The Electoral College achieved what the Framers feared most

Nope, I live in the U.S. This is actually an argument I heard the other day. The idea of small states vs. big states invites an infinite regress over who needs political protections to the point where it gets ridiculous.

 

If it seems ridiculous to you, study the issue a little bit more.

 

Good grief!!!!!

Your logic assumes that people in states that aren't really populated necessarily want to be part of a union that they have no real power over.

Sorry boss, but if you think your big democratic states don't need small states, then secede. Just try to leave. We might fight you, but leave. Please, please, please... You don't like the constitution, so please try to leave.

 

Trying to comprehend this rant..


Trump

Electoral college

Some spoiled brat?

How embarrassing I am .

 

Your reply was after mine, are you replying to me?

 

umm... because? Just don't worry about that. You don't understand, so fret your head, no more. Just try to leave. You don't understand, and nobody cares to educate you.

Just try to leave.

 

I mean, I kinda do already?

The idea is that if the small states need protection from big states, it's important to realize the composition of those states. Not everyone who lives in a big state votes the same, and likewise for small states. So to protect the minority voters, they in turn would need protections from the majority who decides how those electoral voters are carried out. Let's say most of the minority votes are in one geographic area, a town, city, countryside etc. Not all those people who live where the local majority are minority voters, voted the same way. Some of them could have voted for the majority on the state level. So they in turn need protections to make sure their interests are met on the local level.

Keep repeating as needed. This is obviously ridiculous because in order to protect everyone's right to have the ability to dissent, there is no majority possible. But it is the way it is.

 

It worked as designed, and designed that way for good reason

 

I was replying to the OP.

I'm just tired of this nonsense.

 

How to find if someone has accepted a dogma.

 

Does this mean you'll try to leave? I dunno, because you really say nothing here. I dare lefties to leave, and you post this.

Did you have a point?

 

How about the senate? California has 39.6 million citizens, and Vermont has 0.6 million citizens. And each state gets two senators in the senate. What's your thoughts on that?

 

Think: Census and Gerrymandering. That or I am not following you. I think the census needs to be every 5 years but that's just me.

 

did you have a point? This is like asking what we think of the constitution. Is it possible for you to say something that might point to a question?

To your question, it's perfectly fine.

Now why ask?

 

Trying to ascertain @Sandy Shanks opinion on the matter.

 

I'm actually in the center. Though if we did it based on economic beliefs, I'm technically on the right. I just prefer thinking of myself as a centrist. As for the point I am making, I wonder if people accept dogmas because they are cognitive of the problem and realize the need to deflect, or is it an unconscious process.

Right but that doesn't really explain the problem. Think about what the EC is supposed to be. It's a safeguard for the political minority to make sure their interests are not ignored, and instead are protected. At least a more modern interpretation would be this. Trump voters need the EC to make sure the east coast liberal states don't ignore their interests for example. The problem with this thinking is that it means political institutions need protections when it comes to voting. Why should we limit it to just an EC for states? Why not one for the different districts within a state? Why not one for towns, cities, etc? Why not an EC for your local neighborhood to make sure every vote counts equally?

Does that make sense?

 

It is nothing but another hate Trump rant from one who feels their candidate deserved to win. The Electoral College is just another in a long line of "its not fair" excuses. All these started on early November 2016 and will continue until early January 2025. The task will be making any sense of them.

 

A "point" would be arriving at a conclusion so we could work from your supplied premises to a conclusion based upon those premises. It's not wondering something, and then just continually wondering.

 

Exactly you go for the key words in a OPs rant ..

 

sorry. It's just confusing. Lots of anger, but no real explanations. Where the hell am I supposed to figure out what the left is saying? Something about the electoral college, and how it isn't based on a popular vote, but this is just stupid. We have an electoral college for a reason. They throw this nonsense out there, like "8 out of 2 dentists prefer crest!" but don't explain why this is scientific.

 

No

 

P1. A person reacted a particular way to a post.
P2. If a person reacts a particular way to a post, then there must be a cause behind it.
Con. There must be a cause behind it. (MP, P1,P2)

I can defend the antecedent in P2 if you need me to. Or perhaps you can just assume my argument is valid because I am stating my conclusion and relying on particular premises that while not stated are implied.

 

These are not premises. "if a person reacts a particular way" is not a premise. A premise means that it is possible to argue against it, but reactions are just that.

 

What is the issue then?

 

Somehow I can't see them ever ratifying a Constitution not including the Electoral college if the Fourteenth Amendment and the current understanding of birthright citizenship (which did not even necessarily exist at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, by the way) had been there at that time.

The fact that you think the Electoral College was "an oversight" proves how little you know about the original form of government under the constitution. Originally it was the state legislatures who picked senators, not the people in those states themselves.