POLITICS Theresa May out as PM.

No, you get used to it here.

 

Like most conversations; discussion can be fluid.

 

I totally get when you and IP get jumped on. I guess it’s Cotton.

Just seems off.........

 

I agree, typically everyone stays within their norms. I may just be unfamiliar with Cotton.

 

The Electoral College was designed, just as Cotton said, to prevent the very thing that you now advocate and wish to occur - that the totality of American governance is best decided by a handful of people living in a few urban centers of the highest population.

The Hive Mind, at its best.

What you are suggesting here - a simple popular vote - is neither a new nor recent idea, but one which the Framers were both well aware of, carefully deliberated and ultimately rejected. Now, we can argue what they should have done, or whether they thought it actually a bad idea or simply couldn’t form a sufficient consensus around its adoption, but this still doesn’t change the fact that it was considered and rejected.

But these same men also provided us with the ability to change it, and which remains to be an easily available process, and which requires the same consensus-building process by which they were - and thankfully - bound.

So, if you think that the Electoral College is no longer best, is errant or no longer supports the will of The People and states, avail yourself of that process and get to work changing it. You can start by convincing those in Peoria, Midland, Maynardville and and Pine Bluff to allow their fate to be singularly determined by others in NYC, LA, Chicago, Boston, San Fran, Seattle and Philly, instead.

That you seem to know that you’ll never get those in small towns and rural states to give up the Electoral College, and the standing which it provides to them, is the best and strongest arguments for its original passage, and it’s continued effectiveness and necessity.

Simply, the Electoral College works perfectly well, and exactly as designed and agreed, and that’s exactly why you hate it, and wish it changed.

 

Clearly, yes.

And the Framers perfectly and exactly knew that such was absolutely possible to occur, and to which a majority did consent to, and which enabled its ratification and inclusion.

Again, it’s wrong to think, suggest or infer that this idea of the possibility that someone could win the popular vote but still lose the election is something completely unexpected or previously unknown - it isn’t at all. They knew and considered exactly that possibility, and still passed it.

 

Except the idea that it was specifically designed for rural vs. urban voting is entirely false, something you created, or believe, to suit your argument. The urban population of the U.S. was 5% in 1790. There was no need to protect rural voters.

Also, the fact that it is very difficult to change and the people who get to vote at a higher, disproportional rate, don't want to (shockingly) give up this bonus, isn't a particularly good argument in favor of keeping it, either. Determining whether something should or shouldn't be done doesn't hinge upon the number of people one can convince it does.

You, in every other argument, refer to the majority vote as almost sacred, yet, not here. Why? What particularly sound argument can you make against "one man, one vote"?

 

I agree completely. this in no way conflicts with someone like unimane now wanting to do something else than what was decided 250 years ago. in fact, making such changes was also considered and left open for.

 

They passed it for a number of reasons not necessarily related to it being the best system, nor is the system they put into place the same one established entirely the same as now, nor did all the Framers want this system. It's a significantly different world, environment, government, voting populace, etc., etc. than in the late 1780s which makes the discussion of the sacred Electoral College as obsolete entirely valid.

As I've said before, once the Republicans get burned by it, too, then we'll scrap it. But, it's a poorly outdated system which was supposed to allow a certain group of elite and educated electors to wisely vote for the country's leader to protect us from various nefarious aspects. Clearly, we've gone away from this purpose.

 

You would think that a system that gives the poor a voice would be applauded by my liberal friends over one that caters to the elite. Go figure.

 

Your previous post stated something along the lines of that this system resulted from the South not wanting the North to basically run the show, but then say that it wasn’t a “rural vs urban” debate. Surely, one of those two was more urbanized, and the other was more rural, or do you think I’m suggesting that Framers actually used the words “urban” and “rural”?

The Electoral College resulted from those in less populous areas not wishing to give up complete control of others living in a more populated area, and that same sentiment still very much exists today, no matter what labels you use for either group.

You’re suggesting that whatever “disproportionate” standing that some may have in the Electoral College was somehow ill-gotten or unfairly assumed - and which simply isn’t true. They were freely given it in a consensus agreement of all parties - comprised of both those who it helped, and those that it didn’t. And now suggesting that they no longer need, nor should be willing to similarly and continuously require, is equally wrong.

That only a system which provided such a equitably balanced standing was capable of gaining the necessary consensus for passage, should be a more important and telling fact to you, and just as the requisite majority vote which preceded it should also be.

I don’t have to argue for it, Un, and exactly for the reasons that I’ve stated here - because it is that which was required, passed by a majority of delegates, ultimately agreed and which exists today. The arguments are the responsibility of those who oppose it, and now wish to re-make into something - anything - than what it now is. I’ll absolutely agree that it’s a steep climb to change it, but will also point out that the amendment process was also the result of a majority vote, too.

 

There are no poor people in urban areas? No rich in rural areas?

And, "one man, one vote" gives everyone, rich, poor, white, black, woman, man, Muslim, Christian, farmer, banker, etc., etc. the same value to their vote.

I'd say that's a pretty good system of giving the poor a voice, particularly when there are more poor people than elite.

 

Yes! If you don’t like it and wish to change it, by all means, avail yourselves of that process.

 

Our great-great-great grandchildren will someday debate the suitability of the Electoral College.

 

Your quote "The Electoral College was designed, just as Cotton said, to prevent the very thing that you now advocate and wish to occur - that the totality of American governance is best decided by a handful of people living in a few urban centers of the highest population." This is a completely false statement. The U.S. was overwhelmingly rural at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, so a handful of urban voters controlling the vote wasn't a concern, and the Electoral College actually was designed to keep the decision of presidential election in the hands of a few voters, the electors.

Yes, the adoption of the Electoral College was meant to smooth over the adoption of the Constitution by certain states, but the argument that its mere existence and difficulty to change justify its value is flawed. There is an excellent argument there is a better system to adopt and the mere fact it's hard to do and some states are loathe to lose their advantage in the election doesn't alter this argument.

If 5 people vote on a matter and two get double the vote of the other 3, but to change the system 2/3rds of the people are required to approve a change the two who have a greater value of vote don't want, it doesn't make it a good system.

 

There’s no sense, or very little or that’s meaningful, in our arguing whether it’s a good system or not.

If you wish it to be different, change it.

 

Interesting how closely this matches Cottons Map:

Per Capita Income by County

 

But, that's not your argument, really. Your argument is the Electoral College is a good system, which you partially validate by it merely existing. The argument is not whether or not it is viable to be changed, it is whether it should be. So, in a strict sense, without reference to false ideas and representations of the Framers' mindsets and intentions, why is the Electoral College a better system than "one man, one vote" for the national office of President of the United States as elected by the citizens of this country?

 

Uni, what is your preferred system?

 

Again, I'll reiterate:

And, "one man, one vote" gives everyone, rich, poor, white, black, woman, man, Muslim, Christian, farmer, banker, etc., etc. the same value to their vote.

I'd say that's a pretty good system of giving the poor a voice, particularly when there are more poor people than elite.

Plus, again, there are no poor people in urban areas? What about cost of living? Are the suburbs the same as urban areas? Lots of ways to look at this map.