The Electoral College Is the Greatest Threat to Our Democracy

IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE E.C.

WHY NOT MOVE TO


Still waiting for some of those entertainment industry
folks who swore to do so if Trump was elected
to keep their promise?
Anyone know of just one who did?

Moi

Take 'em , Please​

 

You are certainly free to propose an Amendment to the Constitution to the effect of wiping out the Electoral College. See, our REPUBLIC, as defined by the brilliant Constitution we are fortunate to have was provided to us by the Constitution.

You really should think about what you are proposing, however, and read the Federalist papers as to why we have a Republic and not a democracy and why the Electoral College works as intended to make sure the most populous states don't get to dictate to the rest of the country an ideology and principles which most people don't want to live under. For instance, the great majority of the country does not want open borders, high taxes, tyrannical central governments. But blue areas with high population densities are happy living with s...t in the streets and bums on the sidewalks and crappy government services, crumbling infrastructure and massive income inequality. The rest of us don't want that and the electoral college system helps keep the blue areas from infesting our prosperous, livable communities with their maladies.

 

Yeah, they also promised to leave if GWB was re-elected. They are still here, the hypocrites.

 

The Electoral College and the Senate takes us OUT of Democracy and allow the tail to wag the dog.The underpopulated states can run the show.They are democracy destroyers.

 

The senate is part of the treaty. Without a senate, the treaty would never have been established.

 

It spares somewhat the people of smaller, less populated States
the tyranny of the majority.

HEAVEN IS NOT A DEMOCRACY
DEMOCRACY IS NOT HEAVEN.​

Bet most of the anti E.C. and anti Senate crowd could not
write 100 words of understanding why the E.C & Senate
exist in these United States of America!
But, it's how I feel about it that counts in the 21st Century

Support History
Not HERstory

 

You realize even more voted against trump right? Meaning the electoral college got it wrong.

 

Nope, both parties got it wrong, and we were screwed with either Trump or Clinton.

I would be opposing her just as much as I am Trump.

 

You realize an amendment is unnecessary.

All states have to do is to commit their EVs to the candidate with the most PVs.

Several states already do, and that will keep growing over the decade coming.

 

Do you know that Donald Trump was elected by the popular-vote. The American version eviscerated of any sense whatsoever by both the Electoral College on the national level and Gerrymandering on the state-level - aided and abetted by tons-and-tons of megabuck donors who pay a pittance in taxation?

Wakey, wakey - nitwits have no understanding whatsoever of what True Democracy means ...

 

You talked lately to an American father? Nope. So, the above is just your trite observation from two centuries later§

Do you know that Donald Trump was elected by the popular-vote? That is, the American version eviscerated of any sense whatsoever by both the Electoral College on the national level and Gerrymandering on the state-level - aided and abetted by tons-and-tons of megabuck donors who pay a pittance in taxation?

And it works, because Americans are glued to Boob-Tube on average for 5 hours a day! (Don't believe that? Then see here.)

Wakey, wakey - nitwits have no understanding whatsoever of what True Democracy means because they've never had either a decent course in Civics or an understanding of the voting-manipulation that happens in the US.

Likely due to the sad fact that they watch too much football/baseball on TV and whoever gets the most points wins. So, that's the way voting should be as well regardless of the voting manipulation!

Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ...

 

I agree, way too much CNN.

 

MACHINATIONS

You are obviously missing a course in high-school Civics. There is NO FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A "DEMOCRACY" AND A "REPUBLIC". In fact, those two words complement one another.

From here: Democracy vs. Republic

There is no fundamental difference between the two forms of governance. In fact, the two words complement one another.

My Point: Because of two centuries of manipulation of the popular-vote, the US is not yet a True Democracy. Not as long as BigMoney decides electoral outcomes - and machinations of the voting process (like the Electoral College and Gerrymandering) are employed on both the national and state levels ...

 

Blah, blah, blah. If ignorance of the matter in question were bliss, you'd be in heaven.

You don't understand that there is no fundamental difference between the two words, and given the reaction to my comments (in that regard) I find that such ignorance is the prime reason that both manipulations of the popular-vote in America (the Electoral College and Gerrymandering) have existed for more than two-centuries ...

 

Of course it is - but it is also a manipulation of the popular-vote.

Dunces (who never took a course in Civics) do not understand that the Electoral College has a rule by which the winner of the popular-vote TAKES ALL THE VOTES OF THAT STATE'S ELECTORAL COLLEGE.

Now you explain to me how that manipulation of the popular-vote is acceptable in any True Democracy ... !

 

A state in America is a subsection of the country. A state in Europe is a country with its own constitution and parliament.

Be careful of the two words. Because the state-as-a-nation has far more overreaching powers than the state as a simple division geographically.

People like you do not understand that the notion of STATEHOOD in America includes all the 50 states together, and not just each state individually ...

 

Borrrinnnggggggg.

Rather than repeat myself (I have already answered this inanity in this forum) I will simply point you to the lesson that describes the fundamental difference between the words "democracy" and "republic" that are merely hair-splitting from here: Democracy vs Republic - excerpt:

There is only a subtle difference between the two notions, democracy and republic ... and the Replicant Dorks on this forum are making a mountain-out-of-a-molehill defending a "fundamental difference" between the two words THAT DOES NOT EXIST!

NB: Any democracy/republic has three components: the Head of state, the Legislature and the Judiciary. In the US version, the head of state is elected separately. In most other democracies, the Head of state is also the head of the majority in the Legislature (which is the only body that can establish and pass laws). What's the fundamental difference between the two? Not much at all.

 

Au Contraire
Definitely much at all

Somehow I can't convince the "UnFree" of , Britain nor Australia that their deficiency is the lack of being able to elect their chief executive free of the burdens of party seniority = party leadership = the party that controls the legislature - the leader becomes Chief Executive.
That strikes Moi as one helluva "buffer" between the people and their Chief Executive.

In the Land Of The Free, we might elect a State Governor, A General, A University President, A Businessperson, etc. as
"we the people" choose our President, free of the legislative branch's party politics.


If I remember correctly, didn't Charles De Gaulle being frustrated with the weak French presidency, established one more along lines? I may be wrong here.


@LafayetteBis
If you drop the assumption that direct popular vote of the President is better because it is a more pure Democratic system, you might "get it more better". What is the fairer?
On your own, please try ponder the value of Geographic Representation as a protection from the abuse of a concentrated majority. Just ponder. Incubate the idea. And the EC too.
Somethings need to appeal to the breadth of the country and not just a majority.
Besides electing a President, consider amendments to the Constitution.
Imagine if repeal or modification of the Second Amendment (guns) was just a super majority of a popular vote as opposed to a super majority of States.

Best Wishes.
Please let me now about De Gaulle, above

 

You should have contributed to my 'How would you reform the US political system' thread

 

I look at being president the way one should look at getting the best fastest horse to cross the finish line in first place. To get the top heavyweight boxer to win his bouts. To see the finest chess player win the game he plays in.

I lose any thought of personality. Suire, for movie stars on set, personality is what it takes. But when you learn the best personality does drugs, drinks all the time and can't show up on time, his personality comes in later.

Trump knows that. That is how he won. I do not think his personality is decent at all. I think most of we supporters will admit his flaws.

But he crossed the line in first place. He appealed to the voters for their issues. You may have wanted him to show up bleeding for the poor. I did not care about that. That comes with governing.

 

I took a course in American civics, which I presume as a Frenchie you missed out on. Our country is not a democracy and our founding fathers knew the difference.

"The Founding Fathers did not want democracy to rule. "Hence it is that democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths … A republic, by which I mean a government in which a scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking." — James Madison, Federalist Papers No. 10.

Marvin Simkin said: "Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken, not even by a 99 percent vote."

True democracy is the tyranny of the majority. True democracy is mob rule. Thankfully, we do not live in a democracy. We live in a republic. Article IV Section 4, of the Constitution: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of government … "

And living in this republic means that every voice matters, majorities do not rule and those with the loudest voices do not automatically win. The will of the people means all of the people."

https://www.theunion.com/news/twi/our-founding-fathers-wanted-a-republic-not-a-democracy/

 

No such buffer exists. Just ask anyone who is intricately involved in a major national party. They know full well the wisdom of "You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time!" (Except in America with its infamous Electoral College and Gerrymandering of the popular-vote!)

The head of a party does not obtain that title without having most members of the party (and particularLy the public) having a say in the matter. So, they being head of a political-party is well within the confines of the definition of "democracy" or even "democratic representation".

As Chief Executive of the nation "s/he" owes their title (if elected separately) to the people. If a member of country without an elected president, they owe their title (once again) to the "people" who elect their parliament. There are no surprises since typically these individuals are party-heads who succeeded in having their party elected democratically the majority in parliament!

Just WHAT is the difference between the American way and the European way of electing Heads-of-state? I see none for as long as the principles of democratic freedom and the election of representatives are fair and honest. America's voting-process is damaged by the dishonesty of both the Electoral College and the Gerrymandering of the popular-vote.

No, you are not wrong. Quite right, he did create a parliamentary "Senate". But not in the same manner as the US. Some senate positions are at the discretion of the French president. That's the French version of "democracy".

Here's what is happening in the Electoral College:
*For every presidential election, the popular-vote (of the people) is reported to the state's Electoral College.
*The Electoral College, which consists of a number of individuals in proportion to its population, then votes. But, the VOTE IS NOT REPRESENTATIONAL. That is, whoever wins the EC-vote wins also the TOTAL NUMBER OF ELECTORS. (Though in fact they never ever won totally the actual popular-vote!)
*Which is then reported to Congress who tally all the EC-votes and thus determine who won the presidency. (This is how Donald Dork got elected whilst losing the popular-vote by a healthy margin of 2% of the popular-vote!)

ABRA-CADABRA! The popular-vote that consisted fractionally of all parties (in the popular-vote) suddenly become ONE MASSIVE SCORE for whoever won the majority of the EC-votes! Where in hell is the fairness of such a vote? The fractional popular-vote of all citizens magically becomes the absolute vote of the entire-state!

And if you do this for enough of the smaller states, their total-vote can decisively win an election for the loser of the popular vote. Which is what happened for Donald Dork.

Which is what is meant by the "manipulation of the popular-vote" and in any other developed-nation democracy on earth simply does not exist!

When electing the overall head of government (of a nation) it is ONLY the total popular-vote that matters. There is no better way to do it.

That cannot happen. The democratic breadth of a country is founded in the diversity of public opinion. The fairness of a democratic process nonetheless assures that dictators are not allowed ever to assume power. (Except in the US and Donald Dork who thinks he has unlimited power as PotUS. He is about to learn a lesson in democracy the hard way.)

The total popular-vote across any nation is the ONLY WAY that a national plebiscite can be fair and honest; that is, it reflects the bonafide choice of All Voters who voted.

 

I'm a yank who lives in France. I vote in the US, not France!

Pathetically rhetorical rubbish. Try responding in the forum with logic and not just blah, blah, blah in the form other people's words. That is, if you have any of your own!

What do YOU know about the founding-fathers - you've never met one! (Whereas I live not far from the Procope Restaurant where Franklin and Jefferson met with French revolutionaries who were planning to overthrow the French King! This is where the seeds of the revolution were planted and they blossomed in the US when the French Army decisively helped Washington to defeat the British in Yorktown that was commanded by a French gentleman called Lafayette!)

Your comments are typical of the RabidRight who are so stuck-in-history - that they don't even know well - but want nothing whatsoever to be done to an electoral system presently debilitated by the voting manipulation of the Electoral College and Gerrymandering.

You are blind to the fallacies of a voting system that manoueuvers the popular-vote in a so-called democracy ...

 

None of the above matters in terms of the future. Enough states will pass laws in the next few years giving their votes (despite how the state voters cast their ballots) to whoever leads in the PV at the end of the day. In 2016, that would be Clinton, God help us all.

 

What is" boooooring" is the apologetic s used by leftists to promote what they call "social democracy" where a "bored" elite decides who can own what.and how much. It is always interesting to see how much the upper echelon of that government keep for themselves. An examination of Argentina is an interesting study in that.