Electoral College
-
The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy. Its a rigged system!
Its time for a change.
-
How is it a rigged system?
I hope you aren't claiming it's "racist" like your fellow liberals.
The Electoral College is based exactly the same way the US House of Representatives is. The districts are the same.
Also, let's not forget that Dems have benefitted from the Electoral College.
In 1960, Nixon beat JFK by 58,000 votes in Alabama, but JFK won the state's electoral college votes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Alabama,_1960
Look at the box with the vote figures. Add up the votes, then compare it to the total votes. Do you see the problem? There are more Dem votes than all the votes cast in the entire state.
Nixon won 6/11th of the vote, while JFK and others only won 5/11ths of the vote. Nixon was robbed in Alabama, which resulted in being robbed of the Presidency in 1960.
-
Both of my statements are direct quotes from Donald J Trump. I guess you think he is full of hot air.
-
No more full of hot air than Dems.
I know you are thick, but being anti modern liberal doesn't necessarily equate to being a Trump supporter.
-
The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy. Its a rigged system!
Its time for a change.
I would argue it's not rigged but needs reform or removal as x2 in recent memory presidents have lost popular votes but won the electoral college. Such a system is bound to breed resentment and voter apathy.
-
The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy. Its a rigged system!
Its time for a change.
I would argue it's not rigged but needs reform or removal as x2 in recent memory presidents have lost popular votes but won the electoral college. Such a system is bound to breed resentment and voter apathy.
Agreed. People have been arguing against the electoral college system for decades. It’s bound to get some sort of revision, even if they don’t get rid of it completely.
-
It is more fun with the electoral college.
-
The Electoral College is there to help keep states like California from running roughshod over the rest of the states, especially the small ones.
I thought you leftists were all about equity and against equality. Stop flip-flopping.
As I've already shown, Alamaba Dixiecrats stole the Presidency from Nixon via the Electoral College. It was the most blatant case of voter fraud and it was the Dems who did it.
-
Without the animosity and conspiracy theorizing of Raphjd, I would still agree that the electoral college is not outdated but a vital part of how the United States works. We are a collection of states, with many and varied cultural, geographic, industrial, and population differences. the EC (and the senate which has similar non-population set-up) is specifically designed to force the president to get a large number of and variety of states, so they must learn about, speak to, and answer to the diversity that is the differing states. It also helps to balance out the power of the big against the small states, without which many of the small states would not have joined the USA in the first place. Big states can tip things too easily.
Yes, Hillary won the popular vote over the orange turd by 2mil. It is also true that she won California by 4mil, so the other 49 states together actually preferred him. If you were a Republican in Calf. in 2016, maybe you did not go to vote, as it was a lock that Hillary would win the state, and the only other statewide election was senator, between two democrats, no R to to be seen. We will never know if they would have been more motivated to vote if the overall popular vote actually mattered, but given the facts, it is wrong to assume the popular vote is an accurate tally of american's desires at the time. You play by the rules in operation at the time.
And if there are any Europeans who want to make fun, note that the EU has similar rules to help out the smaller countries. Representation in the EU parliament is not strictly by population. Smaller countries get more representation than their population percentage warrants, to offset the power of big countries like France and Germany somewhat. the electoral college is just a version of balancing out for the little guy, and you often find some variation of it whenever there is need to balance power of weak and strong.
-
Without the animosity and conspiracy theorizing of Raphjd,
Gotta love the personal attack right off the bat. Let guess, you're a liberal.
Kinda odd that even leftist Wikipedia has an article on the event you claim is a conspiracy theory.
My animosity comes from battling you lefties for the last few years.
Yes, Hillary won the popular vote over the orange turd by 2mil.
Ah YES, you're a lefty.
-
Without the animosity and conspiracy theorizing of Raphjd,
Gotta love the personal attack right off the bat. Let guess, you're a liberal.
Actually Raphjd, I am not: I am a libertarian-leaning republican. I did not vote for Trump or Hillary, but would have gladly voted for Rubio or Fiorina. in the end, I voted for Gary Johnson, even though I knew he would not win.
I have posted on several threads where I tend to take your side/agree with you, as I did on this thread. (I think I have posted so anyway. I know I often agree with you when I read your posts).
Yes, Hillary won the popular vote over the orange turd by 2mil.
Ah YES, you're a lefty.
Talk about missing the forest for the trees! That quote is a fact, it does not indicate any sort of political affiliation. But all the facts and argument after it, which you leave out, clearly show that I do not value the popular vote as a useful indicator, hardly a leftie position. I explained why the popular vote is not an accurate indicator, as there are structural reasons that disadvantaged the republican side. I just don't see the need to be all sneering and mean to the people you are trying to convince of their wrongness. Polite explanation I think works better, allows the rational facts to be seen true.
On the other hand, if you accuse me of being a leftie simply on the basis of my dig at Trump, then you are not a serious person capable of rational arguement. Dislike of Trump does not make one a lefty. -
some offtop:
I thought Rubio is a neoconservative.
How can a libertarian-leaning person prefer some neoconservative to Trump?
I think there should be a contradiction.Btw any rhetoric about rights/equality is liberal.
-
some offtop:
I thought Rubio is a neoconservative.
How can a libertarian-leaning person prefer some neoconservative to Trump?
I think there should be a contradiction.Well, the thread is about the electoral college, so I don't want to get too far off on a tangent, but I will give your questions a quick reply.
Neo-conservative essentially began as a term referring to former liberals who moved rightward due to foreign policy disagreements with the left/democrats. Over time they embraced or overlapped with other aspects as well, and as the left muddied "liberalism" and "progressivism" together, the term "classical liberalism" was often applied.
Libertarianism is an offshoot of classical liberalism = "a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties under the rule of law with an emphasis on economic freedom." (Wikipedia) Libertarians favor maximizing political freedom and individual autonomy, and share a skepticism of authority and state power.
Trump is a populous demagogue with no intellectually coherent philosophy or ideology beyond his own celebration of self. If I had to, the closest label I would apply to Trump is "paleoconservative." which has a strong nationalist and religious cast.
So, is Rubio a Neo-con? probably.
How can a Libertarian prefer Rubio to Trump? It depends on what aspects of Libertarianism are dominant in one's personal politics. Some Libertarians care most about reducing American intervention abroad. They would likely prefer Trump to Rubio. Others, like me, care most about individual rights and personal autonomy. So the bullying authoritarianism of Trump (and Hillary, and Progressivism in general) is a major turn-off.
Is there a contradiction? Not if you understand the terms being used in the first place.
Btw any rhetoric about rights/equality is liberal.
I agree, if you mean classically liberal. Unfortunately, the muddling of "liberal" and "left" makes the term less useful. You cannot use the history to justify the now though. Rights/equality may have started in liberal rhetoric, but the bossypants who tend to claim the term today don't care as much about individual rights; they prefer to tell you what to do, what to eat, and who is allowed to talk (or not). that is not liberal from my pov.
-
Without the animosity and conspiracy theorizing of Raphjd,
You still didn't respond to this part of my comment.
The animosity comes come liberals always screaming "racism" when saying we need to get rid of the Electoral College.
The so-called "conspiracy theory" has it's own page on leftist Wikipedia. Even Wikipedia treats it as fact. I learned about this back when I was in college.
-
Without the animosity and conspiracy theorizing of Raphjd,
You still didn't respond to this part of my comment.
The animosity comes come liberals always screaming "racism" when saying we need to get rid of the Electoral College.
The so-called "conspiracy theory" has it's own page on leftist Wikipedia. Even Wikipedia treats it as fact. I learned about this back when I was in college.
While I understand the origin of your animosity, I still think it is counter-productive to the goal of debate, and that you go on the attack before it is warranted. Note that you immediately started assuming things about me that were incorrect, and writing in a hostile manner. Maybe it is a question of style? Also, you described the comment as a "personal attack," which is not true. I would say that "animosity" is an accurate/impartial description of the tone in your posts, which you implicitly acknowledge when explaining its origin above. And my calling it a conspiracy theory is not an attack; at best a mis-characterization (see below).
I would note, that my comment was directed towards the people who were saying get rid of the EC. It was my way of saying 'here is me making an argument in a reasoned tone, so you cannot ignore it simply because of meaness.' I was trying to play good-cop to your bad-cop.
As to the other part; maybe I should not have have called it a conspiracy theory, but I think you are overdrawing a conclusion from the data. That same article says "the highest vote for a Republican elector was 237,981 for Cecil Durham, which was lower than the vote for any Democratic elector." It lists three methods of thinking about the numbers, only the third of which supports your contention that Nixon won. To me, the second method sound by far the most logical, which would mean Kennedy beat Nixon by some 80,000 votes. The EC votes were split appropriately between Kennedy and Byrd under the rules in force at the time.
Regardless…
Given the weird rules in play at the time, with voting up to 11 times to fill a slate, it is wrong, I think, to try and determine a "popular vote" with any certainty. The whole point of my defense of the EC (and I think you agree?) is that you use the rules in play, not try and figure out a way to spin the numbers so your side wins, like Democrats are doing now with the "senate popular vote," which is a completely made-up bullshit thing.If you want to argue that democrats stole the election from Nixon, you are better off going with voter fraud in Texas and Chicago, which does not reflect on the EC as much as it just shows that Democrats are fine with cheating to get the win.
-
Is there a contradiction?
Here is the contradiction.
You do not want the government to intervene in your business.
But you don't mind if the same government creates a mess at some other place.
Using your money by the way :).Neocons are damaging in different ways.
-
Is there a contradiction?
Here is the contradiction.
You do not want the government to intervene in your business.
But you don't mind if the same government creates a mess at some other place.
Using your money by the way :).Neocons are damaging in different ways.
Yes, I acknowledged that it depends on what aspects of Libertarianism are most important to someone, foreign policy or domestic policy.
Politics is always about trade-offs. You said there was a contradiction with Rubio that wouldn't be there for Trump. I say there would just be a different contradiction, as the government would interfere in my business more and less at some other place. Or with Hillary, government would interfere in my business a lot more, and also be messing with people in other places. The perfect candidate is rarely out there, and so you pick amongst your options. When it comes down to it, given the options, I am happy with the contradiction you describe.
-
The total number of votes cast in Alabama is lower than the number of votes assigned to candidates. That is a fact. Even if we ignore who benefitted from it, the fact remains that more votes were assigned to candidates then votes were cast.
It screams of Broward Co. in Florida with boxes of votes in rental car trunks at airports, an unknown black pickup transferring ballot boxes into official ballot trucks in the middle of nowhere, or sneaking off with ballots and counting them by yourself in another room.
It screams of illegally destroying contested ballots while before the courts like we saw from the same county in a previous election.
Voter fraud is rampant in Democrat districts.
-
The total number of votes cast in Alabama is lower than the number of votes assigned to candidates. That is a fact. Even if we ignore who benefitted from it, the fact remains that more votes were assigned to candidates then votes were cast.
are you saying there is something nefarious because (324,050 + 318,303 + 237,981) is bigger than 564,478?
I think you are misreading the article, intentionally or not I do not know. You cannot add the numbers like that, because voters could legally vote multiple times!
You (and the article) are trying to get some sort of meaningful information about a popular vote from an election that does not really allow us to think in those terms. JFK and Nixon were not on the ballot. 22 electors (11 D, 11 R) were on the ballot, some of whom were pledged to a candidate and some were not. Every voter in Alabama could vote UP TO 11 times, and split those votes among electors in whatever way they wanted to, as long as they only cast one vote per elector. So it is impossible to tell how many actual people voted in the election, as some could have voted 11 times, and some could have voted only once. Wikipedia does not tell us the numbers for each and every elector, only the highest total for each. It assumes that those numbers are exclusive, that no one would have voted for both a Nixon elector and a Kennedy elector. But that is an assumption only, not a fact. In principle, every single voter could have split their votes among the D and the R almost evenly. Unlikely, but possible. The fact is that we DO NOT KNOW THE TOTAL. The only thing we can say as a FACT about the total number of voters is that at least 324,050 voted in the election, the highest vote for an individual elector. Everything else is supposition and conjecture.
as to the 324,050 + 318,303, it is also an assumption that the 318,303 (highest Kennedy elector) also contributed to the 324,050 (highest unpledged elector). Again, NOONE KNOW FOR SURE. Maybe some did and some did not. Wikipedia is not adding them together that way because they are assuming the redundancy.
All we know for sure (meaning the only useful fact for determining electors) is that the highest vote total for a Republican elector was still lower than the lowest vote total for a Democrat elector. In other words, in a contest among the 22 people actually on the ballot, under the up to 11 votes rule in play, the top 11 elector vote totals were all Democrat. So those people won the right to be AL electors that year. That is the electoral college. that is the end of it. We can use the number of various votes and make all sorts of assumptions to try and tell some story about the mythical "popular vote" in AL, but that is all they are; stories, not facts.
I will say this; the Wikipedia article does a very bad job of explaining their numbers, totals, and assumptions. They should not have a column called "popular vote" at all, and certainly not put the numbers in like they did, because it is confusing, making it look like more votes to candidates than votes cast. the whole thing is bubkis, Raphjd. But it is not anything like the Florida shenanigans.
