Just because the person that won the popular vote doesn't win the election doesn't mean it is a broken system. You are showing a fundamental misunderstanding of what the goal of the electoral college system is.....and probably only due to you being upset about not getting your way. No one cares about who wins the overall popular vote. It's completely and totally irrelevant and it should be. Basically your argument is that Hillary running up the score in California should be more important than what the entire rest of the country thought. The electoral college system was put in place specifically to prevent that kind of thing from happening, and it did it's job well. It's not a broken system, it worked perfectly, you just don't like that you didn't get your way. Simple as that.
How can I be a hypocrite when I have not said anything? I am just pointing out how you only want the rules to be applied when you like them. I have never advocated going against the rules. You are really being a childish.
Don't tie yourself up in knots trying to convince those either too self-interested to acknowledge or too dense to understand the obvious flaws of the EC. They have no leg to stand on here, so they dodge, create strawmen, etc. It's plain as day to the impartial.
I know that you are a little bit slow, but I truly don't believe that you are THIS slow.....so work with me here kid. You are advocating for the winner of the election to lose the election by having the electors he won vote for someone else. Technically that is allowed, but it would cause a constitutional crisis. The ONLY reason you are advocating for that is because you are upset that you didn't get your way and if things were reversed, you'd be HIGHLY upset if a candidate you supported had an election stolen from them that they won. That makes you a hypocrite. Anyway, it's pointless to even talk about this because it's not going to happen, it's just more people on the left whining because they are losers. It's no less annoying than if the situation was reversed and it was losers on the right whining and making asses of themselves. Try to be better.
It's funny that you say that because I'm one of the few here that is actually impartial about this. I didn't support either candidate.....yet it seems only die hard Hillary supporters are the one's whining about the system.....I wonder why that is? Surely it has to do with being impartial right?
Like I said, the fact that YOU disagree with me just proves how right I am. There's a reason that you're considered a complete joke across this BBS.
And I'll take this drooling nonsense as a concession from you. Thanks for trying kiddo. Head back to school and try again next time!
The electoral college was created in antebellum America when the Union was considered as a superstructure that conjoined sovereign states. It makes sense that way that states pick the president, with some weighting given the size of those states. Since then, we had a big increase in federalism, where the federal government has become primary over the states. So, all the video arguments aside, I think how you go on the Electoral College should depend on your answer to the question: Is the state the fundamental building block on the United States, or is the federal government the primary and the states just a subdivision. If the state is still the basic building block, keep some version of the Electoral College. If the state as the basic building block is a relic of the past, and we want to go forward as a federal government first with the state subservient, then do away with the Electoral College and do a popular vote. I still see the state as the basic building block. Republicans seem to go that way also, given the emphasis on states' rights. I can see the argument for changing it, but I think there's a lot of stuff in the Constitution that would need to be rewritten, not just the part about electing a president. For the most part though, I don't even see people having the right conversation. It's a states' rights conversation.
A very good post, and yeah, of those who aren't just upset about not getting their way who still disagree with the electoral college, I think you nailed the reasoning. If you view states as essentially insignificant, then I guess I could see why you'd think a national popular vote would matter. However, if you view things the way the constitution views things, the electoral college makes perfect sense and functions exactly as it was always intended to function.
You can still believe in states' rights but not believe that the electoral college is the right system, if nothing else electoral votes should be proportionate to the popular vote in each state. The fact that the electoral college means that only a handful of states decide the outcome of each presidential election is the opposite of states' rights, it gives power to only certain states.
A very good perception. You nailed it with the mix of states rights vs federalism. The Constitution was of course built on States Rights, but Federalism has creeped so far in that its truly hard to tell where it begins and where it stops. We can not do a popular vote and still maintain states rights. I know many fail to grasp this, but some states are too powerful and some are too weak to allow a popular vote. For any type of political mandates given by a candidate, its going to require the state to assist. Weaker states will always get beat up. Their is no reason for a party to pander to states with the least populations.
Michigan's citizens elected to move their vote date forward because they felt their initial vote date left them in a position of un-importance and that their concerns were not beng acknowledged. The DNC, instead of listening to voter feedback, threw a temper tantrum and said they can't do that and their votes don't count. The DNC literally stripped citizens of their vote because the citizens wanted to vote on a day that other states already get to vote on.... The DNC really set the example for democracy huh? lmao Party of superdelagtes /liblogic But I suppose you can expect draconian dictatorship policies from a party who is currently praising Castro
Republicans: Sure, you can run on our ticket, even if you're Trump Democrats: No thanks, we already selected Hillary.
No I am only pointing out that your logic says the electoral college is the way it works. I agree with you. The electoral college as our founding fathers set it up, are the ones who decide who gets to be president. They can vote for whomever they want - this was set-up by design - by the constitution. Am I advocating they do so? No. I am only pointing out they have that right, and apparently since you support the electoral college you must support their right to vote whom they want to, right? Otherwise, it's hypocritical for you to say the popular vote doesn't matter but only electoral votes matter...when really you are saying - electoral votes matter, but they must vote according to the popular vote in their state. That's a bit of a contradiction and I am pointing it out. I am sorry that you can't have a genuine argument and instead of addressing your own logical fallacy you would rather go on personal attacks. Too bad. Shows how small a man you are. Or boy.
For being a stickler for "the rules", you're really burying yourself deeper by complaining about National DNC rules having the power and authority to strip Florida and Michigan of their delegates as punishment for moving its date before Super Tuesday. All states made that agreement, and complaining about it is like you championing a team like the Cubs breaking MLB rules as a "step against dictatorships." None of the Dem candidates campaigned in Michigan. Obama, Biden, and Edwards followed the will of the National DNC and removed their names from the ballot. Only Clinton and Kucinich left their names on their ballot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Democratic_primary,_2008 Why so angry bro? Is your boss not a white man? Don't let them make you the cuck the media says you are. Breitbart will make you great again.
The Senate gives States their rights and smaller states equal representation. The EC should be abolished, it should be one vote per citizen...period. DD
For all of those strict-reading, state-rights-loving constitutionalists I introduce your Vice President Elect
And if the queen had nuts, she'd be the king. But that's not the case, and all i hear is a bunch of grown men whining and crying about a broken system that nobody complained about until it didn't suit their needs.
"State rights" is truly a loaded political term. Conservatives over the last 50+ years have used "state rights" as a dog whistle for racism. Politicians like George Wallace and Ronald Reagan used "state rights" as an argument against segregation. The argument is that states should be able to run themselves except in some very limited cases where the federal government usurps. The argument generalizes into the more local the law the better. The raw truth of the "state rights" argument is that when conservatives can not win on an issue at the federal level they want to be able to win at the state level. I actually have some sympathy for this. But the conservatives appear to be really interested in winning where they can. Take for instance the bath room bill in North Carolina. The city of Charlotte pass a bath room bill (as well as a minimum wage bill) for their city. The state's response was to introduce and pass a bill (NC House Bill 2) within the same day, that forced Charlotte to comply with the state wishes on bath room and minmum wage rules. Conservative dogma implies that the state should let Charlotte be Charlotte. The raw truth here is that when the conservatives can not win at the city level they win at the state level. WRT the Electoral College "state rights" argument, conservative are just saying whatever is politically expedient. I have very little doubt that if the Republicans had lost 2 of the last 5 Presidential elections, where the popular vote got overturned by the Electoral College vote, they would be up in arms about getting rid of the Electoral College.
