Forum Thread

The DNC

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 31 - 45 of 65 Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I said she should have, NOT could have - big difference.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    "What does Senatorial apportionment have to do with the electoral college?"

    Senator are two from each state regardless of population. 280,000 people of Wyoming have the same representation of 19,000,000 from California. That is more of an argument for representation of the populous.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: "What does Senatorial apportionment have to do with the electoral college?"

    Senator are two from each state regardless of population. 280,000 people of Wyoming have the same representation of 19,000,000 from California. That is more of an argument for representation of the populous.

    I get that, but the Executive and Legislative branches are two entirely different things. A Senator represents a state while a President represents everyone.

    People in California don't vote for a Senator in Wyoming, but they do vote for a President. And it's absurd that their voices aren't heard because of an antiquated system that was designed to perpetuate slavery.

    (And California has 39 million people)

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    johnnycee Wrote:

    I was under the impression that the Electoral college was designed to prevent either side from dominating the other, a certain amount of fairness was needed and this is what the Jefferson group came up with.

    The truth is far more sinister and depressing. The electoral college was a compromise to get the southern states to sign on to the Constitution. It should have been done away with after the Civil War.

    Imagine how our government would react if another country held elections like ours where someone won millions more votes than another candidate but the other candidate still "won" the election. Hell - we've invaded other countries over less.

    We truly are the worlds biggest hypocrites when it comes to elections.

    Wow Jared you finally arrived in the "real" world; yes, not only are we "hypocrites" but "stupid" on top of that; like I said many times "civil" countries just count "votes" nothing else. Thanks Jared you get my vote in 2020 if you by that time still think so; if I'm still alive.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    These days it seems that almost no progress comes from D.C.. If someone wants to make a good post I suggest a viable way for the masses to effectively solicit change. There's so much room for improvement and if we could be advised on an effective way to do so... I know I want this antiquated evil system replaced. Any guidance that can be suggested would be appreciated. Hopefully all members would take steps towards a badly needed upgrading for future elections.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    But if the majority does in effect rule, does that in itself plant the seeds of discontent against the majority,

    ?

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: But if the majority does in effect rule, does that in itself plant the seeds of discontent against the majority,

    ?

    The the entire point of democracy!

    If the majority loses favor with the public then the democratic process allows for them to be removed, but a minority of voters dictating to the majority who gets to lead the country is about as undemocratic as you can get.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Exactly ! Any argument for the majority not winning is idiocy. On Facebook just now there was a post by the Democratic party where the question was broached: What should be done next ? No solution, just the question. As usual I went right to comments. There were over 600. Not happy campers I must say. No definitive solutions but most said don't continue doing what lost us this election. I don't care who received- how many votes. We walked away with a "participation" trophy which is salt in the wound. All I really wanted was a solid Supreme court and improvements to health care, campaign finance reform, reduced emphasis on the military being the solution when diplomacy wasn't attempted and a more reasonable tax code. Instead I get a feeble reminder that patience is a virtue. If there was a new progressive party that founded tomorrow I would consider switching and sending them money which currently would be wasted on the Dems.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    johnnycee Wrote: But if the majority does in effect rule, does that in itself plant the seeds of discontent against the majority,

    ?

    The the entire point of democracy!

    If the majority loses favor with the public then the democratic process allows for them to be removed, but a minority of voters dictating to the majority who gets to lead the country is about as undemocratic as you can get.

    So it's okay if the majority are allowed to dictate to the minority even though similar governments have failed mostly due to armed resistance , by the way we are a republic not a Democracy, we have a system whereby the States control the federal government via States rights, what you propose is to do away with that system and replace it with what? a total democratic society with the minority having little or no voice at all?
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    TJ Wrote:

    Exactly ! Any argument for the majority not winning is idiocy. On Facebook just now there was a post by the Democratic party where the question was broached: What should be done next ? No solution, just the question. As usual I went right to comments. There were over 600. Not happy campers I must say. No definitive solutions but most said don't continue doing what lost us this election. I don't care who received- how many votes. We walked away with a "participation" trophy which is salt in the wound. All I really wanted was a solid Supreme court and improvements to health care, campaign finance reform, reduced emphasis on the military being the solution when diplomacy wasn't attempted and a more reasonable tax code. Instead I get a feeble reminder that patience is a virtue. If there was a new progressive party that founded tomorrow I would consider switching and sending them money which currently would be wasted on the Dems.

    Yes Tony, you see it correctly. But as I said before due to our governing structure just about an impossible task if you are in the minority now. Trump has now plenty of room to undo all the things you mentioned; all we can do fight it, with unknown results. I said years ago that this country has an weird structure, which does not fit 2016. I don't want to be negative, but we are heading to an dictatorship like government of which we are only "slaves" . Democracy is out of the door already looking at the election system; the one with the least votes "wins"
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: "What does Senatorial apportionment have to do with the electoral college?"

    Senator are two from each state regardless of population. 280,000 people of Wyoming have the same representation of 19,000,000 from California. That is more of an argument for representation of the populous.

    I get that, but the Executive and Legislative branches are two entirely different things. A Senator represents a state while a President represents everyone.

    People in California don't vote for a Senator in Wyoming, but they do vote for a President. And it's absurd that their voices aren't heard because of an antiquated system that was designed to perpetuate slavery.

    (And California has 39 million people)

    And Wyoming has 560,000. I was posting the scenario of a split Senate vote. I Senator from CA representing 19 million people on a split vote. In a winning vote with Wyoming split on the winning side and CA opposing that is 280,000 people winning over 39 million. Arguing representation the Senate is not democratic. That is the objection to the electoral college. The Senate would oppose anything challenging unfair representation. Evidenced by no popular opposition about Senate representation.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: So it's okay if the majority are allowed to dictate to the minority even though similar governments have failed mostly due to armed resistance ,

    And once again - this question can be flipped. Is it acceptable for the minority to overrule the majority? Apartheid South Africa did that, but not many other liberal democracies in the history of the world operate or have ever operated that way.

    johnnycee Wrote: by the way we are a republic not a Democracy, we have a system whereby the States control the federal government via States rights,

    The line between democracy and republic is so blurred that it's often impossible to distinguish between the two.

    Sure, our system of governance gives everyone certain rights that in theory can not be taken away, but our short history has shown that the humans ruling on whether those certain rights apply to the entire population aren't always on the right side of history. (See Dred Scott v. Stanford)

    Your last sentence isn't necessarily true. The Federal Courts are the final arbiter when it comes to state versus federal laws and regulations. And the Federal Courts have been more than willing to err on the side of the Federal government when it comes to a whole host of issues throughout our nations short history.


    johnnycee Wrote: what you propose is to do away with that system and replace it with what? a total democratic society with the minority having little or no voice at all?

    No. That's what you are saying I proposed.

    All I'm simply proposing is that the electoral college be done away with and allowing the plurality or majority of citizens to choose their commander-in-chief. Nothing more.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    But back to the original argument,doing away with the Electoral College and replacing it with a system of plurality does in effect take away the voice of the minority states. There are issues that are really important to rural America while totally inconsequential to the major urban areas where the population is greater, so their voice is muted if not silenced altogether. Perhaps if the system should allow the number of electors to be divided according to the states total, rather than all in as it is in the majority of States now..
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: But back to the original argument,doing away with the Electoral College and replacing it with a system of plurality does in effect take away the voice of the minority states. There are issues that are really important to rural America while totally inconsequential to the major urban areas where the population is greater, so their voice is muted if not silenced altogether. Perhaps if the system should allow the number of electors to be divided according to the states total, rather than all in as it is in the majority of States now..

    And, for the thousandth time, you can flip that script.

    There are issues that are vitally important to urban areas which are being ignored because the people in the rural areas don't care about them, And our current system of governance gives those rural people far more power to veto things that would never effect them while simultaneously thwarting the will of the majority of people that actually would be effected.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    It is not a simple question of representation. The electoral college was a trade off to get low population states to go along with forming one united country. It assures a sense of fair play to what otherwise would be rule by a few states. It takes one person one vote and applies it on a national level. One state one vote in a sense. If states would never have a chance of representation who knows what the outcome would be. I think that if the argument was democratic representation then I can't see the larger states being satisfied with only the electoral college. They will want similar democratic representation in the Senate. Doing away with two senators per state would be a mess. Smaller states would get no federal money or federal business or federal institutions. Just as there are people fired up about the electoral college there would be people fired up about changing or eliminating the Senate in order to have more representation.