On-Topic Clinton Will Win Popular Vote - Time to Scrap Electoral College

[palemale]

In a free and fair election Republicans will win EXCEPT for the immigrant vote. It is the hispanic and asian vote which gives democrats the edge, and why abortion and immigration are priorities for democrats.

Do you want to deny Asian and Latino immigrants who become citizens the right to vote?

 

[Kabluey]

More than that was the obvious fear that the unsuccessful and indolent will vote confiscatory taxes to be paid by others. That is a major part of the democrat, marxist class and racial warfare agenda. It is part of why democrats want more poor people.

What about the indolent and lazy heirs who simply inherit everything off the back of their forefathers?
I heard some of them run for president.

 

[Kabluey]

Do you want to deny Asian and Latino immigrants who become citizens the right to vote?

He wants to deny them the right to enter America. Fortress mentality.

 

[Benvolio]

Do you want to deny Asian and Latino immigrants who become citizens the right to vote?

Not, but I want to stop the immigration for this and other reasons.

 

[Kulindahr]

So when it comes time to vote for president, the votes of the students in the small schools should count more than the votes from the big schools? Bad analogy.

The arguments about big states having too much power at the expense of the small states is sophistry. What difference does the size of the state matter when choosing the president. People make these big state/small state arguments, but they are meaningless because no says how it matters and what harm will come to small states if the president is chosen by popular vote. We know the harm the framers feared at the founding of the Republic. The major slave holding states had large populations but, of course, the slaves could not vote. So, we had the 3/5 compromise and the southern states got representation out of proportion to the number of voters they had. The quid pro quo for joining the Republic was that they would always have slavery. People also had more allegiance to their state than the new country, and didn't know what rights they might be forfeiting to the big states in the new country. Those concerns are history. The fact is that, now, the big state/small state issue is a dead letter, a historic anomaly. We are all Americans and are all entitled to an equal say in who our president is, period.

The dangers are plain -- many of us here in Oregon live with them. Rural counties are great examples of what happens when populous political units dominate: things are run for their benefit, not for the people who live on the land. So the money from timber in rural counties no longer benefits those counties, but is taken to serve the interests of the urban counties, just as one example; the result is that our roads are falling apart and our health care suffering because the money we used to get from timber sales doesn't come to us any longer.

If populous states get to dominate, the same thing will happen on a larger scale. So should the Electoral College somehow get eliminated, the smart thing for the two dozen or more least populous states would be to tell the others to shove off, and start a new nation.

As for getting an equal say, we already do: we each have one vote for telling our state who to choose for president.

 

[Kulindahr]

Why bother voting if it doesn't count?

Over 2 million people voted for one thing and got the other. It's like their 'right to vote' didn't matter.

It does count -- each citizen gets one vote for telling his or her state who to choose for president.

See, we're the United STATES, not the United Provinces. Each state is a sovereign entity, just as are France, Scotland, Germany, etc. The federal government is the referee and the entity through which the sovereign states exercise their foreign dealings -- or at least that's the way the Constitution was meant to establish things.

Today's liberals would even be rejected the by Federalists as being too much in favor of a massively powerful central government empowered to totally override the states.

 

[Kulindahr]

The Constitution was written for a nation which does not exist anymore.

It's the nation we're supposed to be, one where liberty matters -- everyone's liberty, not just that of urban dwellers. Let urban dwellers dominate, and the rest will be effectively serfs whose output is harnessed to keep the masses in the cities happy.

 

[Kulindahr]

The point of this thread is to argue that the Constitution needs to be changed to scrap the electoral college and have direct, popular vote. The Constitution enshrines the right to own slaves, but the 13th Amendment changed that. The Constitution did not provide for the direct election of Senators, the state legislatures appointed them. That changed with the 17th Amendment and, after 1913, we started directly electing senators. It's now time to directly elect the president, and I have yet to hear a single, rational argument why that shouldn't happen.

A majority of Americans support direct election of the president by popular vote. Trump is at a distinct disadvantage because he lost the popular vote by more than 2 million votes, and thus lacks the legitimacy and mandate that a president who won the popular vote starts his presidency with.

Direct election of senators gave us a Senate that is less responsive to the needs of the people and more responsive to the desires of special interests.

You've seen a number of rational arguments why direct election of the president shouldn't happen -- you're just so invested in the worship of democracy rather than liberty that you don't recognize them.

 

[Kulindahr]

In practice, direct election would give the democrats a lock on the presidency. That, of course, is the reason you democrats want the change. There is no rational reason why the smaller states should surrender the small advantage the electoral college gives them--and they will not and you cannot take it from them.
A better change would be the adoption of the parliamentary system.

Yes (my bold).

The only reason it's an issue is that we have the duopoly.

We could make an interesting twist on a parliamentary system: let the House choose three members as candidates for President, and let the Senate choose between them. When the system isn't a binary one, such an approach has been shown to result in a better level of leadership.

 

[Kulindahr]

Doing it on a state by state basis is not practical. The parties which control bigger states will not want to give up that advantage to their party. The other states will not want to concede greater power to the large.

That only proves that neither party in the duopoly is interested in whats best for the nation -- they just want power.

 

[Kulindahr]

The right to have an equal voice in choosing the president. Right now, we in this country do not have an equal right to choose who our president will be, and that's how it will continue to be if we do not scrap the electoral college. You think that right is unimportant, a view shared by most Republicans. Republicans want as few people to vote as possible because they, like you, recognize in a free and fair election they cannot win. Steve Bannon, Trump's white nationalist strategist, apparently wishes to revert to the days of giving the franchise only to property owners.

Having an equal voice in choosing the president would give each state one vote.

 

[Kulindahr]

And that was the opinion of John Adams.

The Founding Fathers had contempt for the common man and his ability to make political judgments, and that is a fact by their own written admission.

Given the contempt shown in this forum for "low-information voters", I'd say that the attitude still exists.

 

[Kulindahr]

What about the indolent and lazy heirs who simply inherit everything off the back of their forefathers?
I heard some of them run for president.

He loves unearned income. Apparently people who make their money by the sweat of other people's brows are superior.

 

[Kulindahr]

Not, but I want to stop the immigration for this and other reasons.

In other words, you want to make sure that all the talent and ability that American attracts to study at U.S. universities can't possibly stay here and benefit the country.

that's a really, incredibly bizarre way of showing love for one's country. It brings to mind a question that used to be asked over and over by a now-gone member.

 

[palemale]

It's the nation we're supposed to be, one where liberty matters -- everyone's liberty, not just that of urban dwellers. Let urban dwellers dominate, and the rest will be effectively serfs whose output is harnessed to keep the masses in the cities happy.

How about the liberty of a young Latina in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas to choose wheter or not to give birth. She voted for the candidate who won the most votes and promised to protect the right to choose, but she may loose that right to choose because more rural voters voted for the losing candidate who wants to extinguish that right. Or is that liberty irrelevant in your book. How about the gay male couple in Mississippi who voted for the candidate that won, but the candidate with less votes who will be president will be poised to roll back their liberty to marry? Does their liberty matter? What about the African American man who voted for the winning candidates in the popular vote four of the last five elections, yet will have a president who, in 12 out of 20 years, will appoint judges that gut the voting rights act and permit the roll back of decades of progress in voting rights? What about his liberty?

The fact of the matter is that, when it comes to guaranteeing civil rights and liberty, it has been the federal government and not the states that has been the main guardian of liberty.

 

[Benvolio]

How about the liberty of a young Latina in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas to choose wheter or not to give birth. She voted for the candidate who won the most votes and promised to protect the right to choose, but she may loose that right to choose because more rural voters voted for the losing candidate who wants to extinguish that right. Or is that liberty irrelevant in your book. How about the gay male couple in Mississippi who voted for the candidate that won, but the candidate with less votes who will be president will be poised to roll back their liberty to marry? Does their liberty matter? What about the African American man who voted for the winning candidates in the popular vote four of the last five elections, yet will have a president who, in 12 out of 20 years, will appoint judges that gut the voting rights act and permit the roll back of decades of progress in voting rights? What about his liberty?

The fact of the matter is that, when it comes to guaranteeing civil rights and liberty, it has been the federal government and not the states that has been the main guardian of liberty.

The Latina came to our country and must accept our system or go she is free to go elsewhere. Hopefully we will protect the freedom of her child. The gays will still be free to marry. At most the Republicans may stop meddling in gay marriage giving more freedom. Legal marriage is more of a limitation than a freedom. I cannot even guess what you think might happen to voting rights, but I hope we will stop the dems from robbing blacks of their votes by negating valid votes with dead votes, double votes, illegal alien votes etc. If we end immigration, the black votes will mean more and better jobs will be available.

 

[gsdx]

but I hope we will stop the dems from robbing blacks of their votes by negating valid votes with dead votes, double votes, illegal alien votes etc. If we end immigration, the black votes will mean more and better jobs will be available.

Do you have any facts at all to back this up? We've posted proof that there is very little voter fraud. It's only fair that you post proof that there's enough fraud to change an entire election.

 

[palemale]

The Latina came to our country and must accept our system or go she is free to go elsewhere. Hopefully we will protect the freedom of her child. The gays will still be free to marry. At most the Republicans may stop meddling in gay marriage giving more freedom. Legal marriage is more of a limitation than a freedom. I cannot even guess what you think might happen to voting rights, but I hope we will stop the dems from robbing blacks of their votes by negating valid votes with dead votes, double votes, illegal alien votes etc. If we end immigration, the black votes will mean more and better jobs will be available.

You do realize that Texas was once part of Mexico, don't you? Many Mexican Americans in the Southwest are descended from people who didn't cross the border, the border crossed them. I'm not sure what you mean by accepting our system, but "our system" guaranteed women reproductive rights. It is the troglodyte Republicans that are trying to take that right away from women. There is no evidence of dead people voting. Of course, you missed the point of my post entirely, so I'm not sure why I'm bothering to explain anything to you. Perhaps if I typed more slowly you'd understand.

 

[Alnitak]

You do realize that Texas was once part of Mexico, don't you? Many Mexican Americans in the Southwest are descended from people who didn't cross the border, the border crossed them. I'm not sure what you mean by accepting our system, but "our system" guaranteed women reproductive rights. It is the troglodyte Republicans that are trying to take that right away from women. There is no evidence of dead people voting. Of course, you missed the point of my post entirely, so I'm not sure why I'm bothering to explain anything to you. Perhaps if I typed more slowly you'd understand.

And New Mexico was settled by the Spanish in 1598... before the first successful English settlement in North America.

 

[rareboy]

You do realize that Texas was once part of Mexico, don't you? Many Mexican Americans in the Southwest are descended from people who didn't cross the border, the border crossed them. I'm not sure what you mean by accepting our system, but "our system" guaranteed women reproductive rights. It is the troglodyte Republicans that are trying to take that right away from women. There is no evidence of dead people voting. Of course, you missed the point of my post entirely, so I'm not sure why I'm bothering to explain anything to you. Perhaps if I typed more slowly you'd understand.

No.

Benvolio hasn't a fucking clue. So here are some maps for him. Since he missed out on Grade Four history.

and this one.

and this one (hint: Florida was not British)