Destroying the Electoral College: The Anti-Federalist National Popular Vote Scheme

[Bill the Cat]

Um no. I'm not a Hillary supporter.

Did you vote for her?

And I've always been for the popular vote.

So am I. Every state should give their electoral votes to the candidate that wins the popular vote in their state.

[Cow Poke]

How would you like it if Jews became the majority and outlawed unkosher foods?

Have you ever been to Israel? "Unkosher" [sic] foods are everywhere. Bad example.

[One Bad Pig]

Have you ever been to Israel? "Unkosher" [sic] foods are everywhere. Bad example.

Terrible in other ways, too. Given that Jews are a tiny minority, it's extremely unlikely to happen. And if it did? I'd miss seafood, but it would hardly be the end of the world.

[Cow Poke]

Terrible in other ways, too. Given that Jews are a tiny minority, it's extremely unlikely to happen. And if it did? I'd miss seafood, but it would hardly be the end of the world.

Well, bacon. Bacon is the true test of faith.

[One Bad Pig]

Well, bacon. Bacon is the true test of faith.

I was speaking for myself. I wouldn't miss bacon.

[Cow Poke]

I was speaking for myself. I wouldn't miss bacon.

Well, all seriousness aside, I could live without it, as well.

[Teallaura]

It all in the word you used... power. Power is something human thirst for - some more than others. Your morality and beliefs should be your problem, and something for others to have to deal with. How would you like it if Jews became the majority and outlawed unkosher foods? I think you'd be singing a very different song if such a thing came to America.


It shouldn't be about power, Teal. It should be about making a world where people that disagree with each other and have different outlooks on the wold, peacefully coexisting with each other.

No, it's not.

Politics is about power.


You wanted to talk in strictly political terms - well, then since we aren't discussing mechanics and are discussing values/philosophy/morals/law then we are left to discuss them in terms of power. Not right or wrong - just who has the power of enforcement. Your entire argument is nonsense if made purely political because politics is about power.

The messy stuff is the controls on that power - it's also the most interesting part. A man who can't govern himself has no business in a democracy or a democratic republic. Neither system will work without a strong moral underpinning - nor can they be designed to work absent the self-discipline of morality. Law reflects a society's norms - including its moral ones. That it reality. If you want a system where we can agree to disagree then you have to have a societal and legal framework that accepts and even governs, to a degree, the moral norms. Don't have to agree on everything - do have to agree on some things or the whole thing collapses.

And yes, it is.

[The Thinker]

Did you vote for her?

No.

So am I. Every state should give their electoral votes to the candidate that wins the popular vote in their state.

No the national popular vote. You know that crazy idea that the person who gets the most votes becomes president.

[The Thinker]

You do know that the Senate is SUPPOSED to have equal representation for all states, right? It was designed that way. The House is designed to represent by population - one balancing the other. That way, when large states decide that it's cheaper to enslave juvenile delinquents rather than jail them, smaller states, with fewer such problems and cooler heads can keep them from actually doing something that stupid. Or at least try.

Extreme example, of course, but the point is that the difference between urban and rural are pretty large and their interests are frequently not mutual - having pop only representation hurts rural areas. Having even only representation hurts urban areas - so having one house of each solves the problem well.

I get that. I'm more focused on having the popular vote decide presidential elections, as it should be. I don't think the jail scenario makes sense. A lot of times it's a bunch of smaller states that have a disproportionate impact on policy.

[Littlejoe]

If the US went to a NPV, it would be the first in Modern history to do so, and AFAIK, the only one in the (current) World to choose it's national leader via NPV. No other country (that I know of) uses a NPV to do that. Don't you wonder why that is?

[Jaecp]

If the US went to a NPV, it would be the first in Modern history to do so, and AFAIK, the only one in the (current) World to choose it's national leader via NPV. No other country (that I know of) uses a NPV to do that. Don't you wonder why that is?

Interesting,

So, how do, to pick completely at random, Mexico and South Korea choose their president?

[Bill the Cat]

No.

Ok. I didn't know.

No the national popular vote.

There's no such thing. It's a statistical whoop dee do. A curiosity. That's all it will ever be.

You know that crazy idea that the person who gets the most votes becomes president.

It is crazy, and has never been a part of this country. If you want one of those, find a country where it happens. The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing and why. And the left only started caring about that nonsense when it hurt them. One anomaly is not even close to enough to overturn over 200 years of Constitutional order.

[The Thinker]

There's no such thing. It's a statistical whoop dee do. A curiosity. That's all it will ever be.

That can change, like many other things.

It is crazy, and has never been a part of this country. If you want one of those, find a country where it happens. The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing and why. And the left only started caring about that nonsense when it hurt them. One anomaly is not even close to enough to overturn over 200 years of Constitutional order.

The person who gets the most votes is crazy? I can understand accepting the EC as the way it is, but why is it crazy that the person with the most votes nation wide should decide the election? And I don't need to go anywhere. My energy is best spent here changing the system.

[Bill the Cat]

That can change, like many other things.

It has a snowball's chance in hell. And it's sour grapes.

The person who gets the most votes is crazy?

Yes. That's the very thing the founders wanted to avoid!

I can understand accepting the EC as the way it is, but why is it crazy that the person with the most votes nation wide should decide the election?

Because we are a federation of states.

And I don't need to go anywhere. My energy is best spent here changing the system.

Sisyphus has a better chance of the boulder staying at the top.

[Roy]

If the US went to a NPV, it would be the first in Modern history to do so, and AFAIK, the only one in the (current) World to choose it's national leader via NPV. No other country (that I know of) uses a NPV to do that. Don't you wonder why that is?

No. It's because you're ignorant and lazy.