Clinton will win the popular vote

[homersapien 11,380]

12 hours ago, AURaptor said:

You're .. challenged. I get that. I really do. No need for further demonstrations on your part. 

But lemmie explain for you in easy to read  words. 

Slavery - already existed in the COLONIES , before the revolution. And not just here, but in other places too.  ( Existed for 1000's of year, and still exists today in Africa ) 

That doesn't change the fact the founders were wrong by writing slavery into the constitution. The fact we fought a civil war over the issue of slavery less than 100 years later proves that. 

Quote

Woman's Rights - non existent in the 1700's  

Treatment of the American Indians.  Yeah, got way worse AFTER the country was founded. No one is denying that.  But for the love of god, those have ZERO to do w/ the Electoral College, ( Yo, thanks Hamilton ) and creating the 

US Constitution 

Yes, the world in which the Founders lived ? ( Not of their creation )  Was much different than what we have today. And THANKS TO THEM, we have a Constitution which was truly revolutionary , at the time and is a great testament to how forward thinking were those ( * yes, White ) men who  gave rise to a nation. 

 

* I say this just to piss you and others off, because I know it bugs the hell out of you.    Get over it ! 

Yeah, but women's rights could have been granted in the constitution had the founders wanted it.  Once again, they were wrong not to do so, certainly judged by the standards of modern times which is why is was eventually corrected as we became more enlightened as a people.  

Likewise, the electoral college may have made sense at the time, but  just like women's suffrage it no longer makes sense in modern times so it should be changed.

Bottom line, the argument that the electoral college should be maintained simply because the founders were 'wise beyond our comprehension" is a specious one.  It cannot be defended rationally or logically.

There have been many significant changes to the constitution as the country has evolved.  There is no logical reason why it should be retained because the founders thought it a good idea for their time.

I am not "challenged" to see this.  You are small-minded to suggest so.

[AURaptor 1,125]

 Had the constitution not been written as it was, there would not have been  a constitution. It may have directly led to a collapse of the states under the new government, and England might very well have taking back her colonies. 

 You are insisting on interjecting 21st-century social values on those who are living in the 1700s. I think they had enough on their plate as it is, without trying to cram everything down the throats of the people, those which they knew better than you do, at one time. 

 I have posted, and  it's been written ad nauesum as to why the electoral college was placed in the constitution. Your refusal to even learn the basics of how your own government works, as well as why, shows the real " small mind" 

[homersapien 11,380]

22 hours ago, AURaptor said:

Huh? 

He's speaking hypothetically.  The topic is, after all, hypothetical. 

[homersapien 11,380]

3 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

I hardly think a state that went 62-33 for Clinton and hasn't gone for a Republican since the 1980s represents a "broader spectrum of thought and interests" than anyone else.  Perhaps if it was split up into 8 states and they weren't gerrymandered to make sure that each section retained a Democratic majority we could talk.  But that isn't happening.  The conservative areas of the state don't get much say because the coast dominates everything.

At least within the old Confederacy there's some movement.  Florida, Virginia and North Carolina are battleground states and all have gone for Democrats in recent elections.  Georgia was only a 6 point win for Republicans.  Even Texas was closer (9 points).  Democrats at least have a chance of peeling off anywhere from 13-57 EVs in the Old South.  They may never lose California's 55 EVs again.  That's a monolithic block guaranteed for Dems.

 

And I'll counter with New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland.  Three fewer states, the exact same number of EVs and a 4.3 million vote advantage for Hillary.  Also states that "grossly distort" vote totals using your logic.

This is not an argument that works for ditching the EC.

 

As can be a popular vote.  In fact, it makes it even easier.  The amount of widespread manipulation that has to be coordinated across 51 separate elections vs just manipulating a few popular votes here and there makes pulling that off much harder under the EC.  

 

And yet that has not been a widespread problem.  After all these years we still only have Nebraska and Maine splitting up their EVs.  Should it actually become a problem, we can address the standardization issue.  But the idea that the EC is somehow far more susceptible to manipulation than a popular vote doesn't hold water.  

Titan, there is no logical argument than would place an objectively higher value on one group of people than the other.  It is completely subjective.  Your very first sentence reveals that.

You are making an argument that one class of people - let's call them liberal, free-thinking, city dwellers - is by definition, less politically worthy than the other - let's call them people who are very conservative and live in rural areas. 

But the "definition" exists only in your own mind. It is subjective, not objective.

One could just as easily say that the more highly educated, liberal, free-thinkers should be more representative than the other.  The former are better suited to inform our leadership in a rapidly changing world.

Certainly, there is no logical rationale for discounting their political representation compared to the rural group. 

[TitanTiger 20,484]

6 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Titan, there is no logical argument than would place an objectively higher value on one group of people than the other.  It is completely subjective.  Your very first sentence reveals that.

You are making an argument that one class of people - let's call them liberal, free-thinking, city dwellers - is by definition, less politically worthy than the other - let's call them people who are very conservative and live in rural areas. 

But the "definition" exists only in your own mind. It is subjective, not objective.

One could just as easily say that the more highly educated, liberal, free-thinkers should be more representative than the other.  The former are better suited to inform our leadership in a rapidly changing world.

Certainly, there is no logical rationale for discounting their political representation compared to the rural group. 

There's nothing I can say that's going to convince you otherwise.  I simply believe that the likelihood and danger of domination by a geographically concentrated group in major media markets is far more real than any domination by a geographically widespread area of people largely overlooked by major media.  There isn't a perfect system, but I think given the options available, what we have is the best one.

[homersapien 11,380]

On 11/28/2016 at 0:07 PM, AURaptor said:

 Had the constitution not been written as it was, there would not have been  a constitution. It may have directly led to a collapse of the states under the new government, and England might very well have taking back her colonies. 

 You are insisting on interjecting 21st-century social values on those who are living in the 1700s. I think they had enough on their plate as it is, without trying to cram everything down the throats of the people, those which they knew better than you do, at one time. 

 I have posted, and  it's been written ad nauesum as to why the electoral college was placed in the constitution. Your refusal to even learn the basics of how your own government works, as well as why, shows the real " small mind" 

First paragraph is true but irrelevant.  I understand why they wrote the constitution the way they did. What I am saying is that that was then and this is now.  We should not simply accept the standards of the 1700's based on the notion the founder's intention were sacrosanct as they were "wise beyond our comprehension". 

I am not insisting on interjecting 21st century values on those living in the 1700's.  (That would be rather pointless since it is the past.)  What I am suggesting is we should not be bound by the values and mores of the 1700's.  It's now the 21st century.  Many elements of the constitution have been changed since it was written in order to reflect changing values.  There is nothing about the electoral college that dictates it shouldn't be changed or eliminated. 

And this has nothing to do with how or why the electoral college was placed in the constitution in the first place. It has everything to do with questioning why it belongs there now.  

 

[homersapien 11,380]

4 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

There's nothing I can say that's going to convince you otherwise.  I simply believe that the likelihood and danger of domination by a geographically concentrated group in major media markets is far more real than any domination by a geographically widespread area of people largely overlooked by major media.  There isn't a perfect system, but I think given the options available, what we have is the best one.

Key words highlighted.

Whereas, I believe the greater danger is providing less educated and uninformed people more political power than more highly educated and informed people.  It's bad for the country.

Need I say more than "AGW is a hoax perpetuated by the Chinese"?

There's a reason California has always led the country in responding to issues such as environmental degradation (for example). 

[TitanTiger 20,484]

Fine.  As I said, repeating what we've already said isn't changing anyone's mind.

[TheBlueVue 177]

15 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

"There isn't a perfect system"

Well, lets be honest, perfection is an ideal that doesn't actually exist as it relates to government but, given the historical context and evolution of thought prevalent among men seeking freedom and the avoidance of tyranny it IS perfect. The fact we live in a Constitutional Republic of 50 states where ALL states have input into electing the President effectively eliminates undue influence that heavy population centers could exert. Among other things it was designed to eliminate mob rule and it does that quite effectively. That democrats don't like it doesn't diminish it at all. If they don't like it all they have to do is change the Constitution but, until then, whining about wining the popular vote doesn't matter because its not how one wins the Presidency in this republic, sorry!

[homersapien 11,380]

2 hours ago, TheBlueVue said:

Well, lets be honest, perfection is an ideal that doesn't actually exist as it relates to government but, given the historical context and evolution of thought prevalent among men seeking freedom and the avoidance of tyranny it IS perfect. The fact we live in a Constitutional Republic of 50 states where ALL states have input into electing the President effectively eliminates undue influence that heavy population centers could exert. Among other things it was designed to eliminate mob rule and it does that quite effectively. That democrats don't like it doesn't diminish it at all. If they don't like it all they have to do is change the Constitution but, until then, whining about wining the popular vote doesn't matter because its not how one wins the Presidency in this republic, sorry!

Yeah, mob rule by the majority of the electorate.  

Who are these electors?  Are they more educated and better informed than you?  

How were they chosen?  (Hint: they are all political  partisans.)

The idea that members of the electoral are preventing mob rule by the rest of us is a ludicrous, much less outmoded and obsolete position.

[japantiger 4,051]

On 11/27/2016 at 9:46 AM, RunInRed said:

Hypothetical: Would you guys be OK with California succeeding from the Union?

Hell yes...what do they need us to do to help them pursue their utopian dream?  The states willingly agreed to enter into the union, I see no issue with a state no longer content to remain in the union getting out of the union...it should be up to the people of that state...also, I will be willing to help build the border wall between the remaining 47 contiguous United States and the Peoples Republic of Kalifornia so that they may feel free to practice/or not, their  preferred religion, pursue their multitude of sexual identities/or not, protect themselves from global cooling...I mean  warming, sorry, I mean climate change, starve themselves of water and power in the pursuit of the afforementioned/or not, pursue borderless immigration policies/or not and and in general regulate themselves into Epicureanism .... Viva le Kalifornia!

[RunInRed 16,417]

2 hours ago, japantiger said:

Hell yes...what do they need us to do to help them pursue their utopian dream?  The states willingly agreed to enter into the union, I see no issue with a state no longer content to remain in the union getting out of the union...it should be up to the people of that state...also, I will be willing to help build the border wall between the remaining 47 contiguous United States and the Peoples Republic of Kalifornia so that they may feel free to practice/or not, their  preferred religion, pursue their multitude of sexual identities/or not, protect themselves from global cooling...I mean  warming, sorry, I mean climate change, starve themselves of water and power in the pursuit of the afforementioned/or not, pursue borderless immigration policies/or not and and in general regulate themselves into Epicureanism .... Viva le Kalifornia!

What about New York? Chicago? And just about every major metropolitan area in the country?

[homersapien 11,380]

Hmmmm, maybe Blue is right.  Maybe we do need the electoral college to protect us from "mob rule":

 

http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/11/29/13771920/electoral-college-faithless-electors-independent-trump

Make the Electoral College great again: let “conscientious electors” do their jobs

There has been a tremendous amount of attention in recent days on the Electoral College, whose members will meet in all 50 states to choose the next president on December 19. There are large-scale movements afoot, such as a Change.org petition, with 4.5 million people encouraging electors to vote for Hillary Clinton, the popular-vote winner, and another arguing that electors should select a “compromise candidate.” There are also organizations, such as the Hamilton Electors, encouraging electors to act independently of so-called “faithless elector” laws, and at least one lawsuit that argues such laws are unconstitutional. (It’s on appeal to the 9th Circuit.)

Given these developments, it’s time we think about how the Electoral College should really work. First, let’s retire the nomenclature of “faithless electors” once and for all. Let’s call electors who refuse to rubber-stamp the popular vote conscientious electors, and let’s give them the resources and the protection to investigate and deliberate — in short, to do their jobs.

Constitutional history makes clear that the founders had three main purposes in designing the Electoral College.

The first was to stop a demagogue from becoming president. At the Constitutional Convention, arguing in support of the Electoral College, Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts said he was “against a popular election” for president because the people would be “misled by a few designing men.” In Federalist No. 68, Alexander Hamilton wrote that the electors would prevent those with “Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity” from becoming president. They would also stop anyone who would “convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements.” 

 

Stopping foreign interference in elections was a primary goal of the founders

The second goal was to stop foreign interference in election. In the founding period, the framers were extremely concerned about infiltration by rivals including Great Britain. In Federalist No. 68, Hamilton wrote that one major purpose of the Electoral College was to stop the “desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.” He said that the college would “Guard against all danger of this sort … with the most provident and judicious attention” from the electors.

The third goal was to prevent poor administration of government. This is a less well-known purpose of the Electoral College, but it is again expressly discussed in Federalist No. 68. Hamilton wrote that “the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration,” and for that reason, he said, the electors should be “able to estimate the share which the executive in every government must necessarily have in its good or ill administration.”

This election has three aspects that have brought the Electoral College back to relevance.

First, Donald Trump is the first unquestioned demagogue to become a major-party nominee in our country’s history. On his quest to the general election, he stoked prejudices and passions to flout fundamental constitutional norms, such as our freedoms of the press, religion, and peaceful assembly. Second, there’s incontrovertible evidence that Russia interfered in the campaign, by hacking the email accounts of top Democratic officials and cooperating with WikiLeaks’ parallel campaign to undermine Hillary Clinton campaign. Meanwhile, Trump has business entanglements in Russia and other foreign countries, the extent to which are unknown because Trump has not released his tax returns.

And third, his opponent, Hillary Clinton, is on track to win the popular vote now by over 2 million votes — over four times Al Gore’s narrow margin over George W. Bush in 2000 — a factor electors ought to be able to weigh, whether or not they think it is conclusive.

All of these factors lead us directly to a renascent Electoral College

The Electoral College was designed precisely for such extraordinary instances. As Jeffrey Tulis, Sanford Levinson, and Jeremi Suri (respectively professors of political science, law, and history) recently argued in the New York Daily News, “Our Founding Fathers created what we now call the Electoral College to protect our country against the precise danger we now face: a demagogue who has manipulated and bullied voters, exploited fears and now threatens the very foundation of our republic.”

Reforms made to the Electoral College over the years shouldn’t override the founders’ intent

It’s true that since the Electoral College was included in the Constitution, several important developments have come to pass. First was the passage of the 12th Amendment to the Constitution in 1804, which separated the election of the president from that of the vice president, and created mechanisms to break stalemates in the voting. (This amendment partly grew out of recognition of the fact that parties rather than the Electoral College would perform the role of nominating candidates.) Second was the passage in 29 states of laws attempting to prevent electors from becoming those so-called “faithless” electors by binding them to vote for the popular vote winner.

However, even these patchwork developments can’t change the core duty of all electors under the founders’ design: to serve as a fail-safe on Hamilton’s principle that “[n]othing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption.”

There’s plenty of precedent for such conscientious electors. In fact, there have been 157 in our history. In 1808, for instance, James Madison was running for president on the Democratic-Republican ticket. Madison was under attack for his support of a controversial embargo, which the sitting vice president, George Clinton of New York, opposed. Tellingly, although Clinton was Madison’s running mate on the Democratic-Republican ticket, he saw himself as a viable president in the Electoral College. Six of the 19 Democratic-Republican electors from New York, all originally pledged to Madison, agreed. Those six voted for Clinton for president instead.

In 1836, Martin Van Buren was running for president as a Democrat, with Richard Mentor Johnson of Kentucky as his vice president. In that instance, there was a scandal involving Johnson and a slave mistress, leading Virginia’s 23 electors to abstain from voting for Johnson entirely. That put Johnson below the required majority in the Electoral College and kicked his election to the House of Representatives (where he was elected).

In 1976, Gerald Ford was running for president as a Republican against President Jimmy Carter. The state of Washington voted for Ford, but a Republican elector named Mike Padden voted instead for Ronald Reagan for president. He cited an elector’s constitutional right to use discretion, which meant, for him, voting for Reagan because of his position against abortion.

Are state laws that “bind” electors to the popular vote constitutional?

The US Supreme Court ruled in Ray v. Blair (1952) that states could require pledges of electors. However, the states that do have such binding laws currently enforce them only through fines or, in rare instances, criminal penalties that would be enforced after the fact. The real issue is whether a state could force an elector to comply with the popular vote. Harvard Law professor Lawrence Tribe has opined that they probably could not.

Meantime, Michael Glennon argues in his 1992 book No Majority Rules: The Electoral College and Presidential Succession that the federal legal question is “at bottom a policy-oriented inquiry” that will likely invoke what courts call the “political question doctrine” — in other words, we’re in largely uncharted waters, where courts will weigh a range of variables in making decisions rather than apply strict legal doctrine.

In the absence of clear federal rulings, state supreme court decisions suggest that state binding laws are unenforceable. For instance, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that when the legislature attempts to “dictate to the electors the choice which they must make for president and vice-president, it has invaded the field set apart to the electors by the Constitution of the United States, and such action cannot stand." And the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that "It is only by force of a moral obligation, not a legal one, that the presidential electors pledged to certain candidacies fulfill their pledges after election."

These court decisions perfectly square with the founders’ intent. Hamilton said the electors should “enter upon the task free from any sinister bias.” That’s why no senator, representative, or “any other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States” was eligible. Independent electors would be “most likely to possess the information and discernment” to stop a demagogue. They would be chosen solely for the purpose of participating in the college.

Most crucially, the electors would be “acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”

The founders went to great lengths to ensure that the electors would be protected from manipulation. Hamilton wrote that the electors’ “transient existence, and their detached situation” should prevent them from being “tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes.” They would “possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.”

They meet in their own states in part to insulate them from national pressure

The electors meet in their respective states rather than in a single place, to prevent any demagogue from manipulating the electors en masse. Hamilton wrote that such an arrangement would “expose them much less to heats and ferments” than if they were “all to be convened at one time, in one place.” Their diffusion would mean it would no longer be “easy” to capture the electors, “dispersed as they would be over thirteen states.” It would prevent “The business of corruption” because “when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means.”

We can figure out what all this should look like, in 2016, by turning to other examples of people legally empowered in our country with the ability to investigate and deliberate — for example, duly elected and appointed officials, judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys, grand juries, Congressional committees, and special masters.

For instance, prior to December 19, electors should be able to request, under court order, documents and other materials from all relevant entities to inform constitutional inquiries such as whether foreign powers have interfered in our councils — for instance, by requesting to inspect Donald Trump’s tax returns.

On December 19, they should be given the resources and support by relevant state agencies to fully deliberate on the issues before them. Their meetings should be run under Robert’s Rules of Order and be open to citizens and to the media. If they are unable to conclude their deliberations on December 19, they should be able to deliberate as long as they reasonably need to make their choice.

Finally, with the track record of threats by Trump’s supporters toward anyone who questions his authority, the electors must be protected by local, state, and federal authorities from treatment that violates the law or prevents them from doing their job.

Trump supporters would no doubt argue that any conscientious elector who refused to act like an automaton and instead deliberated would be a “liberal.” But this is mistaken. There’s no more conservative principle in our country than fidelity to the Constitution as originally designed.

Modern-day conservatives favor so-called “originalist” understandings of the Constitution. They look to history and to the original texts of our founding documents for guidance. Recent decades have seen the invocation of original constitutional institutions to address present concerns, such as when the Rehnquist Court struck down Congressional laws such as the Violence Against Women Act and the Gun-Free School Zones Act on the grounds that they violated an originalist understanding of the Commerce Clause.

Whether or not you agree with such decisions, they establish the broad-spectrum appeal of our constitutional institutions — particularly in times of crisis. “Make America great again” is a clever marketing slogan. But our real greatness depends on employing our institutions and values to protect our republic from those who might prey on us.

Michael Signer is an attorney, the mayor of Charlottesville, Virginia, and a lecturer at the University of Virginia. He is the author of Demagogue: The Fight to Save Democracy from Its Worst Enemies and Becoming Madison: The Extraordinary Origins of the Least Likely Founding Father. He endorsed and supported Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election.

[AURaptor 1,125]

The more they whine, the more they reveal just how little they comprehend the purpose of the Electoral College. 

[TexasTiger 12,912]

40 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

The more they whine, the more they reveal just how little they comprehend the purpose of the Electoral College. 

The purpose was to avoid guys like Trump. Fail! Sad!

[homersapien 11,380]

3 hours ago, AURaptor said:

The more they whine, the more they reveal just how little they comprehend the purpose of the Electoral College. 

Thanks for such a "studied" response. 

Did you even read the piece I just posted?  It suggests just the opposite. They are advocating an "original" approach to the election regarding the electoral college.

[TitanTiger 20,484]

[TheBlueVue 177]

On ‎11‎/‎28‎/‎2016 at 3:17 PM, homersapien said:

Yeah, mob rule by the majority of the electorate.  

Who are these electors?  Are they more educated and better informed than you?  

How were they chosen?  (Hint: they are all political  partisans.)

The idea that members of the electoral are preventing mob rule by the rest of us is a ludicrous, much less outmoded and obsolete position.

Yep mob rule is precisely what they feared the most. In their time, they were quite aware of the undue influence that Philadelphia, New York and Boston could exert and they were all in on preventing that. After all, there were 13 colonies the most of which would have had their voice muted entirely had they not come up with  the Electoral College. Its also important to keep in mind that it doesn't replace the popular vote but to win a nominee has to win the popular vote in enough states to win 270 electoral votes. Its genius in every sense as it relates to giving a voice to every state.

I love that it gives you so much heartburn, homie, I really do because the bottom line is..it aint going anywhere until you and those who oppose it are successful at amending the Constitution and I wish you the best of luck getting over that hump.

[homersapien 11,380]

19 minutes ago, TheBlueVue said:

Yep mob rule is precisely what they feared the most. In their time, they were quite aware of the undue influence that Philadelphia, New York and Boston could exert and they were all in on preventing that. After all, there were 13 colonies the most of which would have had their voice muted entirely had they not come up with  the Electoral College. Its also important to keep in mind that it doesn't replace the popular vote but to win a nominee has to win the popular vote in enough states to win 270 electoral votes. Its genius in every sense as it relates to giving a voice to every state.

I love that it gives you so much heartburn, homie, I really do because the bottom line is..it aint going anywhere until you and those who oppose it are successful at amending the Constitution and I wish you the best of luck getting over that hump.

No need to amend the Constitution. Let's follow it as originally intended.

I take it you didn't read the piece I posted did you?

Too long for your attention span?

[TheBlueVue 177]

15 minutes ago, homersapien said:

No need to amend the Constitution. Let's follow it as originally intended.

I take it you didn't read the piece I posted did you?

Too long for your attention span?

Who decides how it was "originally intended"? It was not put in place to prevent a demagogue from getting elected..it was put in place to prevent heavy population centers from controlling all the political power.

Heres some interesting facts:

There are 3,141 counties in the United States.
Trump won 3,084 of them.
Clinton won 57. 

When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.

Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc) don’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of our country.

http://www.allenbwest.com/michele/numbers-shut-liberals-electoral-college

 

 

[homersapien 11,380]

35 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

First - as you undoubtedly realize - this is irrelevant to the topic being discussed.

But to your point, how well did that work out for the Democrats?

[TitanTiger 20,484]

15 minutes ago, homersapien said:

First - as you undoubtedly realize - this is irrelevant to the topic being discussed.

But to your point, how well did that work out for the Democrats?

First, no it isn't.  You cannot sell me on sincerity of your "one person, one vote" pleas when your party doesn't even let voters do that to choose their candidate for the general election.

To my point, not so good.  But then again, the result of the popular vote wasn't exactly much better than a lump of coal for Christmas either.

[homersapien 11,380]

43 minutes ago, TheBlueVue said:

Who decides how it was "originally intended"? It was not put in place to prevent a demagogue from getting elected..it was put in place to prevent heavy population centers from controlling all the political power.

Heres some interesting facts:

There are 3,141 counties in the United States.
Trump won 3,084 of them.
Clinton won 57. 

When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.

Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc) don’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of our country.

http://www.allenbwest.com/michele/numbers-shut-liberals-electoral-college

 

 

First, you have been consistently proclaiming we should retain the electoral college based on what the founders intended.  The point of the article I just presented is based on that very notion.

Secondly, the second point in your first paragraph is just flat out wrong.

Your assertion that high density population areas should be less politically relevant in elections than sparsely settled rural areas in a national election has no objective basis and no basis in the constitution . Furthermore, there is no logic or rational to that position other than your personal opinion. 

The founders allowed for the states to be "normalized" in their influence to mostly prevent legislation that might be against their interests by providing for each state to have two senators, regardless of population.  

There is no need - nor is there any constitutional justification -  for the electoral process to further weight the outcome of national elections in order to protect minority rights.  

The point of my article (that you apparently still haven't read) is that the electoral college was meant to diminish the effect of the uneducated and ill-informed, but we are not using it that way today.  So it should be redesigned to work the way the founders intended (at the least) or eliminated all together as being no longer relevant.

And fwiw - which is very little since I know you won't believe me -  I am speaking in principle.  This has nothing to do with my political position.  It works the same for both parties.

I will acknowledge the reason it is getting so much attention now is the outcome of this particular election.  That's obvious.  Had Trump won the popular vote by over 2 million, we wouldn't be talking about this at all.  It would be one of those latent problems that aren't causing any trouble - at least until another election like this one occurs.

But that doesn't mean it's not a problem.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Sorry, but you arguments are falling on deaf ears over here. Its not about relevance its about political power and you simply cannot see even after posting that Hillary ONLY won 57 counties out of 3141 nationwide that it accomplishes precisely what it was designed to accomplish.

[homersapien 11,380]

26 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

First, no it isn't.  You cannot sell me on sincerity of your "one person, one vote" pleas when your party doesn't even let voters do that to choose their candidate for the general election.

To my point, not so good.  But then again, the result of the popular vote wasn't exactly much better than a lump of coal for Christmas either.

It's not my party.  I am not a member and have no say-so in how they run their primary. My "sincerity" has nothing to do with the Democratic party nor Hillary Clinton, nor Donald Trump for that matter.

I personally believe the electoral college is a vestigial system that is no longer relevant.

So you can accept my word for that or not.  There's nothing I can do to force you to believe me, even though your word has always been good enough for me.