2024 vote could bring electoral college distortions to the forefront: The system empowers a sliver of the U.S. population in a diminishing number of battleground states.

[homersapien 11,373]

18 hours ago, arein0 said:

https://www.investopedia.com/us-debt-by-president-dollar-and-percentage-7371225

That data is fake. 

Good example of how MSM is constantly pushing a "narrative".

[homersapien 11,373]

On 12/20/2023 at 12:11 PM, Mikey said:

Real wages went up, inflation was low. What does it matter what Trump thinks?

 

Nothing. 

Economic policies always lag economic results by at least a couple of years.

Trump benefited immediately from Obama policies.

Biden suffered immediately from Trump policies - and the pandemic.

Now, thanks to the Fed and Biden's policies - which feature investments - the economy is undeniably improving, after avoiding a predicted recession.

Edited December 27, 2023 by homersapien

[autigeremt 6,618]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

Democracy itself can backfire.

But without majority rule, no actual democracy exists.

We’re a democratic republic. I know it’s hard for far leftists and far righties to accept  

[Leftfield 2,598]

54 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

We’re a democratic republic. I know it’s hard for far leftists and far righties to accept  

I don't see anyone failing to accept that, but at the root of it is "democracy," which by definition is majority rule. I know of no one here that wants a pure democracy, because we're all aware of the dangers, but it also makes no sense to have a society where a minority of people, in general governance, can hold sway over those that outnumber them. 

[AUFAN78 3,895]

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

So, to summarize your opinion:

You believe there is no such thing as quantifiable, objective indicator statistics of the economy quite independent of any given individual's opinion.  Further, anyone simply reporting these indicators are simply pushing their "narrative".

So, does that accurately reflect what you believe?

No, my opinion is perspectives from middle and lower class individuals differ greatly from MSM commentary with regards to the economy. What these individuals feel in their pockets doesn't jive with the narrative pushed by MSM. Capisce?

[homersapien 11,373]

8 hours ago, autigeremt said:

We’re a democratic republic. I know it’s hard for far leftists and far righties to accept  

Good grief.

How many times do you have to be reminded that a "Democratic Republic" is a democracy??? 

So, what I said. 

The actual problem is our archaic (undemocratic) electoral system. It has nothing to do with what we call ourselves.   After all, North Korea self-identifies as a Democratic People's Republic of Korea. 

That doesn't make it so.

[homersapien 11,373]

7 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

No, my opinion is perspectives from middle and lower class individuals differ greatly from MSM commentary with regards to the economy. What these individuals feel in their pockets doesn't jive with the narrative pushed by MSM. Capisce?

So, that sounds like a "no" to the following:

You believe there is no such thing as quantifiable, objective indicator statistics of the economy that are independent of any given person's opinion.

Correct?

Hint:  Assuming you understand the question, it requires only a "yes" or "no" answer.  Anything else is obfuscation and/or prevarication.

Edited December 28, 2023 by homersapien

[autigeremt 6,618]

11 hours ago, homersapien said:

Good grief.

How many times do you have to be reminded that a "Democratic Republic" is a democracy??? 

So, what I said. 

The actual problem is our archaic (undemocratic) electoral system. It has nothing to do with what we call ourselves.   After all, North Korea self-identifies as a Democratic People's Republic of Korea. 

That doesn't make it so.

How many times do you have to be reminded that our democracy is bound by the constitution which lays out the current model of which we elect a president? Bitch all you want but taking equity away from rural America to satisfy your liberal agenda is pathetic. 

[homersapien 11,373]

26 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

How many times do you have to be reminded that our democracy is bound by the constitution which lays out the current model of which we elect a president? Bitch all you want but taking equity away from rural America to satisfy your liberal agenda is pathetic. 

You act as if you are unaware that our constitution has been modified many times to correct undemocratic provisions. 

This is another one of those times.  As Leftfield said, majority rule is the foundational principle of democracy.

Your ignorance and/or willingness to maintain what is clearly an erosion of our democracy is pathetic. 

[homersapien 11,373]

1 hour ago, autigeremt said:

How many times do you have to be reminded that our democracy is bound by the constitution which lays out the current model of which we elect a president? Bitch all you want but taking equity away from rural America to satisfy your liberal agenda is pathetic. 

You act as if you are unaware that our constitution has been modified many times to correct undemocratic provisions. 

This is another one of those times.  As Leftfield said, majority rule is the foundational principle of democracy.

And your argument for maintaining the "equity" of rural Americans is no more persuasive than maintaining the "equity" of white people over black people by preventing the latter the ability to vote.

In short, it's your willingness to support undemocratic practices - presumably because you perceive personal advantage - that is "pathetic".

Our democracy is eroding and you celebrate it.

Edited December 28, 2023 by homersapien

[I_M4_AU 7,832]

1 hour ago, autigeremt said:

How many times do you have to be reminded that our democracy is bound by the constitution which lays out the current model of which we elect a president? Bitch all you want but taking equity away from rural America to satisfy your liberal agenda is pathetic. 

What a typical leftist wants when they can’t dominate the vote is to change the rules that have been in place for hundreds of years.  Heaven forbid they just play by the rules.

[SLAG-91 1,483]

Maybe we (the United States) will celebrate 250 years of independence in 2026 by having an amendment proposed and passed that will change how this is done.

Until then, we're all just yelling (typing) into the void. It can be cathartic to do so, I suppose.

The current method was a compromise between extremes, but I'm not optimistic that we've got enough legislative competence in place at the moment to craft an amendment that would be satisfactory. We've got an overabundance of carnival barkers, grifters and plain old dim bulbs slithering around D.C.

[AUFAN78 3,895]

16 hours ago, homersapien said:

So, that sounds like a "no" to the following:

You believe there is no such thing as quantifiable, objective indicator statistics of the economy that are independent of any given person's opinion.

Correct?

Hint:  Assuming you understand the question, it requires only a "yes" or "no" answer.  Anything else is obfuscation and/or prevarication.

What objective indicator satisfies the family whose wages remain stagnant yet their cost of good and services have increased by $300-$400 per month? 

[autigeremt 6,618]

18 hours ago, homersapien said:

You act as if you are unaware that our constitution has been modified many times to correct undemocratic provisions. 

This is another one of those times.  As Leftfield said, majority rule is the foundational principle of democracy.

And your argument for maintaining the "equity" of rural Americans is no more persuasive than maintaining the "equity" of white people over black people by preventing the latter the ability to vote.

In short, it's your willingness to support undemocratic practices - presumably because you perceive personal advantage - that is "pathetic".

Our democracy is eroding and you celebrate it.

And you lead the charge of destroying it. 

[Leftfield 2,598]

Those praising the "wisdom of the Founding Fathers" when it comes to the Electoral College might want to look a little closer at the history of it. The Electoral College did not come about because of a genius stroke of inspiration. It was created, as many things are, out of necessity - a compromise to get a system in place when nothing else could be agreed upon. It worked for the time, but there were many assumptions made that have not borne out (emphasis in red below is mine).

https://www.history.com/news/electoral-college-founding-fathers-constitutional-convention

 

Why Was the Electoral College Created?

The Founding Fathers had to compromise when it came to devising a system to elect the president.

BY: DAVE ROOS

UPDATED: DECEMBER 14, 2020 | ORIGINAL: JULY 15, 2019

Five times in history, presidential candidates have won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College. This has led some to question why Americans use this system to elect their presidents in the first place.

Among the many thorny questions debated by the delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention, one of the hardest to resolve was how to elect the president. The Founding Fathers debated for months, with some arguing that Congress should pick the president and others insistent on a democratic popular vote.

Their compromise is known as the Electoral College.

 

What Is the Electoral College?

The system calls for the creation, every four years, of a temporary group of electors equal to the total number of representatives in Congress. Technically, it is these electors, and not the American people, who vote for the president. In modern elections, the first candidate to get 270 of the 538 total electoral votes wins the White House.

The Electoral College was never intended to be the “perfect” system for picking the president, says George Edwards III, emeritus political science professor at Texas A&M University.

“It wasn’t like the Founders said, ‘Hey, what a great idea! This is the preferred way to select the chief executive, period,’” says Edwards. “They were tired, impatient, frustrated. They cobbled together this plan because they couldn’t agree on anything else.”

 

Electoral College: A System Born of Compromise

At the time of the Philadelphia convention, no other country in the world directly elected its chief executive, so the delegates were wading into uncharted territory. Further complicating the task was a deep-rooted distrust of executive power. After all, the fledgling nation had just fought its way out from under a tyrannical king and overreaching colonial governors. They didn’t want another despot on their hands.

One group of delegates felt strongly that Congress shouldn’t have anything to do with picking the president. Too much opportunity for chummy corruption between the executive and legislative branches.

Another camp was dead set against letting the people elect the president by a straight popular vote. First, they thought 18th-century voters lacked the resources to be fully informed about the candidates, especially in rural outposts. Second, they feared a headstrong “democratic mob” steering the country astray. And third, a populist president appealing directly to the people could command dangerous amounts of power.

Out of those drawn-out debates came a compromise based on the idea of electoral intermediaries. These intermediaries wouldn’t be picked by Congress or elected by the people. Instead, the states would each appoint independent “electors” who would cast the actual ballots for the presidency.

 

Slavery and the Three-Fifths Compromise

But determining exactly how many electors to assign to each state was another sticking point. Here the divide was between slave-owning and non-slave-owning states. It was the same issue that plagued the distribution of seats in the House of Representatives: should or shouldn’t the Founders include slaves in counting a state’s population?

In 1787, roughly 40 percent of people living in the Southern states were enslaved Black people, who couldn’t vote. James Madison from Virginia—where enslaved people accounted for 60 percent of the population—knew that either a direct presidential election, or one with electors divvied up according to free white residents only, wouldn’t fly in the South.

“The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States,” said Madison, “and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.”

The result was the controversial “three-fifths compromise,” in which three-fifths of the enslaved Black population would be counted toward allocating representatives and electors and calculating federal taxes. The compromise ensured that Southern states would ratify the Constitution and gave Virginia, home to more than 200,000 slaves, a quarter (12) of the total electoral votes required to win the presidency (46).

Did you know? For 32 of the United States’ first 36 years, a slave-holding Virginian occupied the White House (John Adams from Massachusetts was the exception).

Not only was the creation of the Electoral College in part a political workaround for the persistence of slavery in the United States, but almost none of the Founding Fathers’ assumptions about the electoral system proved true.

For starters, there were no political parties in 1787. The drafters of the Constitution assumed that electors would vote according to their individual discretion, not the dictates of a state or national party. Today, most electors are bound to vote for their party’s candidate.

And even more important, the Constitution says nothing about how the states should allot their electoral votes. The assumption was that each elector’s vote would be counted. But over time, all but two states (Maine and Nebraska) passed laws to give all of their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the state’s popular vote count. Any semblance of elector independence has been fully wiped out.

The Founders also assumed that most elections would ultimately be decided by neither the people nor the electors, but by the House of Representatives. According to the Constitution, if no single candidate wins a majority of the electoral votes, the decision goes to the House, where each state gets one vote.

After the unanimous election of George Washington as the nation’s first president, the Founders figured that consequent elections would feature tons of candidates who would divide up the electoral pie into tiny chunks, giving Congress a chance to pick the winner. But as soon as national political parties formed, the number of presidential candidates shrank. Only two U.S. elections have been decided by the House and the last one was in 1824.

 

Why We Still Use the Electoral College

So why does the Electoral College still exist, despite its contentious origins and awkward fit with modern politics? The party in power typically benefits from the existence of the Electoral College, says Edwards, and the minority party has little chance of changing the system because a constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds supermajority in Congress plus ratification by three-fourths of the states. 

Columnist George Will shudders to think of what would have happened in the 1960 election if there had been no Electoral College.

“John F. Kennedy’s popular vote margin over Richard M. Nixon was just 118,574,” writes Will. “If all 68,838,219 popular votes had been poured into a single national bucket, there would have been powerful incentives to challenge the results in many of the nation’s 170,000 precincts.”

[autigeremt 6,618]

"Another camp was dead set against letting the people elect the president by a straight popular vote. First, they thought 18th-century voters lacked the resources to be fully informed about the candidates, especially in rural outposts. Second, they feared a headstrong “democratic mob” steering the country astray. And third, a populist president appealing directly to the people could command dangerous amounts of power."

 

The problem isn't the system....it's the people in the system. 

Edited December 30, 2023 by autigeremt

[I_M4_AU 7,832]

5 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

The problem isn't the system....it's the people in the system. 

The wisdom of compromise is lost on the people who want change.  A lot of forethought in the words you copied.

[Leftfield 2,598]

1 hour ago, autigeremt said:

The problem isn't the system....it's the people in the system. 

Which is why there's no perfect system. People themselves aren't very different in the end analysis, but their situations and the circumstances that formed their opinions are.

[Leftfield 2,598]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

The wisdom of compromise is lost on the people who want change. 

Is it that? Or is the wisdom of adaptation lost on those who don't want it?

 

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

A lot of forethought in the words you copied.

The first concern, lack of information, is no longer an issue, and hasn't been for more than a century.

The concern about a populist is best exemplified by Trump, who by the way would not have won if we had a majority vote, so that does not seem to be a good case for your position.

As the article mentions, the Electoral College has its roots in slavery and the Three-Fifths compromise. As slavery no longer exists, that is another factor that has changed. 

It seems everyone here agrees that a two-party system is a detriment in most cases. The framers did not set up a government with only two major political parties in mind, and the Electoral College doesn't make sense for it. 

 

 

 

 

[homersapien 11,373]

On 12/28/2023 at 5:03 PM, AUFAN78 said:

What objective indicator satisfies the family whose wages remain stagnant yet their cost of good and services have increased by $300-$400 per month? 

We're talking about objective measurements of assessing the national economy.

The status of any particular family isn't relevant.  In fact, it's rather stupid to call out such an example as "proof" of how poorly the economy is doing.

For every such family there is another family that is doing just fine. Wages and employment are up compared to a the last few years.

You are just "thinking" like a typical MAGA - stupidly.  You folks have taken delusion to whole new levels.

[homersapien 11,373]

On 12/29/2023 at 6:37 AM, autigeremt said:

And you lead the charge of destroying it. 

No, not "destroying" - improving.  There are always reactionaries against such progress.  People who resisted women's suffrage or supported Slavery/Jim Crow.

Apparently, you're one.

[I_M4_AU 7,832]

34 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

The first concern, lack of information, is no longer an issue, and hasn't been for more than a century.

It not the lack of information that is the concern, it’s the lack of people to discern the truth that is available.  Some (or maybe most) are too lazy to dig down and find the truth.  The media is not trustworthy and with AI showing up it will be even more difficult.  So, the issue as I see it, is the government doesn’t trust the population to do their duty without being bombarded with special interest groups.  You know, group think.

38 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

The concern about a populist is best exemplified by Trump, who by the way would not have won if we had a majority vote, so that does not seem to be a good case for your position.

That is who I was thinking about too.  There are others, but there really is no need to get into that.  The point being the population is susceptible to the smooth talker.

41 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

As the article mentions, the Electoral College has its roots in slavery and the Three-Fifths compromise.

I love this; if all else fails make sure you tie it to slavery, a sure winner.  I as am sure you know, the 3/5th compromise was to limit the South’s representatives in Congress.   No more slavery and the 3/5th compromise disappeared.  So did the EC really because of slavery?  Only in lefty think.

46 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

The framers did not set up a government with only two major political parties in mind, and the Electoral College doesn't make sense for it. 

Yes, I agree that the framers did not set up the government with only two parties, but because of that the EC is even more necessary.  Remember the point of populist?  It is much easier to fool the people if there is only two choices.  More choices and the good will eventually rise to the top.

The bottom line is the political parties will try to manipulate the vote of the people to their way of thinking.  We don’t all think the same and with each election we see this happen.  The fractioning of the population is all about *ME* which is not what America is about, but that is what the left has promoted for years.  To protect Democracy the EC is essential.  The left will try to get around the EC at every turn.  Could you imagine if one party would keep certain people off the ballot just because they didn’t like them?

[Leftfield 2,598]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

It not the lack of information that is the concern, it’s the lack of people to discern the truth that is available.  Some (or maybe most) are too lazy to dig down and find the truth.  The media is not trustworthy and with AI showing up it will be even more difficult.  So, the issue as I see it, is the government doesn’t trust the population to do their duty without being bombarded with special interest groups.  You know, group think.

Not sure of your point here. Both sides can be lazy, or swayed by special interests and group think. It's clear you think the Republicans are superior in this regard, or I assume you wouldn't be making the argument, but I highly doubt you would feel this way if it were the opposite situation. 

The issues you list above are not dependent on the system we use. They will be an issue no matter what. All the argument depends on is your viewpoint. 

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

That is who I was thinking about too.  There are others, but there really is no need to get into that.  The point being the population is susceptible to the smooth talker.

Except that, as I pointed out, Trump lost the popular vote, so the smooth talker, while still duping a huge portion of the population, would not have won.

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

I love this; if all else fails make sure you tie it to slavery, a sure winner.  I as am sure you know, the 3/5th compromise was to limit the South’s representatives in Congress.   No more slavery and the 3/5th compromise disappeared.  So did the EC really because of slavery?  Only in lefty think.

Um, I didn't tie it to slavery, the article did. And if you read some of the writings from the time, so do some of those politicians (including the quote from Madison in the article). If you have no reasonable response to it, just ignore it and don't frame it as though I'm accusing you of supporting slavery.

I know what the Three-Fifths was for, but the fact is the south would not have supported election by majority vote because they would never have a candidate who would win. Therefore, slavery was a major reason the College came about. Your defensiveness on the issue does not make it "lefty" think.

 

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

Yes, I agree that the framers did not set up the government with only two parties, but because of that the EC is even more necessary.  Remember the point of populist?  It is much easier to fool the people if there is only two choices.  

Once again, the best example of a populist would not have won with a popular vote, so you keep invalidating your own point.

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

More choices and the good will eventually rise to the top.

Agreed, but in a polarized population, which it almost must be with only two parties, the College actually makes other candidates less likely to gain traction. Ross Perot got 19% of the popular vote, but didn't get a single electoral vote. How is another viable party supposed to emerge if their candidate has no chance of being elected?

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

The bottom line is the political parties will try to manipulate the vote of the people to their way of thinking.  We don’t all think the same and with each election we see this happen.  

Yes, but again this happens with both parties. You just happen to support the one that benefits from the EC.

 

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

The fractioning of the population is all about *ME* which is not what America is about, but that is what the left has promoted for years. 

The party that supports more welfare, equal opportunity, civil rights, etc. is the "ME" party. Makes perfect sense.

 

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

To protect Democracy the EC is essential. 

You have given no evidence for this. All you have argued is that it is currently detrimental to Democrats, who in your opinion are a threat to Democracy. 

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

The left will try to get around the EC at every turn. 

It's not just "the left." In polls even a majority of Republicans think we should move to a popular vote (Edit: I was incorrect on this. Pew Research shows support at 47%, so it's not quite a majority). And per the National Archives:

"Reference sources indicate that over the past 200 years more than 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject."

https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/history

....so this is not a new subject. 

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

 Could you imagine if one party would keep certain people off the ballot just because they didn’t like them?

Question the legality of the attempt all you want, but to boil it down to "because they didn't like them" is absurd.

Edited December 30, 2023 by Leftfield

[I_M4_AU 7,832]

2 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

It's clear you think the Republicans are superior in this regard

It should be clear that I believe the parties don’t trust the population to do the right thing.  I didn’t specify either party on this one.

4 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Um, I didn't tie it to slavery, the article

I was talking about the article.

10 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

If you have no reasonable response to it, just ignore it and don't frame it as though I'm accusing you of supporting slavery.

You are really having leaps of logic here.  I don’t think you accused me of supporting slavery, I’m basically saying the left likes to draw slavery into every discussion hoping the opposition stops in it’s tracks because on the implications.

16 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Therefore, slavery was a major reason the College came about. Your defensiveness on the issue does not make it "lefty" think.

I wonder why; when slavery was abolished, the EC wasn’t abolished?  There would not have been any opposition to it.  Interesting.  It must not have been as far fetched as the left thinks.

21 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Once again, the best example of a populist would not have won with a popular vote, so you keep invalidating your own point.

You’re assuming all of the people are fooled, I don’t believe that all could be over two election cycles if viable candidates are running.

25 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

How is another viable party supposed to emerge if their candidate has no chance of being elected?

A conundrum to be sure.  The people would have to get fed up with the present system and I think we are close this time around.  Neither front runner is acceptable, but somebody will have to lead.

 

28 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Yes, but again this happens with both parties. You just happen to support the one that benefits from the EC.

You don’t think it will eventually change?  With 10 million new voters that just invaded US shores with aliance to the present administration I can see your confidence it won’t.

33 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

The party that supports more welfare, equal opportunity, civil rights, etc. is the "ME" party. Makes perfect sense.

Another way to look at it is the party of DEI (a racist version of Marxism), believing a boy can be a girl and a girl can be a boy just because they think they can and force everyone to believe that and having an abortion is a God given right for a woman.

39 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

"Reference sources indicate that over the past 200 years more than 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject."

Then get it done.  What’s the hold up?

 

[Leftfield 2,598]

40 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I was talking about the article.

You are really having leaps of logic here.  I don’t think you accused me of supporting slavery, I’m basically saying the left likes to draw slavery into every discussion hoping the opposition stops in it’s tracks because on the implications.

The article was from The History Channel, not a left wing website. It was stating the facts of why the EC came about, not as an attack on Republicans, so if you didn't think I was using it for some purpose then I really don't understand why you brought it up. 

45 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I wonder why; when slavery was abolished, the EC wasn’t abolished?  There would not have been any opposition to it.  Interesting.  It must not have been as far fetched as the left thinks.

Where did I, or the article, say slavery was the only reason for it?

As you know, the system was a compromise in the first place. You also know it takes a 75% majority to change it, which is extremely difficult to reach in any case, much more so when there are effectively only two parties (as has been the case for a long time). And as was pointed out, there have been a huge number of proposals to change it, so it's not for lack of trying.

 

51 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

You don’t think it will eventually change?  With 10 million new voters that just invaded US shores with aliance to the present administration I can see your confidence it won’t.

It may change, but I didn't think the EC made sense even when I voted mostly Republican. It just wasn't an issue at the time because it was rare for the winner of the popular vote to lose the election. 

 

53 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Another way to look at it is the party of DEI (a racist version of Marxism), believing a boy can be a girl and a girl can be a boy just because they think they can and force everyone to believe that and having an abortion is a God given right for a woman.

This is simplified partisan hysterics, and it has nothing to do with the Electoral College other than to prove that you largely support it because of how you feel about the Democratic Party.