I often wonder how many of the people who are against the EC would be in favor of it if Hillary had lost the popular vote, but still managed to win the election thanks to the EC.
I can just imagine the kind of articles we'd see from the left leaning media outlets, headlines like "Why the EC just proved it still matters" and "The EC did its job", etc. lol
Originally posted by Surtur
I often wonder how many of the people who are against the EC would be in favor of it if Hillary had lost the popular vote, but still managed to win the election thanks to the EC.I can just imagine the kind of articles we'd see from the left leaning media outlets, headlines like "Why the EC just proved it still matters" and "The EC did its job", etc. lol
Oh, no doubt.
Originally posted by Surtur
I often wonder how many of the people who are against the EC would be in favor of it if Hillary had lost the popular vote, but still managed to win the election thanks to the EC.I can just imagine the kind of articles we'd see from the left leaning media outlets, headlines like "Why the EC just proved it still matters" and "The EC did its job", etc. lol
Not me, didn't like Hillary either but that's not the point. An election should be about who gets the most votes. But then the entire American political system is a sham anyway, and not because Trump "won", and it's much bigger than just who's President. Democrats are no better.
No the idea of the system America was intended for was a devolved system of power with a federal government for a specific purpose and the state governments to take up everything else so policy could be made closest to the people.
The idea behind both the senate and the electoral college was the protection of state interests from the encroachment of the federal government.
The problem we’re in now is that the federal government has seized a disproportionate level of power and now want to make every single ****ing issue a national issue instead of letting California do what California wants on healthcare and Texas do what Texas wants to do on healthcare for example. Everything has to be ****ing federal instead of state populations all having their general interests met by their own governments.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
No the idea of the system America was intended for was a devolved system of power with a federal government for a specific purpose and the state governments to take up everything else so policy could be made closest to the people.The idea behind both the senate and the electoral college was the protection of state interests from the encroachment of the federal government.
The problem we’re in now is that the federal government has seized a disproportionate level of power and now want to make every single ****ing issue a national issue instead of letting California do what California wants on healthcare and Texas do what Texas wants to do on healthcare for example. Everything has to be ****ing federal instead of state populations all having their general interests met by their own governments.
What bothers me is that some on the same side that seems to be complaining over the EC and go on about the popular vote seem to have no problem with ranked choice voting.
Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
Not me, didn't like Hillary either but that's not the point. An election should be about who gets the most votes. But then the entire American political system is a sham anyway, and not because Trump "won", and it's much bigger than just who's President. Democrats are no better.
So for example, if a HOA consisted on 10 houses. 3 houses had 6 people living in each and the other 7 only had 2 people living in them.
You would be ok if the people living in those 3 houses set all the rules for the HOA? after all, the people living in them would have 18 votes to the other houses 14 votes.
Originally posted by Silent Master
So for example, if a HOA consisted on 10 houses. 3 houses had 6 people living in each and the other 7 only had 2 people living in them.You would be ok if the people living in those 3 houses set all the rules for the HOA? after all, the people living in them would have 18 votes to the other houses 14 votes.
New Yorkers are used to it.
There's a reason why New York State and New York City have different rules for gun regulation. Because the capital of the state does not control the state.
Originally posted by Silent Master
So for example, if a HOA consisted on 10 houses. 3 houses had 6 people living in each and the other 7 only had 2 people living in them.You would be ok if the people living in those 3 houses set all the rules for the HOA? after all, the people living in them would have 18 votes to the other houses 14 votes.
Turn it around, you seem to be ok with the minority making the rules, it is about the number of houses, it's about the number of people. If smaller states are allowed to decide then it's time for the USA to dissolve
Originally posted by Emperordmb
No the idea of the system America was intended for was a devolved system of power with a federal government for a specific purpose and the state governments to take up everything else so policy could be made closest to the people.The idea behind both the senate and the electoral college was the protection of state interests from the encroachment of the federal government.
The problem we’re in now is that the federal government has seized a disproportionate level of power and now want to make every single ****ing issue a national issue instead of letting California do what California wants on healthcare and Texas do what Texas wants to do on healthcare for example. Everything has to be ****ing federal instead of state populations all having their general interests met by their own governments.
This was decided during the Civil War. The interests of the nation as a whole come before the interests of individual states. The constitution isn't perfect, something the founding fathers knew very well, that's why amendments are allowed. The Senate is now elected by direct vote, the President needs to be too.
Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
Turn it around, you seem to be ok with the minority making the rules, it is about the number of houses, it's about the number of people. If smaller states are allowed to decide then it's time for the USA to dissolve
You didn't answer the question.
Just to be clear. The houses represent states and the people in the houses represent population.
Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
Turn it around, you seem to be ok with the minority making the rules, it is about the number of houses, it's about the number of people. If smaller states are allowed to decide then it's time for the USA to dissolve
Wrong.
It's not, nor was never, about the number of people. The United States of America is just that: A coalition lf independent states, held together by a loose central government.
State rights take precedence, and each state is unto a nation all its own.
Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
Turn it around, you seem to be ok with the minority making the rules, it is about the number of houses, it's about the number of people. If smaller states are allowed to decide then it's time for the USA to dissolve
If I flip it around I find it much less disturbing than SM's example. You don't?
Originally posted by Silent Master
You didn't answer the question.Just to be clear. The houses represent states and the people in the houses represent population.
Not really a fair comparison. HOAs are not the same as countries anymore than a country is a "business", which it isn't. When it comes to America the country each state has the right to elect it's own representatives and senators. They represent local constituencies. The President is supposed to represent the entire country so the majority of absolute voters should decide.
It's sad that our education system has failed us in regards to teaching students that we are a Constitutional Republic, not a damn democracy.
Truth is that true democracies suck ass. Our FF's understood this and so gave us a republic instead which is clearly the superior government type. If we did away with EC and went to a pure democracy and had pop vote deside the election then states like New York and California would always decide the winner; and if that happened, I guarantee you that eventually it would cause another civil war unless the fed government allowed those states who were unsatified with the new system to secede from the union. People in Georgia, S. Carolina, and Oklahoma, for example, don't live the same way that people in NY and Cal do and eventually they'd get fed-up with being ignored by presidential candidates and having those so-called "progressive" states' way of life constantly imposed on them. The EC is here to stay folks. Pretty sure the only way it could be legally done away with is if two-thirds of the states voted to do away w/it & that will never happen.
So instead of crying and b*tching about the EC, your presidential candidates need to adopt a strategy that tries to win the EC vote...or if you wanna just keep crying about it that's fine too because I know it'll never be abolished no matter how loudly you protest it. 🙂