The Electoral College Is the Greatest Threat to Our Democracy

From the NYT here: The Electoral College Is the Greatest Threat to Our Democracy - excerpt:

The year 1812 should be given its True Dismal Place in history. It was the year in which America's popular-vote was fundamentally undermined by two manipulations - that of the Electoral College and of the Gerrymandering. For more than 200 years, "democracy" in America has been a lie at worst and an effective subversion of the popular-vote.

The popular-vote, that of the people, is the ONLY TRUE MECHANISM indicating a True Democracy demonstrating the will of the people. In the US, that will has been trampled every two or four years in the voting process of mid-term and full-term elections.

Can't believe it? They never taught THAT to you in Civics Class? Yes, they did not!

It is perhaps the biggest lie ever foisted upon the American people, that they live in a True Democracy. And BigMoney has employed that lie deftly to obtain election outcomes that support its willful desire that moneyed-politics should run-and-ruin American democracy ...

 

​

 

I am not a fan of the electoral college. I think it an anachronism of a bygone era we would be best rid of, but this does not happen all that often statistically considering the number of 4 year elections since the constitution was ratified. Gerrymandering is a bigger threat as is a slew of republican efforts to impede minority voter access and turnout.

The money problem in elections is crushing the soul of our representative form of government.

 

Well we beat you in the war but you got a great new anthem. The electoral college essentially keeps the US whole, without it the country would be torn apart.

 

bullshit. Try being reasonable. The only real harm would be that candidates would spend a lot less time campaigning in largely rural states and speaking to rural/farm issues. Native Americans, farmers and populations in small towns dependent on large forested areas would not get their concerns discussed during the campaign. Its a definite negative but I'd still vote to rescind the electoral college on balance.

 

BOLLOCKS!

You think you have given a justification for the Electoral College but it is just claptrap.

From here:
*(Vox) ​

Why the Electoral College is the absolute worst, explained​

​

*(WashPost) ​

The electoral college misrepresents every state, but not as much as you may think​

*(Time) 3 Arguments for Keeping Electoral College Are All Wrong | Time
*(HuffPost) Why We Should Abolish the Electoral College | HuffPost

Yeah, right, so all the above periodicals got it wrong, wrong, wrong, did they? Including the rest of the civilized world! The US is the only developed country on earth that employs it to manipulate the popular-vote - particularly the presidency, which is purely national in nature!

What you DON'T like is the fact that the truth of the Electoral College's fallacy is self-evident. But, for some churlish reason, you cannot understand that manipulating the popular-vote in a democracy is tantamount to VOTING FALSIFICATION.

Particularly in the Electoral College, where the winner-takes-all rule undermines complete the nature of the popular-vote. For your edification, the popular-vote is defined here as a "direct election" rather than "indirect".

The Electoral College is a Manipulative Device to win presidential elections. And the Gerrymander manipulates geographically the states' popular-vote to elect officials of a given political-party in the US.

Period ... !

 

Bollocks again!

More one-liner nonsense from the RabidRight that doesn't know otherwise how to debate a subject!

You (plural) reduce every complexity to one-liners because you cannot do otherwise. Since "otherwise" would require a tad of intelligence ...

 

We are not, and never have been, and never will be, a democracy.

 

In America,
Geographical Representation has its' place.
For one thing, it helps curb the tyranny of the majority.
Consider the Senate, of Congress.
Some States have a Senate too and some were geographical
in representation. Some Supreme Court decision ruled
there is no bases for State Senates and geographical representation
as there is at the Federal level.

It would be bad for the nation to be ruled my concentrated city folks' vote.
Remember the 55 MPH speed limit. Probably okay for the East but, in the West,
absurd.
I co own some ranch properties. One between Sequoia Nat'l Park and Visalia, just south of Fresno
and one on the southern border of Redwood National Park just north of
McKinleyville which is just north of Eureka/Arcata.
Meeting neighbors I discovered ranch folks have a different mentality.
Not better, worse but different and valid for their conditions.
City people as I was, just don't get it until you take the time to be part of it.
Sadly, I am not rugged enough for their inconveniences and remain in the O.C.
Both ranches involved some old timers whose families use to own it all.
One with peaks named after their ancestors. And a family member in
the Sheriff's dept.
Those days are GWTW. But, it was enlightening to experience it.
One neighbor lived north of the Arctic Circle for many years.
And I just don't appreciate the taste of Fresh Whale Blubber from a
freshly harvested whale. and probably will never taste it.

There are lots of these people, not all concentrated in a few counties.
The compromise of Big States vs Little States with geographical representation
was a great compromise. We see with the Federal Senate and Electoral College.
Those who wish for only a popular vote just do not "get it" enough to
play a Devil's Advocate in favor of that they oppose.
Something my father did and made me do at the dinner table.

 

Right!

What planet do you live on ... ?

 

Gerrymandering helps demo rats too

The segregated and racist congressional black caucus would be much smaller if not for majority-minority districts

 

INEXCUSABLE

Thanks for the length of your reply. I don't agree with one bit of it. But, at least you verbalized your sentiments/thoughts on the matter, which is far too rare here.

People live in concentration all over this planet, and America is no different. Also - THERE IS NO REASONABLE EXCUSE WHATSOEVER FOR THE MAJORITY POPULAR-VOTE TO NOT PREVAIL WHEREVER.

Such is the fundamental nature of any True Democracy. Or Republic if you prefer - because the words are synonymous ...

NB: The second requisite-rule is that the central-power not be dominated by any one of the three major governmental components - Executive, Legislative, or Judicial. Which is why we must rid ourselves of both Gerrymandering and the Electoral College - because they permit the manipulation of the Popular-Vote, which is inexcusable in any Real Democracy.

 

Helps both parties elect people who never should otherwise get elected if gerrymandering was not allowed.

Waiting with Great Anticipation for the Supremes to finally tackle the matter of the unfair Electoral College. And not likely for me to see it in my lifetime ...

 

I am, didn't you note my posting name? Without the electoral college the populous states would dominate the places where there is no one, therefore what would be the point of them staying in the union?

 

Well perhaps you were sleeping through that lecture

 

Oh am I a 'deplorable'? Because Bill Mahler everyone who disagrees with you is 'stupid'? And you wonder why people voted for Trump? Maybe because they're sick or being sneered at?

You describe my post as one liner nonsense but your counter is ONE word! So come on, give me a valid reason why my proposition is incorrect.

 

@LafayetteBis

Associating the Electoral College (or the Senate) with Gerrymandering
is as objectionable as associating the Confederate State of America
with Antisemitism, Nazis, or even absolute racism since they had
Free Persons of Color and some owning slaves.
Although I do admit, slaves came in only one color.

Bad associations.
Not related.

If you object to the Electoral College
Please Object to the U.S. Senate too.
Imagine a State with with so few people it only has one Representative
in the House of Representatives but still gets two Senators.
There are seven states with only one representative:
Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming.
Do they really deserve 2 Senators. How Anti Democracy.

 

Here's how the Electoral College was originally meant to work:
People would elect their state legislatures, and then those state legislatures would in turn elect representatives to the Electoral College.

It was thought that common people wouldn't have enough information to know who the best candidate for president was, since that is a very important position, so those elected to the Electoral College would be in a better position to make that informed decision.

However, in more recent times all the states have changed their laws to require their Electoral College representatives to vote for whoever wins the popular vote in that state.
This still serves an important function because it is each of the states that are responsible for counting the votes. In other words, it would be very difficult for the federal government to try to falsify the election. The process for counting the votes is very decentralized. You'll never have a situation where one state will be complaining about votes being falsified. It lends a tremendous degree of inherent integrity and stability into the system.

 

The title should be changed to "The Electoral College Is the Greatest Thing to Our Democracy"

 

yes where voters congregate, cities and the states with more cities, would provide more political power to voters who congregate there in an election held once in four years for a federal office, the Presidency. But your conclusion is absurd. There are other elections for federal office unaffected by this one change in the election of for one office. there are other branches of federal power both elected and appointed unaffected by this one change in one election. There are state, county and municipal elections unaffected and at each level other branches of power unaffected. So far we are just talking politics. We are not talking economic, cultural, and social ties connecting these states. Now you go ahead and calculate the impact on the centrifical force that pulls the people in these states apart with this change in this one federal office election. Then you calculate the power of the gravitational pull holding these states together.

Now stop being a drama queen and unclench those pearls around your neck and get realistic. Yes there may be some gradual and marginal shift in political power as rural states suffer from not getting their due attention in campaigns for the Presidency. They will still hold plenty of power with their senators, their judges, and their hold of precious resources like land, agriculture, timber, minerals, and lots and lots of space which represent wealth and a lifestyle that the wealthy will want to hold onto. That sounds like power to me.

 

The blue almost looks like a foriegn infection trying to take the body of the country over.

 

The unelected demigods on the high court cannot abolish the EC

 

There is one issue say you do remove the Electoral College why would political parties spend much or anything in small low populous states at all if your in Wyoming I wouldn't spend a penny for presidential runs your better off spending that money to get one city in California or the I-4 Corridor in Florida to vote for you using the same money. Figuring sending in some volunteers locally would be enough and some local PACS might place some advertisements.

And would it change the quality of candidates since the two parties would still wield the major power for Presidential races and pick one highly partisan choice unless things change.

You want to fix things third parties need to eat up percentages in Congress and gain many local and some States taking power which with the current system and people favoring the two main parties isn't likely to happen anytime soon.

Many common people don't even bother voting and so are apathetic and won't care anyway.

 

Better do it the way trump did

Win the voters of republican voters with ideas and so move the party from the inside

Admittedly the career republican swamp rats in congress do not support the outsider

so legeslative results have been disappointing

But a third party president would faced the same reaction

 

There is only one executive branch.