Thank God for the Electoral College

clandestine · Nov 9, 2016

Boondock Saint said:
I am on the record as saying that the Electoral College is broken. With great respect to aray and those who agree with his argument, I find it harder and harder to defend a system whereby it's possible, though unlikely, to carry a majority of EC votes while having the support of just 22% of the electorate. I think it's very important that the chambers of Congress be split as they are (though this is significantly less meaningful thanks to the 17th Amendment), but the executive is beholden both to the states and to the citizens. An executive with the backing of less than a majority of voters (or a plurality in rare three way races) is necessarily weakened by the fact that more people voted against them than did for them.

I think the argument that politicians would only campaign in large cities is mostly without merit. Surely, the densest population centers provide the most bang for the whistle-stop campaigning buck, but we know two things to be true about large cities: 1) They are overwhelmingly full of Democrats (and thus already ceded territory, for the most part) and 2) the overwhelming majority of the population of the US is actually outside of the cities. The top 10 cities in the US by population account for roughly 25 million citizens, or about 8% of the population. A campaign that focused exclusively on even the top 50(!) cities by population would cater to only ~47 million. Everyone else (read: the overwhelming majority of the US) is in "fly over country."

I'm quite eager to hear a well-reasoned argument in support of the Electoral College. In the meantime, I'd ask that those of you who are curious either way take a look at these videos that I believe make a compelling argument for change:

The people who made those videos are fvckimg morons.

Idiotc arguments wont diminsh the Founders Genius.

pappa · Nov 9, 2016

True Heroes, Man of Great Courage, Course of Nation for Many Decades

First, at one time I thought EC was outdated, considering modern means to quickly gather data/votes. But cities are home to many who vote for party playing cards - freebies, racist, sexist, etc to garner certain groups "block" votes. Now, I thank God for the EC.
The exposing of a great lack of integrity, and treacherous natures of H.R. Clinton, Debra Wasserman Schultz, DNC, et al by hacked e-mails ,I think, AWOKE many sheeple to reality. I believe Assange and Snowden are true heroes, risking much to let us know the truth. These truths can enable us to become a greater nation in truth, not needing hordes of PR propagandists to make us look good. Others are at this moment in prison for exposing the establishment politicians betrayals of the American people. I hope one of the first acts of President Trump is to free these heroes, and exonerate others.
I consider Donald Trump as having the most true grit, the most guts, of any American. To take on the scurrilous lying media, rhinos, democrats, giant corporate money, and entrenched criminal elements in our government - ALL at one time . He is a man to respect. A man of great courage.
With a Republican H & S, and President the SCOTUS should return to sanity. Those who use their position on the Court to advance their personally held and obcessed with agendas will no longer be able to force their agendas on each of us. A Court more representative of the people of this great nation will improve our lives, and secure our freedoms, for the next 30 or 40 years.
I am so grateful that Trump will be at the helm. Pappa

aray · Nov 9, 2016

Pappa,

I'm with you on Trump. But Snowden is nothing more than a lying traitor who gave up over 1.5 MILLION highly classified intelligence documents to our country's sworn enemies. I've written about this extensively in other threads. I suggest you check those out when you have the time.

Jim12 · Nov 9, 2016

aray said:
All of the final votes are not in yet, but if appears that Hillary Clinton will likely win the popular vote, with President Elect Trump taking the Electoral College. Once again, the wisdom of the Founding Fathers has been demonstrated.

Many people don’t understand the purpose of the Electoral College. Most liberals but also many conservatives would like it to be eliminated, replacing it with a straight-up popular vote system. This would be a mistake and the Founding Fathers knew that to be true.

Our Founders had recently revolted against tyranny, against a too-powerful centralized government. They took many steps to ensure Separation of Powers was put in every place possible, to act as a bulwark against the return of tyranny. That’s why we have three separate branches of government (Executive, Legislative, and Judicial). That’s why we have both a House and a Senate in Congress.

And to that point, the House is to represent the legitimate interests of the population, the popular vote as it were. But the Senate is to represent the States, or the legitimate regional interests. Without the Senate, we could have a tyranny of the majority; with minority or regional interests completely overlooked. Each state gets the same number of Electoral College votes as they have representatives in Congress – the sum of the House and Senate seats, thus reflecting this same balance of power.

Without the Electoral College, candidates would campaign only in the big cities. The interests of NYC, LA, Chicago, and a few others would be all anyone ever cared about, because that would be the surest path to victory. Urban issues, the “free stuff" crowd, Big Government, etc. would be the order of the day. Do you like former NYC Mayor Bloomberg, who for a bit toyed with running for president himself? Well that’s the sort of candidates we’d see all the time if Big Cities and Big Government were able to run roughshod over the rest of us. “Fly over country" would be just that. Agricultural issues, hunting, fishing, shooting, the Bible Belt, etc. – all the things that matter to hard working family oriented good country folk – all would be ignored. No one would care about the concerns of Kansas, of West Virginia, of North and South Dakota, and about most of the country altogether!

Without the Electoral College, we’d be discussing President Elect Hillary Clinton today.

Without the Electoral College, Al Gore would have beaten George Bush.

Without the Electoral College and with the power of incumbency, it is very possible President Gore and President Hillary Clinton would get an easy path to reelection.

Without the Electoral College, we would arguably be looking at Democrats controlling the Presidency, and of course controlling who sits on the SCOTUS for 32 years, from 1993 to 2024 inclusive.

Without the Electoral College, I seriously doubt we’d ever again see a Republican elected President again.

And without the Electoral College, the author of the Heller and McDonald Supreme Court decisions, Justice Antony Scalia, would be replaced by President Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Five times in our nation’s history the Electoral College has given the presidency to someone who lost the popular vote. Four of the five times a Republican was the beneficiary, at the expense of the Democrat. The only time a Democrat made out was before the Republican party was even created, when two Democrats faced off against each other, and Andrew “Trail of Tears” Jackson (who founded the Democratic Party) lost to John Quincy Adams, with the election ultimately being decided by the House of Representatives via the 12th Amendment.

Is the Electoral College a perfect institution? Is any secular invention by man, or any form of government on this world perfect? Is the Constitution perfect? These are rhetorical questions of course. But we are blessed with arguably the best system of government on earth, and while always striving for improvements, I think we need to guard with caution throwing out a system that has worked well for generations, and tread lightly in substituting our wisdom for the great pioneers and thinkers who gave us this great legacy.

We are a Republic, a nation of Sovereign States, and not a pure democracy. This is by design. The Electoral College is functioning exactly as envisioned by our Founding Fathers.

I thank God for the Electoral College, and always will. I also thank God that I did not have to wake up this morning to Madame President Elect Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Agreed. Excellent post. Thanks for that.

There's a reason why the Left wants centralized power instead of what the Framers designed.

ComeGet · Nov 9, 2016

HokieKev said:
I was reading fivethirtyeight.com last night. Evidently, there is a pact between a number of states that if the popular vote is higher for a presendential candidate they will agree to instruct their electors to vote for that person. Not enough states have agreed yet - but they are trying to overturn this.

The founding fathers were very wise - but can you save stupid people from themselves?

It's this - http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

Up until recently I was dismissive of the EC. However, seeing how the urban areas are near-uniformly one party and ideology, with the bulk of the receivers of national largess being clustered there, I am now very thankful for it.

I doubt the Founders could have foreseen the exact situation we have today, but their formula certainly addresses it well. No system is going to be perfect. This one is pretty darn good, though.

HokieKev · Nov 10, 2016

ComeGet said:
It's this - http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

Up until recently I was dismissive of the EC. However, seeing how the urban areas are near-uniformly one party and ideology, with the bulk of the receivers of national largess being clustered there, I am now very thankful for it.

I doubt the Founders could have foreseen the exact situation we have today, but their formula certainly addresses it well. No system is going to be perfect. This one is pretty darn good, though.

From Nate Silver's blog...

Hillary Clinton could still conceivably win the election -- or she could lose the national popular vote. But since both outcomes look unlikely, we should start preparing ourselves for the possibility of the second split between the national popular vote and the electoral vote in the last five presidential elections.

A coalition of 11 sates with 165 electoral votes between them has agreed to an interstate compact that, once signed by states with a combined 270 or more electoral votes, would bind their electors to vote for the winner of the national popular vote -- in effect ending the Electoral College. New York just joined this week. It wasn't enough to affect this election, but maybe today's result will spur more states to join.

Flametamer · Nov 10, 2016

Excellent explanation of the electoral college, and the NPV initiative in these two short videos. The founders argued about this for a loooong time, and in the end got it right, effectively protecting us against the tyranny of the majority.

https://www.prageru.com/courses/political-science/do-you-understand-electoral-college

https://www.prageru.com/courses/political-science/popular-vote-vs-electoral-college

danb · Nov 10, 2016

One thing to note abut the "popular vote" is that we have no idea what the actual popular vote would have been without the electoral college. the EC creates an incentive to get-out-the-vote only in certain states. Not much point in TX or CA. CA actually has tens of millions of republicans, many don't turn out because whats the point?

Presidential campaigns only focus on certain states as a result.

No way to know what the popular vote really would have been without the incentives of the EC.

Redcobra · Nov 10, 2016

aray said:
All of the final votes are not in yet, but if appears that Hillary Clinton will likely win the popular vote, with President Elect Trump taking the Electoral College. Once again, the wisdom of the Founding Fathers has been demonstrated...........

This is great. Hope you don't mind if I quote you on a social media site.
Thanks

Z_Man · Nov 10, 2016

all of the get rid of the EC people don't realize that this is a union of 50 individual states. All of which are an EQUAL member. thus the senate. popular vote would F over the smaller states. the population of JUST chicago, NYC and LA is about 15 Million people. those three cities would then have more say than the combination of Nebraska, West Virginia, Idaho, Hawaii, Maine, New HAmpshire, Rhode Island, Montana, Deleware, South Dakota, Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming COMBINED.

each state is an equal member of the union, and that, combined with the relative population of each state, is how we get not only congress (the house and senate) but the Electoral college. whats the point of having states, states rights, and anything other than federal law if each state doesn't have a say in who the president is.

and if you want to add it up the 10 most populous cities (add houston, phily, phoenix, san antonio, san diego dallas and san jose) they have a combined pop of 25 million. that is more than 20 US states... 40% of the states.....

so campaigning, and policies would ONLY apply to and be catered to those in LARGE cities, and would completely **** the rest of america.

TheBert · Nov 10, 2016

Boondock Saint said:
I am on the record as saying that the Electoral College is broken. With great respect to aray and those who agree with his argument, I find it harder and harder to defend a system whereby it's possible, though unlikely, to carry a majority of EC votes while having the support of just 22% of the electorate. I think it's very important that the chambers of Congress be split as they are (though this is significantly less meaningful thanks to the 17th Amendment), but the executive is beholden both to the states and to the citizens. An executive with the backing of less than a majority of voters (or a plurality in rare three way races) is necessarily weakened by the fact that more people voted against them than did for them.

The 17th amendment broke the electoral college.

Melnic · Nov 10, 2016

I think that what some people are not thinking about is that if the election WAS by popular vote, then many of the opposing party members in a biased state would actually vote.
That is to say, more Repblicans would vote in Marlyland and California. More Democrats would vote in Kentucky such.
We don't know who would have won the popular vote in this election IF the popular vote would have decided the presidency. Why? because it didn't and many people know that and some did not vote. I know several who did not vote because they were in MD and I urged with failure to get them to vote, especially for the local elections.

dogbone · Nov 10, 2016

Electoral College Myths & Facts
http://www.taraross.com/2016/11/electoral-college-myths-facts/

Explains the brilliance of the Electoral College system in a fine fashion.

eruby · Nov 10, 2016

Kharn said:
Never forget Gore won the popular vote by 540,000.

alucard0822 · Nov 10, 2016

dogbone said:
Electoral College Myths & Facts
http://www.taraross.com/2016/11/electoral-college-myths-facts/

Explains the brilliance of the Electoral College system in a fine fashion.

good FAQ, love the baseball analogy, the winner is based on playoff games won, not total runs scored otherwise the winner would be the team that faced the easiest opponents, not the best team. It basically forces a candidate to appeal to a broader base than simply gaining the votes of 51% while trashing the other 49%.

aray · Nov 10, 2016

Redcobra said:
This is great. Hope you don't mind if I quote you on a social media site.
Thanks

Absolutely. We need to get the word out, and out beyond the confines of MD. The Electoral College is under dire threat, and the proponents of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) that would render the EC essentially null and void, without amending the Constitution I might add, are 61% of the way to their goal. They don't need all states to participate, only states with 270 EC votes to swing the election all by themselves. At that point, it doesn't matter what the other states do, because those NPVIC states' electoral votes alone will decide the outcome of the election.

Maryland under Martin O'Malley became the first state in the union to pass the NPVIC. MD was then joined by: New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii, Washington, Massachusetts, DC, Vermont, California, Rhode Island, and most recently New York.

Anyone see a pattern there? You are known by your friends, or in this case by our enemies...

(And to be clear to Boondock, I am NOT !!! calling you an enemy; I'm speaking of the liberals in the Big Government states that if the NPVIC passes will run roughshod over us all.)

pappa · Nov 10, 2016

aray said:
Pappa,

I'm with you on Trump. But Snowden is nothing more than a lying traitor who gave up over 1.5 MILLION highly classified intelligence documents to our country's sworn enemies. I've written about this extensively in other threads. I suggest you check those out when you have the time.

Thanks. I'll check out what you suggest soon as I can get to a computer (this Windows 7 cell is the pits to do much with). To be honest, I was thinking more of Trump's win - OUR WIN Actually, and must admit I am mostly familiar with Assange.
Wednesday morning greatly strengthed my faith in America's future. Pat

MDFF2008 · Nov 10, 2016

When I was younger I hated the electoral college.

It wasn't until I got into MD politics, and saw how destructive it can be when one part of a state controls the entire state, I realized how the EC helps prevent the same thing on a national level.

Mike · Nov 10, 2016

Sealion said:
Boondock, besides the coolest avatar on the forum, I've read your posts and agree with many of your thoughts, but I have to respectfully disagree with you here. My understanding of the college was to prevent the tyranny of the majority always voting against the minority. I think the Founders knew exactly what they were doing when they designed the Electoral College.

This post provides a much clearer argument than I could.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/16...ill-makes-sense-because-were-not-a-democracy/

(I'll have to wait to watch your videos until I'm in a place I can view.)

gprimr1 said:
When I was younger I hated the electoral college.

It wasn't until I got into MD politics, and saw how destructive it can be when one part of a state controls the entire state, I realized how the EC helps prevent the same thing on a national level.

Just as many others here have warned, the 'progressive lefties' play a long and cunning game.Those who seek to disarm us also seek to cement and consolidate power for themselves. Those same collectivists will do the the USA what they have already done to Maryland. The true America must stop them from gerrymandering the USA.

Kharn · Nov 10, 2016

When does that map go into effect? 2018?
Even Harris's seat would be D with that map.

Thank God for the Electoral College

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

AR-15 Savant

Member

Ultimate Member

Let Freedom Ring

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

dont be a dumbass

Senior Shooter

Ultimate Member

The Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Confederate Jew

For great Justice

Ultimate Member

Member

Ultimate Member

Propietario de casa, Toluca, México

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics