, a contract.”

The important point is that an interstate compact is not a mere “handshake” agreement. If a state wants to rely on the goodwill and graciousness of other states to follow certain policies, it can simply enact its own state law and hope that other states decide to act in an identical manner. If a state wants a legally binding and enforceable mechanism by which it agrees to undertake certain specified actions only if other states agree to take other specified actions, it enters into an interstate compact.

Interstate compacts are supported by over two centuries of settled law guaranteeing enforceability. Interstate compacts exist because the states are sovereign. If there were no Compacts Clause in the U.S. Constitution, a state would have no way to enter into a legally binding contract with another state. The Compacts Clause, supported by the Impairments Clause, provides a way for a state to enter into a contract with other states and be assured of the enforceability of the obligations undertaken by its sister states. The enforceability of interstate compacts under the Impairments Clause is precisely the reason why sovereign states enter into interstate compacts. Without the Compacts Clause and the Impairments Clause, any contractual agreement among the states would be, in fact, no more than a handshake.
 

Starbuck1975

Diamond Member
Jan 6, 2005
9,811
130
126
That's because the electoral college delivered the same result as the popular vote in every election between 1888 & 2000.
Obama is on record as being very much against the electoral college, and yet the Democrats chose not to reform it when they had the momentum to do so in 2008.
 
Dec 18, 2010
18,340
7
91
www.countrylifenet.com
According to Tony Fabrizio, pollster for the Trump campaign, the president’s narrow victory was due to 5 counties in 2 states (not in CA or NY).
Your use of "narrow" is a weasel word and subjective.

306 - 232 is NOT a narrow victory.

Nice try though.

Even though hillary won the popular vote in east coast, west coast, and border counties, Trump won a solid victory through the heartland.

Doing away with the EC would mean the border counties, east coast, and west coast would probably elect all future presidents. As long as those states vote blue, democrats are all for it. Their short shortsightedness is obvious.
 
Dec 18, 2010
18,340
7
91
www.countrylifenet.com
Obama is on record as being very much against the electoral college, and yet the Democrats chose not to reform it when they had the momentum to do so in 2008.
Of course people like obama are against the EC. Voters will gravitate towards the person who offers them the most free stuff.

We need level headed people who are not swayed by weasel words, or emotions, or fearmongering, electing our president.

Without the EC, all someone has to do is follow a script, like what Hillary tried to do, and they will win the election. Then there will be a race as to who can offer the most free stuff.

Rather than addressing the issues, just offer all kinds fo free stuff. And of course this will all be paid for by taking the rich at 70%... yea, right.
 

fleshconsumed

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2002
5,236
5
126
Your use of "narrow" is a weasel word and subjective.

306 - 232 is NOT a narrow victory.

Nice try though.

Even though hillary won the popular vote in east coast, west coast, and border counties, Trump won a solid victory through the heartland.

Doing away with the EC would mean the border counties, east coast, and west coast would probably elect all future presidents. As long as those states vote blue, democrats are all for it. Their short shortsightedness is obvious.
Or you know, you could change Republican Policy so that it would appeal to more people, including those in the east and west coasts...
 
Feb 4, 2009
18,859
278
126
Interesting (incorrect) conclusion.

A "state" is literally a country. You're blinded by the term "state" because the individual states that joined this "United States" union don't always act like individual countries in certain matters. Each state in this union agreed to give up control of specific inter-state and inter-national responsibilities to a federal government.

The Tenth Amendment clarifies:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

The federal government was only supposed to regulate inter-state commerce, inter-national commerce, and national defense (oh yeah, and the postal system too). In regards to our indivudial lives, your state should have far greater control than the federal government. Local government should have greater powers than your state. Finally, you should have absolute power over your private property unless it violates the rights of others.

Basically all of the federal government power grabs and over-stepping boundaries are based on an old court case regarding the inter-state commerce clause. The federal government was able to force a man to grow less corn. Why? Because the corn might find its way into other states or otherwise affect demand for corn from surrounding states, even if the farmer sold his corn exclusively within his own state. That started a slow erosion of personal freedom and eventually this government will fail as badly as all the most powerful civilizations have.
I’ll
Your use of "narrow" is a weasel word and subjective.

306 - 232 is NOT a narrow victory.

Nice try though.

Even though hillary won the popular vote in east coast, west coast, and border counties, Trump won a solid victory through the heartland.

Doing away with the EC would mean the border counties, east coast, and west coast would probably elect all future presidents. As long as those states vote blue, democrats are all for it. Their short shortsightedness is obvious.
And somehow the heartland is better at electing Presidents?
 
Feb 4, 2009
18,859
278
126
Obama is on record as being very much against the electoral college, and yet the Democrats chose not to reform it when they had the momentum to do so in 2008.
Okay so Obama didn’t do it so it should never be done is that the point?
 

Starbuck1975

Diamond Member
Jan 6, 2005
9,811
130
126
Okay so Obama didn’t do it so it should never be done is that the point?
Perhaps, but Clinton’s loss does not persuade me that the current system requires reform or is broken as there were far too many contributing factors to her loss, and we certainly wouldn’t be having this conversation if Clinton won.
 
Last edited:

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
51,064
101
126
So what? The Republic needs honest egalitarian democracy to function properly in the modern age. It's the only way for us to reconcile our differences & maintain Faith in the system.

Winning the EC & losing the popular vote is a cheat we need to eliminate. It defies the Will of the People.
I agree. The EC made sense 100+ years ago before the invention of instant communication. Instead of taking months to certify election results, it can now be done in hours...or a few days for things that have to be counted by hand. No longer should we be appointing people to take the vote of the people, then cast their votes to actually elect the President.
 
Nov 11, 1999
49,801
631
126
Obama is on record as being very much against the electoral college, and yet the Democrats chose not to reform it when they had the momentum to do so in 2008.
They were kinda busy those first few months of 2009 while Bush's Ownership Society was falling apart all around them & Ted Kennedy was still alive.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY