Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Fun Fact:

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Terraceth
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    There were those who wanted the president be appointed by Congress and those who wanted a direct election by popular vote. The Electoral system was the compromise. The biggest fear of the latter expressed during the Constitutional Convention was of the president becoming a dictator. I'll have to go back and look up the arguments to remember the details but be that as it may our Founding Fathers really loathed the idea of Democracy which is why they set up a Constitutional Republic.
    The electoral college may have been a compromise between those who wanted the president chosen by congress and those who wanted it by popular vote; however, that is a completely different idea from it being a compromise between large and small states, which was what was alleged.

    If you have proof of the latter, I would be very interested in seeing it!

    Leave a comment:


  • Ronson
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    There were those who wanted the president be appointed by Congress and those who wanted a direct election by popular vote. The Electoral system was the compromise. The biggest fear of the latter expressed during the Constitutional Convention was of the president becoming a dictator. I'll have to go back and look up the arguments to remember the details but be that as it may our Founding Fathers really loathed the idea of Democracy which is why they set up a Constitutional Republic.
    IIRC, Hamilton floated the idea of creating a new royal family through George Washington. Assuming he wasn't joking.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
    James Madison said that it was made because it meant that states who disenfranchised their population--such as, for example, enslaving them--wouldn't have to lose much power. As he explained during the Constitutional Convention:

    "There was one difficulty, however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections."

    http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage...061&linkText=1

    "States that have a lot of slaves would lose power in a direction election" doesn't seem to be a particularly relevant concern at the moment.


    This is a common claim, but I have yet to see a single person who claims this cite actual proof that it was a compromise in order to achieve this goal.

    Indeed, I looked at #68 of The Federalist Papers, which is devoted to explaining the reason for the method of choosing the president. I saw nothing whatsoever there concerning small states vs. large states; its defense is that the men chosen to be electors would be those best equipped to judge the matter and decide who would be the best president.

    So can we have some quotes from those involved in the making of the Constitution stating that this issue of large and small states was actually a factor in their decision regarding the electoral college? They may exist, but again I have never seen anyone provide them.
    There were those who wanted the president be appointed by Congress and those who wanted a direct election by popular vote. The Electoral system was the compromise. The biggest fear of the latter expressed during the Constitutional Convention was of the president becoming a dictator. I'll have to go back and look up the arguments to remember the details but be that as it may our Founding Fathers really loathed the idea of Democracy which is why they set up a Constitutional Republic.

    Leave a comment:


  • Terraceth
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    You guys really need to read up on why the Electoral College was founded.
    James Madison said that it was made because it meant that states who disenfranchised their population--such as, for example, enslaving them--wouldn't have to lose much power. As he explained during the Constitutional Convention:

    "There was one difficulty, however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections."

    http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage...061&linkText=1

    "States that have a lot of slaves would lose power in a direction election" doesn't seem to be a particularly relevant concern at the moment.

    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    It was a compromise between the small states and the large states so that the latter states couldn't run roughshod over the former in the same manner the way the House and Senate were set up. It was instrumental in keeping the country together after the Revolution rather than have each state go its separate and factitious way like the German states of the 18th century or the South American republics in the 19th century did.
    This is a common claim, but I have yet to see a single person who claims this cite actual proof that it was a compromise in order to achieve this goal.

    Indeed, I looked at #68 of The Federalist Papers, which is devoted to explaining the reason for the method of choosing the president. I saw nothing whatsoever there concerning small states vs. large states; its defense is that the men chosen to be electors would be those best equipped to judge the matter and decide who would be the best president.

    So can we have some quotes from those involved in the making of the Constitution stating that this issue of large and small states was actually a factor in their decision regarding the electoral college? They may exist, but again I have never seen anyone provide them.

    Leave a comment:


  • Electric Skeptic
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    It was a compromise between the small states and the large states so that the latter states couldn't run roughshod over the former in the same manner the way the House and Senate were set up. It was instrumental in keeping the country together after the Revolution rather than have each state go its separate and factitious way like the German states of the 18th century or the South American republics in the 19th century did.
    I won't get into an argument about how accurate is, because again it doesn't matter. It's not being used the way the founders intended/expected it to be. The reasons they established are irrelevant to what purpose it serves now. And right now its primary purpose is to handicap voters in non-rural states so that their votes don't count as much, so that Republicans have a better chance in Presidential elections.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Electric Skeptic View Post
    No, I don't, mate. I know very well, because I have read up on it. There were a number of reasons, and the primary reason was that nobody thought it was too horrible an idea. Nobody wanted it; it was a compromise between those who wanted the states to choose the President and those who wanted the popular vote. It's more convoluted than that, and there are reasons each group did not want the others' suggestions, but in sum, that's it.

    Sadly, why it was founded is of little but historical interest. It's not used today anything like the founding fathers thought it would be. Since pretty much the establishment of political parties, it has not been used anything like it was supposed to be.

    So it's not serving the purpose that it was established to. Its biggest effect today is to give disproportionate weight to the votes of people in smaller, more rural states. Which are traditionally Republican-dominated. Populous states, less Republican-dominated, have less weight for their voters. This is why the Republicans are so opposed to getting rid of it. They know that if they did, the disproportionate weight of their voters would go away, and everybody's vote would have equal weight. Which would not be good for them. Clinton would have beaten Trump and Gore would have beaten Bush. Since '92, there would have been only one Republican President (Bush, during what is now his second term). In their situation I might fight against the will of the people as well. Over the last thirty years as far as the President is concerned, the country has overwhelmingly leaned to the left. And the only thing stopping the will of the people from taking effect is the Electoral College.
    It was a compromise between the small states and the large states so that the latter states couldn't run roughshod over the former in the same manner the way the House and Senate were set up. It was instrumental in keeping the country together after the Revolution rather than have each state go its separate and factitious way like the German states of the 18th century or the South American republics in the 19th century did.

    Leave a comment:


  • Electric Skeptic
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    You guys really need to read up on why the Electoral College was founded.
    No, I don't, mate. I know very well, because I have read up on it. There were a number of reasons, and the primary reason was that nobody thought it was too horrible an idea. Nobody wanted it; it was a compromise between those who wanted the states to choose the President and those who wanted the popular vote. It's more convoluted than that, and there are reasons each group did not want the others' suggestions, but in sum, that's it.

    Sadly, why it was founded is of little but historical interest. It's not used today anything like the founding fathers thought it would be. Since pretty much the establishment of political parties, it has not been used anything like it was supposed to be.

    So it's not serving the purpose that it was established to. Its biggest effect today is to give disproportionate weight to the votes of people in smaller, more rural states. Which are traditionally Republican-dominated. Populous states, less Republican-dominated, have less weight for their voters. This is why the Republicans are so opposed to getting rid of it. They know that if they did, the disproportionate weight of their voters would go away, and everybody's vote would have equal weight. Which would not be good for them. Clinton would have beaten Trump and Gore would have beaten Bush. Since '92, there would have been only one Republican President (Bush, during what is now his second term). In their situation I might fight against the will of the people as well. Over the last thirty years as far as the President is concerned, the country has overwhelmingly leaned to the left. And the only thing stopping the will of the people from taking effect is the Electoral College.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Electric Skeptic View Post
    Bingo!
    You guys really need to read up on why the Electoral College was founded.

    Leave a comment:


  • Electric Skeptic
    replied
    Originally posted by Stoic View Post
    In reality, the reason for keeping the electoral college around is that it allows the Republicans to win the presidency with a minority of the electorate.
    Bingo!

    Leave a comment:


  • Stoic
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    The Electoral College keeps the rest of the country from being little more than colonies for half a dozen or fewer states. Without it candidates would only campaign in those few states free to ignore the needs or wants of anyone who doesn't live in them. It would literally turn over 90% of the nation into fly-over country
    All the campaigning would be done in the most populous states, unless the vote was more or less evenly split, in which case every state would be important.

    And if the vote isn't more or less evenly split, then it doesn't matter whether you have the electoral college or a direct popular vote.

    In reality, the reason for keeping the electoral college around is that it allows the Republicans to win the presidency with a minority of the electorate.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Sherman View Post

    Hollyweird is my name for them.
    Been using it for awhile now

    Leave a comment:


  • Sherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Ronson View Post

    Gawd, I hate Hollywood.
    Hollyweird is my name for them.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
    Except under the electoral college everything you said is still true. The rest of the country is little more than colonies for half a dozen or fewer states (the swing states). With it candidates do only campaign in those few states, free to ignore the rest of the country. It does turn over 90% of the nation into fly-over country. If you're not a swing state, you don't matter under the electoral college.

    The removal of the electoral college would actually do a lot to remove what you talk about, because now every state could possibly make a difference. Under the electoral college, no one cares about the small states (except New Hampshire) because they're all reliably Democrat or Republican; you could campaign and campaign and campaign and get 10% more of the vote than your party normally would and you'd still gain not a single elector in a state like Wyoming or Hawaii. But under a popular vote at least some number of votes could possibly be gained. Small states certainly wouldn't get much attention but they'd get more than under the electoral college.
    Many of the swing states back 20 years ago are no longer swing states, and many new ones have emerged since then. IOW they change. Plus, candidates still have to pay attention to the four or five largest unless you think they can win without any of them.

    Leave a comment:


  • Electric Skeptic
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    The Electoral College keeps the rest of the country from being little more than colonies for half a dozen or fewer states. Without it candidates would only campaign in those few states free to ignore the needs or wants of anyone who doesn't live in them. It would literally turn over 90% of the nation into fly-over country
    The EC doesn't change that. In 2020, 12 states got 96% of the campaign events. It just changes which states are the focus. The popular vote would mean that the more populous cities woudl be the focus - but isn't that the way it should be? Wouldn't you think it's reasonable that candidates would spend most of their time in the more populous areas?

    Leave a comment:


  • Watermelon
    replied
    Originally posted by LiconaFan97 View Post

    There are already only around 6 states which matter. And doesn't it strike you as just a bad system when everyone knew Biden was going to get more total votes but the only question was whether he'd win those six states?
    I think that’s the clearest example of how ridiculous this system is.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by seer, Yesterday, 06:43 PM
12 responses
59 views
0 likes
Last Post CivilDiscourse  
Started by eider, Yesterday, 05:05 PM
14 responses
39 views
1 like
Last Post eider
by eider
 
Started by Sparko, Yesterday, 11:48 AM
20 responses
142 views
0 likes
Last Post Roy
by Roy
 
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, Yesterday, 05:31 AM
8 responses
62 views
0 likes
Last Post Sparko
by Sparko
 
Started by Cow Poke, 03-02-2021, 02:54 PM
72 responses
336 views
1 like
Last Post Sparko
by Sparko
 
Working...
X