Can someone explain the electoral college.

[danadak]

I still fall on the "I dont need my vote massaged by the electoral college".

Classic dodgeball where the targets are blindfolded.....

 

[For The Popcorn]

If I think way back to junior high US history class (geez there's been a lot of history made since then!), the Electorial College system was created to protect against an ill-informd electorate across a vast young country. It certainly has failed to accomplish that!

 

[narkeleptk]

Look at representation, States each 2 Senators, so Montana gets 2, its population ~ 1 million, CA gets
2 senators, its population ~ 40 million. "Equal representation", galactic sized delusion.......

The reason for 2 senators is because of the deals made back in the day when the founding fathers first reformed our government trying to get the new constitution formed. Its really interesting to dig into what was going on back then, you will find its not that much different today honestly.

Basically, The larger states wanted representation based on capita, smaller states did not want to be dominated by larger states so neither would agree on the reform that was going on at the time.

In order to get enough states to ratify the constitution they all finally agreed on limiting the Senate to 2 per state like smaller states wanted and the House of Representatives would be based on population like the larger states wanted. This way both had some say in the direction of the country.

Personally, I think this is still a good idea today same as it was back then.

 

[be80be]

The fat lady hasn't sang we still have to see.

 

[ZipZapOuch]

Majority rule promised but not delivered.

Nobody EVER promised "Majority Rule" for the US Presidential elections (read the constitution).. The only people who thought that they were promised majority rule are those who
- didn't pay attention in high school civics class, or
- were easily convinced by Facebookers and TicTokers that a non-existent promise was broken or
- have some unexplainable need to feel cheated because their lack of success cannot possibly be their own fault.

 

[danadak]

Nobody EVER promised "Majority Rule" for the US Presidential elections (read the constitution).. The only people who thought that they were promised majority rule are those who
- didn't pay attention in high school civics class, or
- were easily convinced by Facebookers and TicTokers that a non-existent promise was broken or
- have some unexplainable need to feel cheated because their lack of success cannot possibly be their own fault.

I gather your aspirations are for dictatorships and the like, plenty of nations on the planet for you
to embrace.

The US, long before TicTack and Facebook, has achieved increasing control by the people. Many setbacks
but incrementally progress. Many successes, many failures, but always seeking Democratic principles.

Broad statements like "Nobody...", "lack of success", have the ring of empty omnipotence in oneself.

The X amendment seems to convey powers not defined in a limited Constitution, a simple doc describing
organizing principles, are the peoples daily bread and rights.

I for one hope the Constitution is modified to place ALL people, including the Orange Orang, under
US laws, no special treatment for self anointed emperor.

Lastly time to incorporate a weapons clause in it, that citizens indeed may have weapons, black powder
single shot Musket, and that to have one has to belong to a Militia and participate in Marching exercises
weekly. Lest we forget Red Felt uniforms should be order of the day.

 

[ZipZapOuch]

I gather your aspirations are for dictatorships and the like, plenty of nations on the planet for you
to embrace.

The US, long before TicTack and Facebook, has achieved increasing control by the people. Many setbacks
but incrementally progress. Many successes, many failures, but always seeking Democratic principles.

Broad statements like "Nobody...", "lack of success", have the ring of empty omnipotence in oneself.

The X amendment seems to convey powers not defined in a limited Constitution, a simple doc describing
organizing principles, are the peoples daily bread and rights.

I for one hope the Constitution is modified to place ALL people, including the Orange Orang, under
US laws, no special treatment for self anointed emperor.

Lastly time to incorporate a weapons clause in it, that citizens indeed may have weapons, black powder
single shot Musket, and that to have one has to belong to a Militia and participate in Marching exercises
weekly. Lest we forget Red Felt uniforms should be order of the day.

You completely misconstrued my comment. Read the constitution. The process for electing a president are well defined. The slight modification to "majority rules" is the prototype of what this country is built upon - compromise. Look back and you'll see that without the current electoral college format, the southern states wouldn't have joined the new country. The founding fathers, mostly from the north, ultimately agreed. It was important to them to have the resources, and size to make the new country successful. They designed a Republic, not a pure democracy. Nowhere in the constitution does the presidential election process promise "majority rule".

Think of me what you want, but name-calling is comical if you don't know my politics. For you to be offended by all three of my options of who wouldn't know that our constitution doesn't promise "majority rule" is quite large of you. Please don't project yourself into other categories simply to feel more offended. Just find yourself in the list.

One category I purposely omitted (because most here are older), but many of our younger citizens haven't even been taught simple high school civics to understand when the green

You are tight about tictok, that's why I listed it as a possibility of why someone may be ill informed of how our constitution works. If it doesn't apply to you, don't be offended and done pick that category. Likewise, if you did pay attention in high school civics class, don't pick that category.

Our servicemen and women swear to uphold the constitution (not the president) but so many don't even know the current constitution. How it is implemented and how it can be changed, and how interpretation of it can be manipulated (and who interprets and manipulates it).

 

[danadak]

You completely misconstrued my comment. Read the constitution. The process for electing a president are well defined. The slight modification to "majority rules" is the prototype of what this country is built upon - compromise. Look back and you'll see that without the current electoral college format, the southern states wouldn't have joined the new country. The founding fathers, mostly from the north, ultimately agreed. It was important to them to have the resources, and size to make the new country successful. They designed a Republic, not a pure democracy. Nowhere in the constitution does the presidential election process promise "majority rule".

And so we strive to correct the imperfections of the past.

Nowhere in the constitution does the presidential election process promise "majority rule".

Correct. But revised for obvious reasons. Clearly you and I interpret the Tenth Ammedment quite differently.
I think its very enabling to the expressed desire of the majority correction to a Consttitution that is so limited
in covering all possible situations.

The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, a part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791.[1] It expresses the principle of federalism, also known as states' rights, by stating that the federal government has only those powers delegated to it by the Constitution, and that all other powers not forbidden to the states by the Constitution are reserved to each state, or to the people.

Name calling, you mean this -

Broad statements like "Nobody...", "lack of success", have the ring of empty omnipotence in oneself.

I was just practicing your "Nobody...", "lack of success" to a broad audience as you have done.

if you don't know my politics

Yes I see I did misread your post, it clearly states majority rule, in the light of the historical evolution
you stated. I had thought you were advocating limited rights until I read the right and proper goal
the majority has expressed on multiple times in recent expression.......oh wait, I must have accidentally
erased the part where you follow the imperfect formation with the correction needed

Nobody EVER promised "Majority Rule" for the US Presidential elections (read the constitution).. The only people who thought that they were promised majority rule are those who
- didn't pay attention in high school civics class, or
- were easily convinced by Facebookers and TicTokers that a non-existent promise was broken or
- have some unexplainable need to feel cheated because their lack of success cannot possibly be their own fault.

How the Electoral College Was Nearly Abolished in 1970 | HISTORY

The House approved a constitutional amendment to dismantle the indirect voting system, but it was killed in the Senate by a filibuster.

www.history.com

Huh, looks like a lot of body's expressed, not "Nobody"

 

[ZipZapOuch]

And so we strive to correct the imperfections of the past.

It's not an imperfection, it was a negotiated agreement. You calling it an imperfection means all the states that wanted it consider it an imperfection from the other perspective. Negotiated solutions are usually good negotiated solutions of both sides are somewhat unhappy. This is one - for now (and the past 240+ years.

Name calling, you mean this -
I was just practicing your "Nobody...", "lack of success" to a broad audience as you have done.

I'm not name calling, I'm just pointing out a fact that some people, whether you or another, think they are somehow cheated when, in fact, their side (possibly "our side") negotiated the solution and no better deal was possible than settle on the electoral college concept. Just think how different our country would have been without those southern states joining our union. Think how important the northern states felt about keeping them in the Union that they lost so many people in the civil war. Just think how weak our military might be today if not for the disproportionate number of southerners in our armed forces today.

Yes I see I did misread your post, it clearly states majority rule, in the light of the historical evolution
you stated. I had thought you were advocating limited rights until I read the right and proper goal
the majority has expressed on multiple times in recent expression.......oh wait, I must have accidentally
erased the part where you follow the imperfect formation with the correction needed

I wouldn't mind the "correction" but what are you willing to give up in a negotiated change to the current situation to implement this in legislation? If you're not willing to give up anything, are you suggesting a less peaceful approach?

How the Electoral College Was Nearly Abolished in 1970 | HISTORY

The House approved a constitutional amendment to dismantle the indirect voting system, but it was killed in the Senate by a filibuster.

www.history.com

Huh, looks like a lot of body's expressed, not "Nobody"

A lot of people have proposed a lot of things but our constitution has not promised any other method than the electoral college for selecting a president. We swear an oath to the constitution as currently amended when we take a federal job or enter the military. We don't take an oath to our own aspirational versions of the document.

 

[danadak]

It's not an imperfection – Then it that case why not an electoral college for all activities ? If its perfect, which it is not. If a community, declares itself as a Democracy, and yields its will to undo majority rule without interpolation, then it’s a Democratic allusion. I choose not to have my vote manipulated, along with the majority in US that feels the same way.

Focus on the word Majority unless one chooses to be a minority.

Just think how different our country would have been without those southern states joining our union. Looking around the planet seems to me US only having ½ its geography would have been a blessing on many levels. Lots of desert, hurricanes, depleted oil wells spewing methane into atmosphere, and just plane silly to think we would have been irrelevant, unless we wanted that, near sighted. Quite a few nations seem to be doing fine on a lot less geography.

willing to give… I have been giving up my vote valuation for > 60 years, not enough I gather.

our constitution has not promised – It promises the Tenth Amendment, I choose to believe in that and follow that and took an oath to that. And still, my vote doesn't really matter, have the force it rightfully deserves.

 

[ZipZapOuch]

Then it that case why not an electoral college for all activities

Because nobody asked for it. Why are you offering negotiating strength to an advisory when they are not asking for it? Who taught you about negotiating power - or, who taught you about arguing logically?

 

[danadak]

Because nobody asked for it.

Again God like utterances. "Nobody", I always challenge a person speaking as if they have actual total knowledge.
So far I am 100% accurate on IDing those who profess to know for all.

 

[ZipZapOuch]

Again God like utterances. "Nobody", I always challenge a person speaking as if they have actual total knowledge.
So far I am 100% accurate on IDing those who profess to know for all.

And the difference between my version of lack is somehow worse than your version of "100%" completeness? So, include yourself.

 

[danadak]

Everyone I ID'ed, easily ID'ed because of their self reveal. My guess is I have ID'ed ~ .0000000000000001%

Your version of "I know it all" is just another self aggrandized easily identified.

You revealed, I recorded. Thats the difference.

 

[ZipZapOuch]

Everyone I ID'ed, easily ID'ed because of their self reveal. My guess is I have ID'ed ~ .0000000000000001%

Your version of "I know it all" is just another self aggrandized easily identified.

You revealed, I recorded. Thats the difference.

Ok, I guess your version of the constitution is the right one and you are able to point your finger at all of us who are willing to live by the way the constitution has been interpreted for the last 235 years. Ok, you're the smart one who has been cheated and smart enough to know it. So, the question becomes, are you just going to complain about it or get off of your couch and so something about it?

 

[danadak]

The Constitution is not a stone tablet, was never meant to be a stone tablet, its framers
recognized need for a mechanism for change. And so last 235 years its has been changed.

My version is a version of change and evolution. Correct compromises that no longer need
support. Like criminal presidents are not omnipotent would be a good measure for starters.
And a few more.....

As far as being the smart one I figure I am Joe average, smart enough to eat/sleep/work on a
regular basis, smart enough to know continuous learning is high priority, smart enough to know
there are boatloads of people more smart than me, smart enough to know absolutes are often
temporal when it comes to governance......

So, the question becomes, are you just going to complain about it or get off of your couch and so something about it?

Wow the old deflection routine. Active protestor on war, significant contributor to local
elections, written factual letters to editors in local Newspaper, driver/address label placer mailer....auctioned
off vacation property to fund candidates, read foreign affairs for ~ 20 years to educate myself ( I felt
I lacked ability to make informed decisions there), guessing I have read ~ 200+ books on history and
current affairs (cannot remember more than bits and pieces now), served for 6 years.....

How about you ?

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

OK, thread locked - these forums aren't for political discussions - moderator.