3 ms·

>The Electoral College is what really violates the principle of "one human, one vote". No it really does not if you understand what a Republic of States is. W

by syshum 7y ago

>The Electoral College is what really violates the principle of "one human, one vote". No it really does not if you understand what a Republic of States is. We are the United States of America. A republic of states. Not "America the great democracy" like people seem to want it to become. A federalist nation of independent states is what the constitution created, and what we should be protecting. There are many things that would improve our elections (Wyoming Rule, No Gerrymandering, Proportional Electoral College, Instant Run Off Voting, and returning the Senate to the States just to name a few) but a national popular vote for President is a TERRIBLE idea, and would rip this nation apart and in the long run likely result in another civil war.

nradov 7y ago
Oh I fully understand the Federalist argument however the Electoral College has outlived its usefulness. Times change. The notion that eliminating it would cause another civil war is ludicrous.
- syshum 7y ago
  How has it outlived its Usefulness let me Guess you live in CA, NY, or Texas? Because with out the Electoral College, the rest of the states do not matter.. the Elections will be decided by about 5 states in the union, the very thing the Electoral College was designed to prevent and is every much just as relevant today as it was when there were only 13 colonies As to civil war.... You do understand that most of the private guns in this nation are in the Red States, and currently if National popular vote is enacted the Blue States will effectively control government at the national level (which is most likely why you support it, chances are you are a democrat and are tried of the Republicans having any power so if NY and CA can control the nation that would be grand for you) . Which will most likely mean extreme pushes to the Authoritarian left including Draconian gun control laws and seizures... Which will bring about all out civil war //For the Record I an neither R or D, I am small L libertarian.
  - drawnwren 7y ago
    Yep, the left narrative around the Electoral College seems dangerous to me as well. I think any argument against the Electoral College has to also include an argument against the Senate. Or is two senators/state acceptable? The founding fathers clearly considered the effects of having large population centers and attempted to account for it in the House. A system with no representation for the smaller states would lead to exactly the same scenario that caused the U.S. to be founded. Popular vote would always decide in favor of urban centers and rural citizens would be neglected yet expected to pay taxes.
    - joshuamorton 7y ago
      That's...not what led to the US being founded. The cries were "no taxation without representation", not "no taxation without over representation" for a reason. Subjects in the US has no representation in the British parliament, not approximately the number they should have given population, but none. If they had, about 25% of the house of commons would have been US elected representatives, none were. Please don't rewrite history to support your political opinions.
      - drawnwren 7y ago
        My argument made an appeal to the emotional state behind both situations. > Popular vote would always decide in favor of urban centers and rural citizens would be neglected yet expected to pay taxes. The point is that disenfranchisement of a large group of people would lead them to seek action against the government. You could pick the Civil Rights Movement if you think the Revolution doesn't fit the bill for some reason.
        joshuamorton 7y ago
        > My argument made an appeal to the emotional state behind both situations. Yes and my point is that the comparison isn't apt. > The point is that disenfranchisement of a large group of people would lead them to seek action against the government. You mean like how those in urban centers are disenfranchised under the current system? "When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression" seems to apply.

by syshum 7y ago

nradov 7y ago

Oh I fully understand the Federalist argument however the Electoral College has outlived its usefulness. Times change. The notion that eliminating it would cause another civil war is ludicrous.

syshum 7y ago
How has it outlived its Usefulness let me Guess you live in CA, NY, or Texas? Because with out the Electoral College, the rest of the states do not matter.. the Elections will be decided by about 5 states in the union, the very thing the Electoral College was designed to prevent and is every much just as relevant today as it was when there were only 13 colonies As to civil war.... You do understand that most of the private guns in this nation are in the Red States, and currently if National popular vote is enacted the Blue States will effectively control government at the national level (which is most likely why you support it, chances are you are a democrat and are tried of the Republicans having any power so if NY and CA can control the nation that would be grand for you) . Which will most likely mean extreme pushes to the Authoritarian left including Draconian gun control laws and seizures... Which will bring about all out civil war //For the Record I an neither R or D, I am small L libertarian.
- drawnwren 7y ago
  Yep, the left narrative around the Electoral College seems dangerous to me as well. I think any argument against the Electoral College has to also include an argument against the Senate. Or is two senators/state acceptable? The founding fathers clearly considered the effects of having large population centers and attempted to account for it in the House. A system with no representation for the smaller states would lead to exactly the same scenario that caused the U.S. to be founded. Popular vote would always decide in favor of urban centers and rural citizens would be neglected yet expected to pay taxes.
  - joshuamorton 7y ago
    That's...not what led to the US being founded. The cries were "no taxation without representation", not "no taxation without over representation" for a reason. Subjects in the US has no representation in the British parliament, not approximately the number they should have given population, but none. If they had, about 25% of the house of commons would have been US elected representatives, none were. Please don't rewrite history to support your political opinions.
    - drawnwren 7y ago
      My argument made an appeal to the emotional state behind both situations. > Popular vote would always decide in favor of urban centers and rural citizens would be neglected yet expected to pay taxes. The point is that disenfranchisement of a large group of people would lead them to seek action against the government. You could pick the Civil Rights Movement if you think the Revolution doesn't fit the bill for some reason.
      - joshuamorton 7y ago
        > My argument made an appeal to the emotional state behind both situations. Yes and my point is that the comparison isn't apt. > The point is that disenfranchisement of a large group of people would lead them to seek action against the government. You mean like how those in urban centers are disenfranchised under the current system? "When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression" seems to apply.