• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Another State moves to support Democracy

It’s even worse when you realize that all four levels of government are “elected” by a minority population to represent the interest of the majority . A minority population that in comparison to the majority is white, male, less educated and more religious, you know when they talk about how they are “real America”

House- should be fairly even because it is population based but has not kept up with population growth and shifts. Additionally, gerrymandering makes it so despite large population centers in cities they get carved out to get less representation or no representation at all as tiny parts are incorporated into large rural districts.

Senate- every state gets two which means this is where the real check on large population coastal cities interest should arise.

President- as discussed EC values Jim Bob the rural farmer over the sell out that moved away to a city for a better life.

Judiciary- nominated by a president that was elected by a minority.
 
The Electoral College and other constitutional representative govt has much caused the Republican party to be what it is. A homogeneous collection of mostly white voters who try to enact legislation and gain power through any means necessary so that they can play defense with the minority to keep things exactly the same for as long as possible by refusing to work with the majority of voters to address their concerns about anything.

A party of Donald Trumps and Mitch McConnells
 
The Electoral College and other constitutional representative govt has much caused the Republican party to be what it is. A homogeneous collection of mostly white voters who try to enact legislation and gain power through any means necessary so that they can play defense with the minority to keep things exactly the same for as long as possible by refusing to work with the majority of voters to address their concerns about anything.

A party of Donald Trumps and Mitch McConnells

And Wrangors
 
It's the right, fair thing to do. If Trump wins the national popular vote as a result, he should be President. Same with any other Republican going forward. The EC is monumentally fucking stupid.

Never heard that take on here back when Dems thought they had EC protection through the "blue wall". Weird.
 
Never heard that take on here back when Dems thought they had EC protection through the "blue wall". Weird.

People were talking about the blue wall and which states people are likely to win because we currently operate in the EC system. The argument for a popular vote has certainly picked up some steam in recent years, but the notion of one person one vote is not exactly a new concept.

I think the Dems have a right to be irritated. Since the 2000 election, the GOP candidate has won the popular vote exactly one time - 2004. Despite this, the GOP will have held the White House for 12 years from 2000-2020.

Now, if we go to a popular vote, the GOP will not automatically lose every presidential election. 2000 and 2016 were both close, and campaigns would move to run up the score in different parts of the country where they were strong. These efforts might result in more people actually voting, which I think is a good thing.

So in the end, I really do not understand the GOP's objection to this concept. Now if you argue that it would make election night TV viewing less interesting, I would agree with that.
 
Never heard that take on here back when Dems thought they had EC protection through the "blue wall". Weird.
About the type of whataboutism you would expect from a WCU graduate.

Yes, Dems have always loved a system where they were more likely to lose elections with a majority of nationwide votes.
 
Maybe the old sociopathic hag should have visited Wisconsin?

Yes, 25K people would have magically switched their vote to HRC if she had made a campaign stop in WI. You really have gone downhill in content since you started embracing conspiracy theories.
 
People were talking about the blue wall and which states people are likely to win because we currently operate in the EC system. The argument for a popular vote has certainly picked up some steam in recent years, but the notion of one person one vote is not exactly a new concept.

I think the Dems have a right to be irritated. Since the 2000 election, the GOP candidate has won the popular vote exactly one time - 2004. Despite this, the GOP will have held the White House for 12 years from 2000-2020.

Now, if we go to a popular vote, the GOP will not automatically lose every presidential election. 2000 and 2016 were both close, and campaigns would move to run up the score in different parts of the country where they were strong. These efforts might result in more people actually voting, which I think is a good thing.

So in the end, I really do not understand the GOP's objection to this concept. Now if you argue that it would make election night TV viewing less interesting, I would agree with that.

Yep. The EC has failed to produce a popular vote winner in two of the last five presidential elections, and both times it was the GOP that benefited due to the EC overrepresenting rural red states (the GOP, by the way, has won the national popular vote exactly once in the last seven presidential elections). If that continues - and it appears to be in danger of becoming a trend - it won't matter what the GOP says to defend it, the EC is simply going to continue to become more and more controversial. It's a little hard to call yourself the world's greatest democracy and a model for other nations when the candidate that wins the popular vote - that is, the votes of real people - loses with increasing frequency to a system that allows 538 party hacks divided among the 50 states and DC to choose the president instead. Defend it however you want - it was implemented by the sacred Framers of the Constitution 220+ years ago, it is a key part of our federal system, whatever - in the 21st Century it should be considered obsolete, unless you don't believe in all popular votes counting equally, or believe that rural voters should have a greater say in who becomes POTUS than urban ones.
 
Last edited:
I think Wrangor has a point here, and we should stick with the EC. But what I don't understand is why, after we passed the 15th amendment, an African American's vote counts the same as mine. If we already had it in the Constitution that they should only count as 3/5 of a person, why isn't their vote only 60% of my white vote? I mean, the answer is probably because all you lawyers would then be litigating how white or black a person is. But I would counter that we can make that determination now with all these 23 and me type tests. You establish whatever the threshold percentage is to be considered black, say either 25 or 50% for example. Back then, we didn't have the technology to accurately identify someone's ethnicity. But now that we do, I believe we should return to the framers' intent of only having a person of color count as 60% of a person, and to be consistent, such a person's vote should only count 60% as well.
 
Where was the outrage over the EC in 2008? What about 2012?

I totally understand the one person - one vote model, but the pissing and moaning from the left over abolishing the EC following the 2016 election reminds me of a 6 year old who lost at Candy Land so he (she?) whined about it incessantly and decided to change the rules.
 
As usual Angus knows little to nothing about what he posts. Anti-EC positions have existed for decades.
 
Why would there be outrage over the Electoral College in 2008 and 2012 where the EC winner was also the popular vote winner?
 
Why would there be outrage over the Electoral College in 2008 and 2012 where the EC winner was also the popular vote winner?

You're not going to argue with my 60% proposal and instead just argue with Angus? I feel neglected.
 
I think Wrangor has a point here, and we should stick with the EC. But what I don't understand is why, after we passed the 15th amendment, an African American's vote counts the same as mine. If we already had it in the Constitution that they should only count as 3/5 of a person, why isn't their vote only 60% of my white vote? I mean, the answer is probably because all you lawyers would then be litigating how white or black a person is. But I would counter that we can make that determination now with all these 23 and me type tests. You establish whatever the threshold percentage is to be considered black, say either 25 or 50% for example. Back then, we didn't have the technology to accurately identify someone's ethnicity. But now that we do, I believe we should return to the framers' intent of only having a person of color count as 60% of a person, and to be consistent, such a person's vote should only count 60% as well.

The original meaning of that language seems plain!
 
I think Wrangor has a point here, and we should stick with the EC. But what I don't understand is why, after we passed the 15th amendment, an African American's vote counts the same as mine. If we already had it in the Constitution that they should only count as 3/5 of a person, why isn't their vote only 60% of my white vote? I mean, the answer is probably because all you lawyers would then be litigating how white or black a person is. But I would counter that we can make that determination now with all these 23 and me type tests. You establish whatever the threshold percentage is to be considered black, say either 25 or 50% for example. Back then, we didn't have the technology to accurately identify someone's ethnicity. But now that we do, I believe we should return to the framers' intent of only having a person of color count as 60% of a person, and to be consistent, such a person's vote should only count 60% as well.

The reality is the quickest way to revolution in this country is get rid of the EC. Go 100 years in the south and midwest without being represented and having laws enacted that they don't agree with, and they will revolt. The EC is one of the best things we have going in our political process. It is probably a primary reason that our democracy has been stable for over 200 years. But yes, lets get rid of it so the urban can tell the rural what to do. That has never ended poorly in the history of civilizations.
 
Back
Top