Advertisement
by Uiiop » Sat Jul 02, 2022 1:23 pm
Big Jim P wrote:No. This is the United STATES of American. Cali and NY don't get to decide who is President.
by New Democratic Republic of Russia » Sat Jul 02, 2022 1:28 pm
by San Lumen » Sat Jul 02, 2022 1:28 pm
Big Jim P wrote:No. This is the United STATES of American. Cali and NY don't get to decide who is President.
by Uiiop » Sat Jul 02, 2022 1:30 pm
New Democratic Republic of Russia wrote:Absolutely not. If the Electoral College was abolished and based on just straight popularity vote, then presidential elections would be decided by California, New York, and Washington, with the rest of the states rendered pointless. With the Electoral College, a presidential candidate has to win over most of the country, not just a couple of major population centers.
by San Lumen » Sat Jul 02, 2022 1:31 pm
New Democratic Republic of Russia wrote:Absolutely not. If the Electoral College was abolished and based on just straight popularity vote, then presidential elections would be decided by California, New York, and Washington, with the rest of the states rendered pointless. With the Electoral College, a presidential candidate has to win over most of the country, not just a couple of major population centers.
by Uiiop » Sat Jul 02, 2022 1:32 pm
by Big Jim P » Sat Jul 02, 2022 1:33 pm
by Uiiop » Sat Jul 02, 2022 1:34 pm
The Archregimancy wrote:Thomasi wrote:Yes, and it can be achieved via democratic states passing laws saying they will give their electors to the winner of the popular vote when the total number of states doing so reaches the number needed 270.
History Lesson
The origin of the electoral college starts at the constitutional convention, it wasn't a stroke of genius, it wasn't planned, it wasn't even wanted, it simply came to be because the large states wanted a popular vote and or the house to elect the president and the small states wanted each state to have one vote for the president. Well that wasn't going to work, so they decided that each state would get the same number of electors as reps and senators and that the state governments would decide how they wanted the election of the president to happen. That's it they literally punted the issue. Same with the supreme court lol.
This is incorrect.
The compromise brought about by disputes over the ability of larger states to outvote smaller states on the basis of population led to the Great Compromise of 1787, whereby each state was granted two senators regardless of population.
The intent of the Electoral College is clearly laid out in the Federalist Papers, notably Papers 10 and 68, whereby the College is supposed to protect the republic from both party factionalism and the risk of uninformed voters giving rise to popular demagoguery by placing the final selection of president in the hands of a disinterested elite.
It's true that Madison also argued in Federalist Paper 39 that the Electoral College allowed for combining the state-based electoral system of the Senate with the popular vote-based system of the House, but this was retrospective rather than initial intent.
Essentially, you've confused the Great Compromise with the rationale for the existence of the College. If it makes you feel better, it's a common enough error.
by Washington Resistance Army » Sat Jul 02, 2022 1:36 pm
Uiiop wrote:Big Jim P wrote:
It was created to give the STATES equal power, so that states with higher populations wouldn't dominate those with lower populations. I am rewriting nothing.The Archregimancy wrote:
This is incorrect.
The compromise brought about by disputes over the ability of larger states to outvote smaller states on the basis of population led to the Great Compromise of 1787, whereby each state was granted two senators regardless of population.
The intent of the Electoral College is clearly laid out in the Federalist Papers, notably Papers 10 and 68, whereby the College is supposed to protect the republic from both party factionalism and the risk of uninformed voters giving rise to popular demagoguery by placing the final selection of president in the hands of a disinterested elite.
It's true that Madison also argued in Federalist Paper 39 that the Electoral College allowed for combining the state-based electoral system of the Senate with the popular vote-based system of the House, but this was retrospective rather than initial intent.
Essentially, you've confused the Great Compromise with the rationale for the existence of the College. If it makes you feel better, it's a common enough error.
by Reverend Norv » Sat Jul 02, 2022 1:38 pm
Uiiop wrote:Big Jim P wrote:
It was created to give the STATES equal power, so that states with higher populations wouldn't dominate those with lower populations. I am rewriting nothing.The Archregimancy wrote:
This is incorrect.
The compromise brought about by disputes over the ability of larger states to outvote smaller states on the basis of population led to the Great Compromise of 1787, whereby each state was granted two senators regardless of population.
The intent of the Electoral College is clearly laid out in the Federalist Papers, notably Papers 10 and 68, whereby the College is supposed to protect the republic from both party factionalism and the risk of uninformed voters giving rise to popular demagoguery by placing the final selection of president in the hands of a disinterested elite.
It's true that Madison also argued in Federalist Paper 39 that the Electoral College allowed for combining the state-based electoral system of the Senate with the popular vote-based system of the House, but this was retrospective rather than initial intent.
Essentially, you've confused the Great Compromise with the rationale for the existence of the College. If it makes you feel better, it's a common enough error.
For really, I think that the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live as the greatest he. And therefore truly, Sir, I think it's clear that every man that is to live under a Government ought first by his own consent to put himself under that Government. And I do think that the poorest man in England is not at all bound in a strict sense to that Government that he hath not had a voice to put himself under.
Col. Thomas Rainsborough, Putney Debates, 1647
A God who let us prove His existence would be an idol.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
by The United Penguin Commonwealth » Sat Jul 02, 2022 1:48 pm
by The United Penguin Commonwealth » Sat Jul 02, 2022 1:50 pm
Big Jim P wrote:No. This is the United STATES of American. Cali and NY don't get to decide who is President.
by The United Penguin Commonwealth » Sat Jul 02, 2022 1:51 pm
by The United Penguin Commonwealth » Sat Jul 02, 2022 1:52 pm
New Democratic Republic of Russia wrote:Absolutely not. If the Electoral College was abolished and based on just straight popularity vote, then presidential elections would be decided by California, New York, and Washington, with the rest of the states rendered pointless. With the Electoral College, a presidential candidate has to win over most of the country, not just a couple of major population centers.
by Forsher » Sat Jul 02, 2022 1:52 pm
The United Penguin Commonwealth wrote:Big Jim P wrote:
It was created to give the STATES equal power, so that states with higher populations wouldn't dominate those with lower populations. I am rewriting nothing.
why should smaller states have a disproportionate amount of power? why should a wyoming citizen’s vote be worth so much more than a californian’s?
by San Lumen » Sat Jul 02, 2022 1:53 pm
The United Penguin Commonwealth wrote:New Democratic Republic of Russia wrote:Absolutely not. If the Electoral College was abolished and based on just straight popularity vote, then presidential elections would be decided by California, New York, and Washington, with the rest of the states rendered pointless. With the Electoral College, a presidential candidate has to win over most of the country, not just a couple of major population centers.
No, they have to vie for power of a few swing states. the actual size doesn’t really matter.
by Forsher » Sat Jul 02, 2022 1:54 pm
by Uiiop » Sat Jul 02, 2022 1:55 pm
The United Penguin Commonwealth wrote:Big Jim P wrote:
It was created to give the STATES equal power, so that states with higher populations wouldn't dominate those with lower populations. I am rewriting nothing.
why should smaller states have a disproportionate amount of power? why should a wyoming citizen’s vote be worth so much more than a californian’s?
by Reverend Norv » Sat Jul 02, 2022 1:55 pm
For really, I think that the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live as the greatest he. And therefore truly, Sir, I think it's clear that every man that is to live under a Government ought first by his own consent to put himself under that Government. And I do think that the poorest man in England is not at all bound in a strict sense to that Government that he hath not had a voice to put himself under.
Col. Thomas Rainsborough, Putney Debates, 1647
A God who let us prove His existence would be an idol.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
by Forsher » Sat Jul 02, 2022 2:08 pm
by Existential Cats » Sat Jul 02, 2022 2:20 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Bovad, Dazchan, Singaporen Empire, The Notorious Mad Jack
Advertisement