AOC calls the Electoral College a 'scam,' ....

[El OchoCinco]

Ocho, you and I are on a weird wavelength, lately, because we seem to agree on everything, and you are exactly correct. The EC has no thing to do with race...It has to do with political pull and gerrymandering to "get the vote."

Fuck this EC shit, and let's go to the populi! Who do the people really want?

The thing is, my academic background in that topic, the EC does have some merit. If there was no EC, would any candidate even waste any time on most of the South or most of the Mid-West. Basically 15 states would elect the President. it is not perfect but I see the utility in it simply by looking at the election map from 2016 with red and blue counties.

In the beginning of the Constitutional Convention, rural less densely populated areas such as the South wanted on par representation with the more densely populated Northern States. EC was a compromise as well as the House of Representatives. Same debate continues today I believe.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

Maintaining Electoral College = Good

Eliminating Electoral College = Bad

What difference does it make anyway? No one - especially the dems - is/are going to do anything about it in regard to a constitutional amendment. They just use it to drive a larger conversation about what pieces of shit the Framers and America are.

 

[piezoe]

The thing is, my academic background in that topic, the EC does have some merit. If there was no EC, would any candidate even waste any time on most of the South or most of the Mid-West. Basically 15 states would elect the President. it is not perfect but I see the utility in it simply by looking at the election map from 2016 with red and blue counties.

In the beginning of the Constitutional Convention, rural less densely populated areas such as the South wanted on par representation with the more densely populated Northern States. EC was a compromise as well as the House of Representatives. Same debate continues today I believe.

Is the argument that with the EC one can't get to the required number of EC votes by only winning 15 state's EC votes, whereas by popular vote it is theoretically possible to win a plurality of votes by only counting the votes in 15 States? But, if that is the argument, isn't it a bit contrived ? Is it based on the too simplistic observation that the voting population of just 15 States exceeds the sum of voters in all the other States???

As things stand now of course it is possible to gain the required EC votes by winning only a handfull, a medium sized handful, of States? In the last election, candidates did in fact virtually pass over certain States by making no, or only token, appearances in them.

A compromise, though I haven't thought it through, might be to require that all States proportion their allotted EC votes. As it is now all but one or two states are winner take all states. Though if we were to do that, what would be gained other than to obscure the closeness of a State's vote to a somewhat lesser extent than it is obscured now, which is total opaqueness. Even though democracy is the least efficient form of government, and in Churchill's words "the worst form," why not go all the way to one-person-one-vote and suffer the chance of becoming India, the world's most democratic large nation?

The one thing I see most clearly is that by retaining the EC in preference to democracy you create an almost iron clad guarantee of a two party only system; thus avoiding the chaos of a plethora of political parties and the necessity of forming a governing body out of disparate parties, as in the parliamentary system. Actually the parliamentary system would be my personal preference, as I think such rag tag governments are somewhat less likely to fall prey to Trump-like, authoritarian, mentally ill despots. And when that does happen, under the parliamentary system it is more difficult for the despot to consolidate sufficient power that the voters can't send them packing in the next round. The evil in both republics and parliamentary governments is likely to be done via the judiciary. So how, and with what checks and balances, members of the judiciary are chosen is key to happy endings.

In the U.S. I consider getting a reversal on Citizens United as a far more pressing issue than whether or not to do away with the EC. The reality of Citizens United helps, I believe, to make my point that the Judiciary is key to happy endings, and that evil tampering with government is likely to be worked via the judiciary.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

In the beginning of the Constitutional Convention, rural less densely populated areas such as the South wanted on par representation with the more densely populated Northern States. EC was a compromise as well as the House of Representatives.

Arguably, the Senate was a/the compromise too. As it is the Senate the gives equal representation without to regard to population.

The electoral college and the senate were also bones tossed to those who were forward thinking and wanted to entice more territories to become states. The problem was that populations did not want to join if it meant that they would just fall to the bottom of the barrel from day one with no significant power.

To your point about rural states and campaigning, I will make that same point in a way that I have before. ie. The current president, Donald J. Trump campaigned in northern Maine at least twice for their ONE electoral vote. And he got it.

 

[El OchoCinco]

Arguably, the Senate was a/the compromise too. As it is the Senate the gives equal representation without to regard to population.

The electoral college and the senate were also bones tossed to those who were forward thinking and wanted to entice more territories to become states. The problem was that populations did not want to join if it meant that they would just fall to the bottom of the barrel from day one with no significant power.

To your point about rural states and campaigning, I will make that same point in a way that I have before. ie. The current president, Donald J. Trump campaigned in northern Maine at least twice for their ONE electoral vote. And he got it.

The House was the compromise for the bigger states to give them more Representatives in Congress and Senate was compromise for smaller states to give them equal votes on big issues that were slotted toward the Senate. SO they both were efforts to please both sides at the time.

 

[El OchoCinco]

Is the argument that with the EC one can't get to the required number of EC votes by only winning 15 state's EC votes, whereas by popular vote it is theoretically possible to win a plurality of votes by only counting the votes in 15 States? But, if that is the argument, isn't it a bit contrived ? Is it based on the too simplistic observation that the voting population of just 15 States exceeds the sum of voters in all the other States???

As things stand now of course it is possible to gain the required EC votes by winning only a handfull, a medium sized handful, of States? In the last election, candidates did in fact virtually pass over certain States by making no, or only token, appearances in them.

A compromise, though I haven't thought it through, might be to require that all States proportion their allotted EC votes. As it is now all but one or two states are winner take all states. Though if we were to do that, what would be gained other than to obscure the closeness of a State's vote to a somewhat lesser extent than it is obscured now, which is total opaqueness. Even though democracy is the least efficient form of government, and in Churchill's words "the worst form," why not go all the way to one-person-one-vote and suffer the chance of becoming India, the world's most democratic large nation?

The one thing I see most clearly is that by retaining the EC in preference to democracy you create an almost iron clad guarantee of a two party only system; thus avoiding the chaos of a plethora of political parties and the necessity of forming a governing body out of disparate parties, as in the parliamentary system. Actually the parliamentary system would be my personal preference, as I think such rag tag governments are somewhat less likely to fall prey to Trump-like, authoritarian, mentally ill despots. And when that does happen, under the parliamentary system it is more difficult for the despot to consolidate sufficient power that the voters can't send them packing in the next round. The evil in both republics and parliamentary governments is likely to be done via the judiciary. So how, and with what checks and balances, members of the judiciary are chosen is key to happy endings.

In the U.S. I consider getting a reversal on Citizens United as a far more pressing issue than whether or not to do away with the EC. The reality of Citizens United helps, I believe, to make my point that the Judiciary is key to happy endings, and that evil tampering with government is likely to be worked via the judiciary.

Well 15 states was a number I just said because I was not aware I was defending my thesis haha.

The point is even Trump as the loser in CA, NY, NJ and MA got millions of votes so they would still focus on those main states in direct vote rather than look at accumulation of Southern States for EC to offset DEM winning EC votes in North/Coasts. If Trump wanted to win in a popular vote, or any GOP, they could still spend way more time in NY, CA and similar blue states because they need their votes now even more.

In EC, Trump can lose NY by 1 vote or 4,000,000 votes, he still loses. In direct, now he really wants as many as he can get.

So one argument is even in direct popular vote both candidates will spend way less time outside of coastal states and court more favor from what were often blue states. EC has some merit despite its pros and cons. If the fact that 3 out of 50-60 elections had popular vote winner losing EC then that is not a major flaw just yet.

Even in direct vote, a 3rd party still gets 3rd status and will never win more than 51% even though they have a better chance to get more votes since EC is not hampering voters. So in that sense yes it does entrench a bit the 2 party system but in general a 3rd party could still never win in any of the two.

 

[piezoe]

The EC being helpful to retention of a two party dominance may be a function of "winner take all"? Not sure. Certainly winner take all is undemocratic. But total democracy in a country where corporations are in charge of the public's education and want to run the schools like businesses is a rather scary thought. It bodes ill for the countries future in other than a fascist context.

 

[LacesOut]

Neo,

Of all the posters on this site with the exception of exGoPer (if he is even still around) Tony Stark is the biggest paid shill of the Democratic Party on here. He parrots the talking points regularly - regardless of whether they make any sense or not.

Grouper vanishes when his wet dream hoax of Russian Puppetry vanished like a fart in the wind.
And Phony Snark is the biggest racist on these boards. With plenty of evidence of such.

 

[Buy1Sell2]

Grouper vanishes when his wet dream hoax of Russian Puppetry vanished like a fart in the wind.
And Phony Snark is the biggest racist on these boards. With plenty of evidence of such.

Agree in toto.

 

[RedDuke]

First of all, why anyone would care about what AOC says or thinks, she is an idiot. Only a total lunatic would celebrate killing of 1000s of high paying jobs in her city.

I think she gets too much media coverage, while we can not control media, we can control this space to a degree. May I suggest, simply ignore and not post anything about her.

EC issue is quite simple, just like any amendment. Do not like it, run through current process to change it (good luck ). Once Texas turns blue, EC would not matter for better or worse. Plus Florida, where people with some felonies can now vote.