Electoral College"

What is the Electoral College?

The Electoral College is a process, not a place. The Founding Fathers established it in the Constitution, in part, as a compromise between the election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens.

You can read endlessly about this topic but it all comes down to this first question and answer.

The first consideration when considering the popular vote was how to get around it
It also states the election was based upon a Congressional vote and the popular vote. That's backwards but it exists.


footnote "qualified citizens"
that's almost democracy

Who or what could possibly outlast a person wealthy enough
to push the legal system to it's limits?

It's the legal system and it's not going anywhere

Not sure what you're trying to say here.

But the simpleton take regarding the Electoral College is that it shouldn't exist, and the popular vote winner should take the Presidency.

That simplistic view is for those who don't understand the history of the US, and the entire concept of separate state governments making up the nation. Our electoral system is in place to ensure that small states get a say in the Presidential election. Otherwise they could be ignored and all campaigning would just center around the population centers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Not sure what you're trying to say here.

But the simpleton take regarding the Electoral College is that it shouldn't exist, and the popular vote winner should take the Presidency.

That simplistic view is for those who don't understand the history of the US, and the entire concept of separate state governments making up the nation. Our electoral system is in place to ensure that small states get a say in the Presidential election. Otherwise they could be ignored and all campaigning would just center around the population centers.

---

translation: without it the republicans would be completely powerless and quickly forgotten.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Not sure what you're trying to say here.

But the simpleton take regarding the Electoral College is that it shouldn't exist, and the popular vote winner should take the Presidency.

That simplistic view is for those who don't understand the history of the US, and the entire concept of separate state governments making up the nation. Our electoral system is in place to ensure that small states get a say in the Presidential election. Otherwise they could be ignored and all campaigning would just center around the population centers.

---

Your repsonse is ridiuclous even without the Congessional vote that no longer exists as it did.
Popular vote counters all efforts (most) to influence certain populations. That is being ignored

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonatine

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Not sure what you're trying to say here.

But the simpleton take regarding the Electoral College is that it shouldn't exist, and the popular vote winner should take the Presidency.

That simplistic view is for those who don't understand the history of the US, and the entire concept of separate state governments making up the nation. Our electoral system is in place to ensure that small states get a say in the Presidential election. Otherwise they could be ignored and all campaigning would just center around the population centers.

---

translation: without it the republicans would be completely powerless and quickly forgotten.

---

Why does that matter?

We should just change the Constitution and the governmental concepts from which this country was founded, because it makes Democrats upset during elections?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonatine

translation: without it the republicans would be completely powerless and quickly forgotten.

---

Why does that matter?

We should just change the Constitution and the governmental concepts from which this country was founded, because it makes Democrats upset during elections?

---

you change to make an improvement
No founding father envisioned the absurdity of that process today.
They had other things on their mind, such as who should be allowed to vote.
Reeks of democracy, no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limitles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Not sure what you're trying to say here.

But the simpleton take regarding the Electoral College is that it shouldn't exist, and the popular vote winner should take the Presidency.

That simplistic view is for those who don't understand the history of the US, and the entire concept of separate state governments making up the nation. Our electoral system is in place to ensure that small states get a say in the Presidential election. Otherwise they could be ignored and all campaigning would just center around the population centers.

---

Your repsonse is ridiuclous even without the Congessional vote that no longer exists as it did.
Popular vote counters all efforts (most) to influence certain populations. That is being ignored

---

You’ll be relieved to learn that neither my vote nor Druff’s will matter thanks to the electoral college.

GWAR is playing Boston on the 5th and AARP is offering discounted tickets

https://youtu.be/tzBos6UTy_w?si=zIoXzBuJTYpBPkU5https://youtu.be/Jwtyn-L-2gQ?si=xV9dv4TaGKKdgrnh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limitles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Why does that matter?

We should just change the Constitution and the governmental concepts from which this country was founded, because it makes Democrats upset during elections?

---

you change to make an improvement
No founding father envisioned the absurdity of that process today.
They had other things on their mind, such as who should be allowed to vote.
Reeks of democracy, no?

---

How is it an improvement? Because the side you like better has an advantage?

Nope... not how it works. The US is a constitutional republic, not a direct democracy. This was on purpose, as the founding fathers did not like the idea of the "tyranny of the majority" ruling the country.

I always tell people to picture the US as a co-op 50 separate governments, rather than one giant government, and that makes the electoral college more understandable.

The Dems whine about anything which is temporarily not in their favor. Notice they were fine with a 9-justice Supreme Court for our entire lifetimes, yet suddenly they wanted to add seats as soon as the Republicans got a 6-3 majority.

Similar to how Democrats constantly adjust how much they support free speech. For years they were pro-free-speech when such a position was politically expedient. Then once right wing speech became powerful online, suddenly Democrats became very anti-free-speech, wanting it suppressed via nonsense "hate speech" and "misinformation" laws. Then they want free speech again when left wing anti-Semites are harassing the joos on college campuses.

Toby Keith (RIP) said it best when he stopped being a Democrat after 2008, claiming they "don't stand for anything anymore". Truth!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limitles

you change to make an improvement
No founding father envisioned the absurdity of that process today.
They had other things on their mind, such as who should be allowed to vote.
Reeks of democracy, no?

---

How is it an improvement? Because the side you like better has an advantage?

Nope... not how it works. The US is a constitutional republic, not a direct democracy. This was on purpose, as the founding fathers did not like the idea of the "tyranny of the majority" ruling the country.

I always tell people to picture the US as a co-op 50 separate governments, rather than one giant government, and that makes the electoral college more understandable.

The Dems whine about anything which is temporarily not in their favor. Notice they were fine with a 9-justice Supreme Court for our entire lifetimes, yet suddenly they wanted to add seats as soon as the Republicans got a 6-3 majority.

Similar to how Democrats constantly adjust how much they support free speech. For years they were pro-free-speech when such a position was politically expedient. Then once right wing speech became powerful online, suddenly Democrats became very anti-free-speech, wanting it suppressed via nonsense "hate speech" and "misinformation" laws. Then they want free speech again when left wing anti-Semites are harassing the joos on college campuses.

Toby Keith (RIP) said it best when he stopped being a Democrat after 2008, claiming they "don't stand for anything anymore". Truth!

---

I don't know the figures but I'm guessing the majority of today's democracies agree that majority rules.
The decision of a population can never be considered a form of tyranny.

Who ever wrote that was either an idiot or very comfortable with the current situation. There is no work around or loophole for the decision of the majority. Except in America

Your founding fathers were the power players of the day. The conditions they laid down for personal rights also included components that protected their own status. Electing a head of state against the will of the majority sounds like such a component. Your fore fathers also established who were qualified voters
Women (half the population) among many others were not considered. Calling it a republic is irrelevant and meaningless

There is no protection for disinformation or defamation provided by free speech.
The anonymity that exists today on public platforms provides a loophole for those
abusing the concept of free speech

Aren't you the idiot that less than a week ago said "I don't follow politics..."

Another drunken Gringo libtard talking about something he knows nothing about. Typical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonatine

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Not sure what you're trying to say here.

But the simpleton take regarding the Electoral College is that it shouldn't exist, and the popular vote winner should take the Presidency.

That simplistic view is for those who don't understand the history of the US, and the entire concept of separate state governments making up the nation. Our electoral system is in place to ensure that small states get a say in the Presidential election. Otherwise they could be ignored and all campaigning would just center around the population centers.

---

translation: without it the republicans would be completely powerless and quickly forgotten.

---

Not so fast my friend. Without congress the president can’t do much.

Also, there would be times when the country was pissed off and would punish the incumbent

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonatine

translation: without it the republicans would be completely powerless and quickly forgotten.

---

Why does that matter?

We should just change the Constitution and the governmental concepts from which this country was founded, because it makes Democrats upset during elections?

---

i actually believe the constitution does need to be changed and should be a living document thats designed fundamentally to give every voter the same political weight as any other voter. theres nothing sacred about a broken system, we dont need to let it destroy us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonatine

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Why does that matter?

We should just change the Constitution and the governmental concepts from which this country was founded, because it makes Democrats upset during elections?

---

i actually believe the constitution does need to be changed and should be a living document thats designed fundamentally to give every voter the same political weight as any other voter. theres nothing sacred about a broken system, we dont need to let it destroy us.

---

We have become a country where a voter has an OBLIGATION to move in many cases if he or she wants their vote to possibly matter. A conservative living in NY or CA doesn’t have a vote in a Presidential election. And the same is in reverse for liberals in 20-25+ states.

As for candidates ignoring smaller states, now other than possible fundraising, they are avoiding many of our largest states. The campaign is down to basically 7 states and they get the attention. If a voter wants their vote to count, move there.

You get these opinions on the EC when Dems are getting ready to lose a Presidential election.

To change the EC, or remove it, you need 2/3rds of the House and Senate and a President to sign the bill. THEN, you need 3/4ths of the state legislatures to also vote in favor of it. 3/4ths to concede their power to say California and New York. Name one red state that would go along with that? Alabama, North Dakota, West Virginia? LOL.

It is funny to see a clueless Canadian though chiming in on this though. I have no idea about the Canadian system, nor do I give a shit because they have literally no influence on anything worldwide except hockey. And as time goes on they are conceding even that to the US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limitles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

How is it an improvement? Because the side you like better has an advantage?

Nope... not how it works. The US is a constitutional republic, not a direct democracy. This was on purpose, as the founding fathers did not like the idea of the "tyranny of the majority" ruling the country.

I always tell people to picture the US as a co-op 50 separate governments, rather than one giant government, and that makes the electoral college more understandable.

The Dems whine about anything which is temporarily not in their favor. Notice they were fine with a 9-justice Supreme Court for our entire lifetimes, yet suddenly they wanted to add seats as soon as the Republicans got a 6-3 majority.

Similar to how Democrats constantly adjust how much they support free speech. For years they were pro-free-speech when such a position was politically expedient. Then once right wing speech became powerful online, suddenly Democrats became very anti-free-speech, wanting it suppressed via nonsense "hate speech" and "misinformation" laws. Then they want free speech again when left wing anti-Semites are harassing the joos on college campuses.

Toby Keith (RIP) said it best when he stopped being a Democrat after 2008, claiming they "don't stand for anything anymore". Truth!

---

I don't know the figures but I'm guessing the majority of today's democracies agree that majority rules.
"the founding fathers did not like the idea of the "tyranny of the majority" ruling the country."

Who ever wrote that was either an idiot or very comfortable with the current situation. There is no work around or loophole for the decision of the majority. Except in America

Your founding fathers were the power players of the day. The conditions they laid down for personal rights also included components that protected their own status. Electing a head of state against the will of the majority sounds like such a component. Your fore fathers also established who were qualified voters
Women (half the population) among many others were not considered. Calling it a republic is irrelevant and meaningless

There is no protection for disinformation or defamation provided by free speech.
The anonymity that exists today on public platforms provides a loophole for those
abusing the concept of free speech

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tgull

To change the EC, or remove it, you need 2/3rds of the House and Senate and a President to sign the bill. THEN, you need 3/4ths of the state legislatures to also vote in favor of it. 3/4ths to concede their power to say California and New York. Name one red state that would go along with that? Alabama, North Dakota, West Virginia? LOL.

---

yeah i dont see anything changing for the better any time soon.

but you kind of demonstrate the point exactly because those states are horrors and from many perspectives, worse than dead weight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tgull

You get these opinions on the EC when Dems are getting ready to lose a Presidential election.

To change the EC, or remove it, you need 2/3rds of the House and Senate and a President to sign the bill. THEN, you need 3/4ths of the state legislatures to also vote in favor of it. 3/4ths to concede their power to say California and New York. Name one red state that would go along with that? Alabama, North Dakota, West Virginia? LOL.

It is funny to see a clueless Canadian though chiming in on this though. I have no idea about the Canadian system, nor do I give a shit because they have literally no influence on anything worldwide except hockey. And as time goes on they are conceding even that to the US.

---

The first paragraph speaks to my point that the founding fathers drew up documents that made it difficult to
overturn. That's not a democratic decision and needs to be amended.
Canada has influence everywhere and is poised to rule the world with the help of Mexico by 2070

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonatine

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tgull

To change the EC, or remove it, you need 2/3rds of the House and Senate and a President to sign the bill. THEN, you need 3/4ths of the state legislatures to also vote in favor of it. 3/4ths to concede their power to say California and New York. Name one red state that would go along with that? Alabama, North Dakota, West Virginia? LOL.

---

yeah i dont see anything changing for the better any time soon.

but you kind of demonstrate the point exactly because those states are horrors and from many perspectives, worse than dead weight.

---

I know it burns liberals to the core that CA gets as many Senators as Wyoming, but that is the way it is. Either way, the EC will never be overturned, you are better off getting India and China to agree to climate change mandates, another left wing dream.

There is no reason to keep the EC, other than the Republicans would never win another presidential election. Not bitching about it, it is what it is. If Druff wants his vote in Cali to be meaningless, it’s ok by me.