ClimateSanity
New member
If you truly understood this, you would not have these electors swayed by a dishonest media and by undue pressure from political hacks. That isn't at all what was meant by this paper.
Discounting CA and NY, Clinton lost the popular vote
- Thread starter musterion
- Start date
If you truly understood this, you would not have these electors swayed by a dishonest media and by undue pressure from political hacks. That isn't at all what was meant by this paper.
Well said Quincy, I agree in sense but, again the framers were right to have designed the system the way they did, it assured that mob rule popular voting would not allow factions in certain regions, or that had money power & influence to deny the votes of those in outlying areas who may not be as well connected or affluent. I do believe that allowing an elector to go rogue poisons the entire system and no, I did not agree with the electors that withheld their votes for Clinton, she won the electors fair & square and should have been awarded them. Your assessment of our current president, the way he has chose to govern, and this overblown Russia meme are spot on. The election is over and it wasn't Russia, Comey, or wikileaks that cost her the election, she was just an incredibly horrible candidate with no message but, status quo...she couldn't sell it even with a horrible candidate like Trump running against her.
Even if it would have went to the house the constitution says they have to pick from the people with the most electoral votes after the EC votes, so again Trump or Clinton? Although it does say they can vote for one of the three that secured the most electoral votes in the general election, because maybe there is a third or fourth candidate that ran, which was the case in one of the two elections decided this way. The entire notion that they could pick an arbitrary candidate like say Kasich is not only unconstitutional Violation of the 12th amendment but, would render even more division, no? I say let Trump put his best foot forward, you never know he may be successful in his endeavor to turn the country around despite the fact he is just as a divisive person as Obama is, just from a different side of the aisle. Below is a summation of the rules of a contingent election or an election decided by the house.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingent_election
The popular vote is not mob rule.
They miss a lot of things.
If you don't think the electors should have any independent decision making ability then why even have them? Why not cut out the middle-men and just immediately declare the President-Elect based on the popular vote of each state? Would you get rid of the electors completely?
Right Divider
Body part
That's because Hamilton preferred a big central government run by the elite.
"Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice, without constraint."
~Alexander Hamilton
Liberals tend not to understand these sort of things- Hamilton was a great supporter of the Electoral College, to reach out to the slave states where all the liberals were. But now that they've gone to the cities, they want it gone :chuckle:
They just want it both ways, is all. Typical liberalism.
~Alexander Hamilton
Liberals tend not to understand these sort of things- Hamilton was a great supporter of the Electoral College, to reach out to the slave states where all the liberals were. But now that they've gone to the cities, they want it gone :chuckle:
They just want it both ways, is all. Typical liberalism.
Right Divider
Body part
You mean like the Saudi connection with the democratic candidate?
Right Divider
Body part
:french:
Exhibit A:
Here we see upstanding citizens of the UK going window shopping, and they are doing it pretty nonchalantly, as if it's just another day in ole' Britain.
And indeed it is just another day, because UK liberals have sabotaged every moral value with mob rule. You can damn near be called a bigot for having an issue with this picture.
The Founding Fathers founded the Electoral College for the very simple fact that popular vote alone sucks. It brings on every type of change except for what common interest demands.
So says you, a person that wants mob rule over the rule of law, and I could not disagree with you more.
If popular vote is mob rule then is the EC like a watered down mob rule by 50 mobs? :idunno:
Unlike liberals, just because I may not agree with the reasoning of not having electors be proxies for the majority vote does not mean I want the constitution altered or changed. I believe the system works just as it was designed to keep largely populated states or regions with simple majorities from dominating states with a much smaller population from the tyranny that comes from mob rule.
Which is what the electors should be doing, representing the vote of the people, IMO anyway.
I would say no, I believe the system works exactly how it was designed even if I don't agree or fully understand why the framers gave electors the ability to wander from the candidates being offered but, that is our system and the framers saw an option when the electors were not able to come to the 270 majority needed with a contingent election in the house of representatives.
How do you figure? Explain yourself.
Even in this scenario Trump won 30 states to 20 states, no?
ok thanks for clarifying.
How are you defining "mob"?
If you consider national popular vote to be mob rule then why wouldn't the EC be 50 mobs? 50 mobs pick a candidate and then the candidate with the most EC votes, which are distributed based on population, becomes President. There is a buffer, but mobs are still underlying it.
I didn't mean that this election result would change, I was simply wondering if you would cut the electors out since you don't think they should have any freedom anyway.
It is obvious that constitutionally they do have that freedom, and if they cannot come to a 270 majority for one candidate or another there is another vehicle as I pointed out. My thoughts are personal ones KMO that electors should be bound to the candidate that was voted for in that given state but, I am not bemoaning the way it was set up because the system works and has worked for over 200 years, even in more heated elections than this one.
So says the principle of one person, one vote. It makes no sense, in a single election, to structure it such that different votes have different weights because of falling on one side of an imaginary line or another.
Without the independent discretion of the electoral, the only sensible rationale for the system is abolished. The notion that more dispersed people were ever meant by the Founders to serve as a check on city dwellers is ludicrous.
But one thing I am certain of is that if the EC had given us Barack Obama instead of Trump, you wouldn't be such a connoisseur of our Founders' obscure and quirky political innovations. Motivated reasoning is your specialty, and since you want Trump, I know you'd find a way to justify it.
Well, I'll tell you this. I disapprove of the EC on principle of the fact that it's undemocratic, and I support democratic rule, and want the American system to be more democratic. But even if he had won the popular vote by a mile, I would oppose Donald Trump, despite all that, on the larger principle that he is dangerous, to some more than others, but to each and every person on Earth. I will resist him however I can find the way.