Thought this was an interesting read on the electoral college
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...3onOkUwREJawb-qQnp1eWYmm0wSiqXvp7X7Bi8s0eviC8
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...3onOkUwREJawb-qQnp1eWYmm0wSiqXvp7X7Bi8s0eviC8
Electoral College a terrible idea from the start
- Thread starter Chevy1
- Start date
First, The Atlantic? Really? Second, take this lovely example of "journalism":
"I love The Federalist. It is like a particularly well-done brochure for a Las Vegas timeshare, written to sell more than to inform."
Stopped reading after that. That article isn't an "interesting read" in any way, shape, or form. It's partisan posturing from a liberal hack who knows his shitty party can't win a presidential election given their current platform and the protections the Founders built in with the electoral college, so he's advocating against the primary roadblock that is keeping the ignorant from destroying the Republic.
"I love The Federalist. It is like a particularly well-done brochure for a Las Vegas timeshare, written to sell more than to inform."
Stopped reading after that. That article isn't an "interesting read" in any way, shape, or form. It's partisan posturing from a liberal hack who knows his shitty party can't win a presidential election given their current platform and the protections the Founders built in with the electoral college, so he's advocating against the primary roadblock that is keeping the ignorant from destroying the Republic.
Do you also believe we should abolish the Senate? After all, it is based on the very same concept of representation.
"didn't read past the federalist was like a Vegas brochure".... That's a shame, you missed the point.....the following paragraph was this:
Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay had one job: to ensure that the draft Constitution was ratified. The alternative, to these patriots, was disaster—the division of the new nation into hostile confederacies, and possibly the transformation of some or all of the states into clients of the European powers. There was no chance of a do-over; it was this Constitution or nothing. For this reason, The Federalist insists that every word, every comma, of the Constitution added up to the best of all possible rules in the best of all possible worlds.
Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay had one job: to ensure that the draft Constitution was ratified. The alternative, to these patriots, was disaster—the division of the new nation into hostile confederacies, and possibly the transformation of some or all of the states into clients of the European powers. There was no chance of a do-over; it was this Constitution or nothing. For this reason, The Federalist insists that every word, every comma, of the Constitution added up to the best of all possible rules in the best of all possible worlds.
Last edited:
Really...so senators are elected via the electoral college? I did not know that... Now I know better.
Let me get this straight...you didn't read the article, then claimed it wasn't an interesting read. I can assure you that's dumber than anything actually within the article.
Last edited:
I thought you weren't stupid, so hopefully this is just a misunderstanding on your part.
I said that the senate was based on the same representation concept, not elected in the same way. The Senate ensures that every state has equal representation. Every state has two regardless of population. Those against the electoral college should, by extension, be against the senate because it has the same inequalities as they perceive the EC to have. Why should WV get 2 senators when California only gets 2 but has way more people?
Ha....I knew what you meant. Just jerkin your chain a little.
The Electoral College consists of 538 electors. A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the President. Your state’s entitled allotment of electors equals the number of members in its Congressional delegation: one for each member in the House of Representatives plus two for your Senators.
Actually, the article discusses presidents who lost the popular vote and won the electoral vote. It's happened five times in our history.
Below are the five presidents and their historical rank:
President. Rank
John Quincy Adams. 21
Rutherford Hayes. 32
Benjamin Harrison. 30
W 33
Trump *Projected 40
https://www.c-span.org/thePresidents
*https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...siena-presidential-ranking-survey/2857075002/
Last edited:
But seriously, I'm not against the electoral college concept. However, I do believe there needs to be a serious adjustment. Use percent of population and divide the electoral votes by that number..perhaps increase the total electoral votes. In its current form, voters in the highest populated areas aren't fairly represented. That issue is compounded by the fact those states contribute more tax revenue than what's received in tax spend.
Just seems there would be a better way.
Just seems there would be a better way.
Answer this if you are for the popular vote.
What percentage of votes need to be acquired for a candidate to be elected President?
What percentage of votes need to be acquired for a candidate to be elected President?
Interesting.....great question. Some local govts hold a vote....if none of the candidates get 50%+, there's a runoff between the top two candidates.
Libs don't like 2nd Amendment and the Electoral College. Two of the things that help the little man and thwart tyrants.
Takes total power out of the few big states. Cmon man. If New York and California decided the Presidency every election what do you think would happen? Are you being serious? The Electoral College is a beautiful system.
Umm, the country would be extremely successful, educated, and diverse like those two states?
Highest debt per capita:
NY#1
MA #2
CT #4
NJ #5
IL #6
RI #7
CA #8
WA #9
NV #10
What do all those have in common? The only state that votes republican in the top 10 is Alaska, which doesn't have enough population to sway any popular vote election. So let's go ahead and count on the people who are electing to spend their states into financial ruin have a larger voice in bankrupting the rest of us.
NY#1
MA #2
CT #4
NJ #5
IL #6
RI #7
CA #8
WA #9
NV #10
What do all those have in common? The only state that votes republican in the top 10 is Alaska, which doesn't have enough population to sway any popular vote election. So let's go ahead and count on the people who are electing to spend their states into financial ruin have a larger voice in bankrupting the rest of us.
it's clear you are a simpleton if you have been bamboozled into questioning the electoral college.
Strange we would bring up debt as a reason for the electoral college considering how the last two Republican presidents - both elected to office without popular vote majorities - have performed in this regard....
Last edited:
Oh, I agree and it is disheartening, but look where the real dem contenders are from and what they are proposing, then tie that back to the debt of the state they are from. If anything, Trump shows the danger of electing someone from a high debt state and he doesn't even want all the pie in the sky giveaways.
You need leaders from the Midwest, not the coasts. If you do away with the EC you resign yourself to always having flavor of the month, new wave candidates, get elected. Seriously, Trump has a ton of problems, but look at the collection of coastal freaks running for the democrats.
The problem with the EC is states have acted to ensure their electors are nothing but party functionaries, bound to follow the popular vote outcome of each state (so much irony in this, as I read the usual arguments from the usual suspects).
That would go against the assumption that only fly over states maintain that population
And isn't Trump from the east coast?
As far as leadership skills are concerned, can't say we've seen anything that approaches that skillset from our president.
Wrong, I know plenty about American history. It has worked exactly as the Founding Fathers intended it to.
