Trump campaign officials, led by Rudy Giuliani, oversaw fake electors plot in 7 states

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
That's a fundamental change to the constitution, and one I disagree with. The EC is what gives the less populous states a say in the presidential election. Without the EC, a handful of states would determine the outcome of every election, negating the entire concept of a republic.
The people don't elect the president, the states do.
Clearly recent elections have come down to a few swing states, but that's a demographic blip that could, and does, change.
It’s weird how often I see this written when it’s so obviously untrue and to the small extent it is true, would still be an improvement.

1) states are not homogenous. When you look at ‘solid’ red or blue states they are ones where one side won by like 20 points, meaning the other side got like 40% of the popular vote! The idea that a handful of states would dominate is just false.

2) if anything the electoral college makes the outcome dependent on a handful of states, and they are ones determined by politics and not any measure we view as intrinsically useful.

3) this is a fundamental misunderstanding of what a republic is. A republic means one thing, and one thing only - you elect representatives instead of voting directly. If the president was elected by a national popular vote we would have no less of a republic than we do now. If anything the electoral college is an aspect of a confederation.

4) It would not require a constitutional amendment to effectively eliminate the electoral college.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
The Electoral College only ever was a compromise for slave-holders in predominant slave-holding states. The EC was never proposed and never implemented to "give equal rights to less-populated states." It was, as spelled out by the framers if you ever care to read how these things actually work, a compromise to give states with fewer white males a competitive advantage over those with more white males. (Oh, and only land-owning white males, at that).

That is a plain fact. You would probably reject this fact of history, though, because you think it is "CRT?" But that is why the EC exists. There is no legitimate reason to keep the EC, then, from 1865 on, but then Johnson's continuance of Southern Treason during Reconstruction ensured that the ancestors of white, slave-owning landholders would forever maintain this systemic imbalance, despite the institution of slavery no longer existing.

So, an inarguable fact of "all history" (as our other lazy, low-thinking conservative pcgeek likes to call it) is that the EC exists only in the shadow of an institution that no longer exists. Why continue to support this pillar of slave-holding privilege? We're at the moment where support of the EC really is nothing more than an overwhelming desire to return humans to bondage. I guess the actual question here, then, is why you want to see slavery return to the US? That's exactly what you want when you support the EC. it is no other way.

But you know, not reading is a good way to keep yourself ignorant of how things work.
Yes this is often overlooked - the purpose of the electoral college was to pass the advantage given by the 3/5ths compromise over to the presidency. Since presumably we all agree the 3/5ths compromise was bad, why is this good?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
110,512
29,099
146
Yes this is often overlooked - the purpose of the electoral college was to pass the advantage given by the 3/5ths compromise over to the presidency. Since presumably we all agree the 3/5ths compromise was bad, why is this good?

It's pretty informative of what Republicans mean when they call themselves "Constitutional originalists." What they want, explicitly and undeniably, a return to white, land-owning male voting only. That is the original "sacrosanct" language of the constitution, which they believe should be followed to the letter. This is quite obviously what the Oath Keepers and their ilk want. This is exactly what people like Greenman and pcgeek want, even though they will never openly admit it to anyone, when they find ways to defend the treasonous bastards of January 6 and try to dispel their treason as "a little riot" or "not really a coup because it didn't work. kind of like when the bank robbery fails--we should just let everyone go."

They want all the things that these treasonous, White supremacist sociopaths want, they just don't want it done so loudly. ....and I like those guys. I don't think Greenman or pcgeek are bad people, I just see that they have no idea what they are doing and how they consistently pull the pins on themselves while they continue to prop up the GOP tent that is, without question, controlled by Nazis right now. They don't mind being associated with this new group, because it's just "too much work" to switch tents. It's easier to just keep the same enemies to blame all their problems on than it is to bother thinking about how the messaging has evolved from their team. (granted, today's open and bold embrace of plain Nazism by the GOP was an inevitable progression from the the day that Reagan brought the intractable Christian fundamentalist demographic into the party)
 
Nov 17, 2019
10,673
6,397
136
Why is there yet another thread on this when there are several already?

Why is this delving into yet another thread on the merits or evils of the EC when there are probably dozens of others?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ElFenix and dank69

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
35,204
28,223
136
That's a fundamental change to the constitution, and one I disagree with. The EC is what gives the less populous states a say in the presidential election. Without the EC, a handful of states would determine the outcome of every election, negating the entire concept of a republic.
The people don't elect the president, the states do.
Clearly recent elections have come down to a few swing states, but that's a demographic blip that could, and does, change.
Clearly it is better to make sure red votes in blue states and blue votes in red states don't count.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
Why is there yet another thread on this when there are several already?

Why is this delving into yet another thread on the merits or evils of the EC when there are probably dozens of others?
Because the evils of the electoral college are precisely why a scheme like this might work. Thought that was pretty obvious?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
It's pretty informative of what Republicans mean when they call themselves "Constitutional originalists." What they want, explicitly and undeniably, a return to white, land-owning male voting only. That is the original "sacrosanct" language of the constitution, which they believe should be followed to the letter. This is quite obviously what the Oath Keepers and their ilk want. This is exactly what people like Greenman and pcgeek want, even though they will never openly admit it to anyone, when they find ways to defend the treasonous bastards of January 6 and try to dispel their treason as "a little riot" or "not really a coup because it didn't work. kind of like when the bank robbery fails--we should just let everyone go."

They want all the things that these treasonous, White supremacist sociopaths want, they just don't want it done so loudly. ....and I like those guys. I don't think Greenman or pcgeek are bad people, I just see that they have no idea what they are doing and how they consistently pull the pins on themselves while they continue to prop up the GOP tent that is, without question, controlled by Nazis right now. They don't mind being associated with this new group, because it's just "too much work" to switch tents. It's easier to just keep the same enemies to blame all their problems on than it is to bother thinking about how the messaging has evolved from their team. (granted, today's open and bold embrace of plain Nazism by the GOP was an inevitable progression from the the day that Reagan brought the intractable Christian fundamentalist demographic into the party)
I think it’s simpler and less nefarious than that. I think like most people they are tribal and when they see the electoral system is biased in their favor through motivated reasoning they figure out a way that’s good for some supposedly ideologically neutral reason. In all fairness I imagine quite a few democrats would come to love the electoral college if the circumstances were reversed.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
Clearly All Lives Matter and All Histories Matter but all votes clearly don't matter.
I would also be interested to hear a cogent explanation as to why balancing the power between large states and small states is relevant when all but the original 13 are arbitrary creations of the federal government.

‘we need to protect this small entity from being trampled!’ is an odd argument to make when you specifically chose to make that entity small. Of course this obscures the real reason which is that making numerous small entities was done specifically for the political advantages it offers, which is why there are two Dakotas.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,284
5,057
136
So if I was mega rich, all I had to do, to buy a presidency, is to buy a couple of those "less popular states" ... say, run em over with evangelism or some bullshit, and tell them what to vote.
Thats a fucking grand idea Greenman, did you come up with that yourself? I must say, did not see that level of scheming in you... maybe you're smarter than I thought.
I'm flattered, but it was actually, the fellows that wrote the constitution that came up with the idea.
 
Last edited:

fleshconsumed

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2002
6,483
2,352
136
That's a fundamental change to the constitution, and one I disagree with. The EC is what gives the less populous states a say in the presidential election. Without the EC, a handful of states would determine the outcome of every election, negating the entire concept of a republic.
The people don't elect the president, the states do.
Clearly recent elections have come down to a few swing states, but that's a demographic blip that could, and does, change.
Do you even know what a republic is?


A republic is "a country that is governed by elected representatives and by an elected leader (such as a president) rather than by a king or queen."

United States switching to popular vote to elect the president is still in fact going to remain a republic.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,284
5,057
136
Do you even know what a republic is?


A republic is "a country that is governed by elected representatives and by an elected leader (such as a president) rather than by a king or queen."

United States switching to popular vote to elect the president is still in fact going to remain a republic.
Apparently, I don't know what a republic is. I had thought that it was a description of the conglomeration of several states, much as a union can be. Clearly I was wrong.
The rest of my statement still stands, the EC allows the smaller states to have a voice in the election that they wouldn't have without it.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
35,204
28,223
136
Apparently, I don't know what a republic is. I had thought that it was a description of the conglomeration of several states, much as a union can be. Clearly I was wrong.
The rest of my statement still stands, the EC allows the smaller states to have a voice in the election that they wouldn't have without it.
Why do states need voices? Are they people the way corporations are? Why should the people of Florida, for example, get to decide who becomes President rather than say, the magatards of California?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
Apparently, I don't know what a republic is. I had thought that it was a description of the conglomeration of several states, much as a union can be. Clearly I was wrong.
The rest of my statement still stands, the EC allows the smaller states to have a voice in the election that they wouldn't have without it.
This is so obviously untrue though. What the EC does is remove the say of all states, regardless of size, unless they are among the handful that swing back and forth. Rhode Island has no say in the election, neither does Montana, Wyoming, or Delaware. Similarly, big states like Texas and California have no say. As someone who grew up in Pennsylvania I used to routinely meet presidential candidates despite being in an entirely unremarkable town outside of Philly. In my time in New York and California, I've never even heard a whiff of a candidate.

So even if your argument were true that a few big states would dominate the election (and it's not), why is it preferable to have Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin decide the election instead of California, Texas, and New York? The latter three at least represent a large proportion of our population and where our economy is growing and dynamic.
 
Nov 29, 2006
15,601
4,051
136
A little over 1/3 of all Republicans who voted had no say in the last election. 21,847,547 Republican voices left unheard. You GOP guys should really think about that. Thanks EC.

Yes that number is accurate to the vote (based on election data).
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
35,204
28,223
136
A little over 1/3 of all Republicans who voted had no say in the last election. 21,847,547 Republican voices left unheard. You GOP guys should really think about that. Thanks EC.

Yes that number is accurate to the vote (based on election data).
People like Greenman don't care though because even more Democrat voices are left unheard, which is just fine by him. The eternal conservative mantra: "I don't care if it hurts me because it hurts people I hate even more."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,201
14,877
136
This is so obviously untrue though. What the EC does is remove the say of all states, regardless of size, unless they are among the handful that swing back and forth. Rhode Island has no say in the election, neither does Montana, Wyoming, or Delaware. Similarly, big states like Texas and California have no say. As someone who grew up in Pennsylvania I used to routinely meet presidential candidates despite being in an entirely unremarkable town outside of Philly. In my time in New York and California, I've never even heard a whiff of a candidate.

So even if your argument were true that a few big states would dominate the election (and it's not), why is it preferable to have Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin decide the election instead of California, Texas, and New York? The latter three at least represent a large proportion of our population and where our economy is growing and dynamic.

What it really boils down to is an ignorance of how government works. What does, “so small states can have a say in electing the president”, even mean?

Small states are already protected in the federal government via the senate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
68,855
26,648
136
What it really boils down to is an ignorance of how government works. What does, “so small states can have a say in electing the president”, even mean?
I grew up in the Midwest and there is a firm belief among Midwesterners that they are more virtuous than people from back east or out west. It only makes sense that Midwesterners should have more say in electing a President as those other folks just don't have the cultural advantages of common sense and virtue God bestowed on us. People who don't even know what a bubbler is can't be trusted to pick a President.
 
Nov 29, 2006
15,601
4,051
136
People like Greenman don't care though because even more Democrat voices are left unheard, which is just fine by him. The eternal conservative mantra: "I don't care if it hurts me because it hurts people I hate even more."

Shhh. I'm banking on them being dumb enough to not know that. I mean...we know who we are talking to here lol
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
What it really boils down to is an ignorance of how government works. What does, “so small states can have a say in electing the president”, even mean?

Small states are already protected in the federal government via the senate.
I would love to see someone describe how Rhode Island having 0.5% of the electoral votes while having only 0.3% of the US population leads to a meaningful difference in say.

What WOULD lead to a meaningful difference though would be to be New Hampshire. It's whopping 0.4% of the US population's concerns are vastly better reflected in presidential campaigns because it is a swing state. Meanwhile California, with a population 20x larger than both combined is ignored.
 
Nov 17, 2019
10,673
6,397
136
^^^ People completely ignore the simple fact that the EC was specifically designed so that each state got some where near equal representation despite their population.

CA, NY, TX, FL and other more populous states MUST NOT have a larger say than smaller states. That isn't how it works. Also remember that when the EC
came about, such vastly larger populations did not exist.

But why are we again having this conversation for the 89 millionth time with no one learning anything?
 

fleshconsumed

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2002
6,483
2,352
136
Apparently, I don't know what a republic is. I had thought that it was a description of the conglomeration of several states, much as a union can be. Clearly I was wrong.
Thank you for acknowledging that, I do appreciate it.

The rest of my statement still stands, the EC allows the smaller states to have a voice in the election that they wouldn't have without it.
But those states would still have a voice in a popular election, and their voice would be directly proportional to their representation.
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,015
2,845
136
Apparently, I don't know what a republic is. I had thought that it was a description of the conglomeration of several states, much as a union can be. Clearly I was wrong.
The rest of my statement still stands, the EC allows the smaller states to have a voice in the election that they wouldn't have without it.

That would either be a federate or confederate with the difference being that the principle in federalism is that the central government is subordinate to the regional government.