[Fact Bomb] Electoral College: Invented to Protect Slavery, Is Stupid, Is Broadly Opposed

Dude, you are hilarious. I like to have a good chuckle-troll myself, but I'm not sure if you're serious or trolling.

Yes, I am a Texan, born in Htown.

And it's evident you didn't read my post.

 

Ok, now I know you're having fun. Oh your avatar just scored 61 points again. Rox won. The Coogs won. So I'm basking in the glow and won't be driven to despair by fact-bombing CF posters.

 

https://reason.com/volokh/2019/03/22/the-electoral-college-is-just-ok

 

Republicans need every thing they can get to stay relevant at the national level.

Without the Electoral College, Voter ID laws, restricting registrations, voter roll purging, long lines in minority neighborhoods and limited hours - they would get crushed in elections. There only hope is to stop Dems from voting.

 

I am not arguing data or facts, but my gut tells me that isn't correct. I acknowledge I could be wrong, but I seem to remember the early news reports for the election in 2016 were indicating that the EC didn't favor Trump and that he would have to navigate a near impossible path to win.

Admittedly, that may have been a function of the polling at that time, but my takeaway was that the media was saying that the structurally it would be very difficult for a Republican to win.

I get that I may be wrong, but that is my recollection.

I have been somewhat amazed by all of the opinions saying the system favors the Republicans. I thought the assessment was completely differently in 2016.

Long way of saying, Trump may be a horrible candidate, but saying that the Republicans need some major changes to stay even relevant is starkly contradicted by all of the post re: changing the EC.

 

witty retort.... for 5th grade. Next you will tell me that you are rubber.

 

Report: Top Republicans Believe Trump Will Lose The Popular Vote But Win The Electoral College Again:

"The second reason this is terrible is that the country won’t forever tolerate handing power to a party that consistently loses the popular vote. Republicans can (and do) celebrate the virtues of the electoral college all they want; the fact remains that many Americans, whose grasp our constitutional scheme isn’t real firm to begin with, will eventually find it impossible to reconcile the idea of democracy with a scheme in which one party semi-routinely takes power despite finishing second in overall votes. That sort of outcome has been tolerated historically because it’s been flukey. After Bush 2000 and Trump 2016 it’s not as flukey, and now per Drucker we have Team Trump and the GOP increasingly comfortable with the idea that PV/EV splits are fine and sustainable outcomes. They aren’t. The left is already clamoring to end the electoral college because they fear this outcome again in 2020. If it happens and Trump wins another term with fewer votes than his opponent, abolishing the EC will become a core part of the Democratic platform (at least until the country starts trending redder again). There will be a confrontation of some sort over our constitutional model, inevitably."​

https://hotair.com/archives/2019/03...will-lose-popular-vote-win-electoral-college/

 

"Eliminating the Electoral College could lead to the elimination of the two-party system"

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/03/electoral-college-elimination-threatens-two-party-system/

 

"If we’re abolishing the Electoral College, let’s also have ranked-choice voting for president: It would maximize participation and broad-based appeal, and improve our democracy."

https://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2019/...lege-ranked-choice-voting-president-democracy

 

"In Defense of the Electoral College":

In Defense of the Electoral College
By THE EDITORS
March 20, 2019 6:30 AM

Senator Elizabeth Warren has joined a growing chorus within the Democratic party in calling for the abolition of the Electoral College. Speaking at a forum in Mississippi on Monday night, Warren said that she hoped to ensure that “every vote matters” and proposed that “the way we can make that happen is that we can have national voting, and that means get rid of the Electoral College.”

Warren’s lofty rhetoric notwithstanding, a large portion of the Democratic party’s present animosity toward the Electoral College is rooted in rank partisanship. Since they watched their supposed “blue wall” evaporate in the small hours of the 2016 presidential election, many Democrats have felt sufficient anger with the system to seek to remake it. This habit has by no means been limited to the Electoral College. Indeed, no sooner has the Democratic party lost control of an institution that it had assumed it would retain in perpetuity than that institution has been denounced as retrograde and unfair. In the past year alone, this impulse has led to calls for the abolition or reinvention of the Senate, the Supreme Court, and more.

Insofar as there does exist a serious argument against the Electoral College, it is increasingly indistinguishable from the broader argument against the role that the states play within the American constitutional order, and thus from the argument against federalism itself. President Reagan liked to remind Americans that, far from serving as regional administrative areas of the nation-state, the states are the essential building blocks of America’s political, legal, and civic life.

In our era of viciously divisive politics, the states are arguably more necessary than they have ever been. Critics of the Electoral College bristle at the insistence that it prevents New York and California from imposing their will on the rest of the country. But the Electoral College guarantees that candidates who seek the only nationally elected office in America must attempt to appeal to as broad a geographic constituency as possible — large states and small, populous and rural — rather than retreating to their preferred pockets and running up the score. The alternative to this arrangement is not less political contention or a reduction in anger; it is more of both.

In addition to protecting the political diversity for which the United States is famous, the Electoral College brings with it a number of practical advantages that are crucial to good government. Under the current system, the result of presidential elections tends to be clear almost immediately — there is no need, for example, to wait three weeks for California to process its ballots; it is nigh-on impossible for voters to return a tie or disputed outcome; and, because presidential elections are, in effect, fifty-one separate elections, accusations of voting fraud and abuse hold less purchase than they would if all franchisees were melted into a single, homogenous blob. The freak occurrence that was Bush v. Gore is often raised as an objection against the status quo. Less attention is paid to the obvious question: What if that recount had been national?

Impressively, Elizabeth Warren’s plan for straight abolition is not the worst reform being touted at the moment. Impatient at the lack of progress that the #Resistance has made in pulling the wiring out of America’s constitutional engine, a handful of states have adopted the “National Popular Vote” plan, which binds their electors to cast their ballots for the candidate who wins a majority of votes nationwide. Until enough states have signed on to tip the balance past 270 — and, indeed, until the inevitable litigation has been concluded — adoption of the NPV will remain purely symbolic. Should it be put into action, however, it would achieve the remarkable feat of removing all of the benefits that the Electoral College provides while preventing the electors of each state from voting for the presidential candidate whom a majority in that state had picked. Who knew that the outsourcing craze would extend to democracy?

The U.S. Constitution is a complex document that, as Whitman might have put it, contains multitudes. At once, it boasts guarantees of democracy and protections against it; hosts an outline for national action, and a blueprint for localism; and serves as a vehicle for the majority, while including guarantees that the most significant decisions must be broadly agreed upon. The Electoral College is one of the many finely tuned institutions within the charter that have ensured stability and continuity in America for more than two centuries. To destroy it in a hail of platitudes, civic ignorance, and old-fashioned political pique would be a disastrous mistake.​

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/03/electoral-college-states-role-political-diversity/

 

The United States is being held back big time by the historic first, but outdated Constitution. There is no reason to have a few rural low population states controlling the fates of the clear majority of city dwellers. In a relatively short time 2/3 of Americans will live in cities and yet the 1/3 will control the Senate, hence the S.Ct and often the Presidency which will be won with less than a majority support.

I know the the oligarchs, Bobbie, Legend and the gang only want to win, but what an abomination if you believe in democracy and progress.

 

Awaiting Major to defend the status quo.

 

The dems need to change the rules to win because they know they can't win this time around. They are preparing and trying their luck. Trump is projected for a landslide, and pending major changes, they are going to get hit with a freight train this time. They wouldn't be wasting so much energy with the electoral college if they weren't...afraid.

The truth is, the EC lets our STATES have a say. Without it, smaller states really would become vassal states to major urban centers. Also, we are forgetting that we live in states and that states are governments. We need to realize that the Federal level is not the end all be all of our government and that the federal government is not the only thing that matters in politics. Our states are important. A state is essentially a country in and of itself if you think about, however without sovereignty in our case.

Anyway, Dems need to be careful about being "relevant" because they are so disconnected from reality that is it pushing former members away. I used to hold membership in that party until they gave up on the working class in favor of non-Americans. And you argue that the Republicans need voter ID laws? Hell yes, because Dems are resorting to cheating to sway elections you tool. That is why people should have to cough up an ID. Are minorities incapable of getting an ID? Are they so stupid that they can't handle that? Or lazy? To contend that an ID law is wrong, and in your case probably because they are racist, is itself racist.

Their only hope is NOT to stop Dems from voting. There only hope is to stop the Dems from cheating and flipping the game board like the angry little brother who cheated at monopoly and still lost.

 

Democrats are fickle.
Like a feather in the wind,
they change in voice and in thought,
always a lovely,
pretty face,
in tears or in laughter, they are untrue.

 

Only cheating in elections to date has been by Republicans. And Voter ID laws don't do anything = it's well documented there is no fraud. You are believing the lies and propaganda of glenn beck and trump.

Why do you need to make people pay money to get an ID? because you know they are poor and have to take a 2 hour trip to the one office with limited hours that they have to take off from work. The stories of even old women not being able to vote because of the challenges put in place. This is how Republicans can win - through dirty tricks to give them the advantage. It's disgusting and you should be ashamed of your dirty right-wing party.

 

That was a result of the different states and values. So Clinton assuming she was going to win PA, MI, and WI - it would be impossible for Trump to win an electoral victory. That's different that what Dems complain about regarding the popular vote not lining up with the electoral college.

Personally, my issue isn't with the EC, it's with the efforts to restrict citizens from voting when we should be doing everything to get more citizens to vote. The idea that getting less people to vote is good for democracy is very short-sighted and self-serving.

 

You are the only liar here man. Common, ID is not some impossible task. Dems can arrange bus rides for that too, since they bus loads of people to polls and protests.

 

Why are you against democrats voting?