9 ms·

Means certain states like Georgia won’t be democratic. What the handful of people in power say goes. Doesn’t matter what the voters actually try to vote.

by ianai 7y ago

creaghpatr 7y ago
Good case for the electoral college, localize the corruption to the state-level.
- ianai 7y ago
  That system has never acted as a deliberate body. It’s merely a way to further the tyranny of the minority.
- jellicle 7y ago
  Can you explain more about how the electoral college is supposed to combat a state with corrupted elections?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - sokoloff 7y ago
    It partitions/firewalls the impact of the fraud to an individual state. The voting power of Georgia residents may have been compromised here, but the voting power of the rest of the country was unaffected. In a popular voting system, that would not be the case (if the fraud increased reported voter turnout, seizing more voting power into the fraudulent election, for example).
    - boomboomsubban 7y ago
      In both situations, the election is compromised. Knowing my vote was secure in a compromised election does not provide any benefit.
      - sokoloff 7y ago
        That's one way to look at it and I certainly have some sympathy for/agreement with that point of view. Another way to look at it is that each other state's Elector selection process is their business. The Constitution does not provide any assurances that other states will choose their Electors by any particular process, but instead specifically reserves that for each state's Legisature. A state would be within their rights to choose them winner-take-all, in proportion to the popular vote, or by a random draw from a Powerball machine and you and I would have no say over it (as non-residents).
        boomboomsubban 7y ago
        >Another way to look at it is that each other state's Elector selection process is their business. Similarly, the entire election is the business of every citizen. "Their business" has a direct impact on my life, so I should have some say in the matter. >The Constitution does not provide any assurances that other states will choose their Electors by any particular process, The Constitution sets up the electoral college. That doesn't make it a good system.
        sokoloff 7y ago
        There's a process for amending the Constitution. Until that's done, this is the system we have.
- save_ferris 7y ago
  The electoral college is the sole reason 2 out of the last 3 presidents lost the popular vote while winning the general election. In no universe does the electoral college mitigate corruption on the federal level. In fact, one could argue that it makes corruption worse, because a candidate only has to win a few key states to tip the election, regardless of the popular vote.
  - caseysoftware 7y ago
    Which countries practice direct democracy for their top executives (Presidents, PMs, etc)?
  - reaperducer 7y ago
    it makes corruption worse, because a candidate only has to win a few key states to tip the election, regardless of the popular vote. The alternative is only counting the popular vote, which only serves to disenfranchise the majority of states. Without the electoral college, a candidate would only have to campaign in and win three or four large states, and the rest of the nations and its concerns can be ignored. That concern is the whole reason we have the House/Senate system: So that large states with lots of people in the House of Representatives don't run amok. The Senate balances that out.
    - creaghpatr 7y ago
      More specifically, a state that 'cheats' can only impact their share of electoral votes, rather than bleed into the popular count of all states' electoral votes.
    - erichurkman 7y ago
      > The alternative is only counting the popular vote, which only serves to disenfranchise the majority of states. The majority of red states are also the majority of the population, so this doesn't check out. (Trump states ~180mm to Hillary's ~140mm.)
      - cmendel 7y ago
- yongjik 7y ago
  I thought 2000 presidential election put an end to this kind of reasoning? The result of a national election, literally hanging on the chads of a few extremely poorly managed districts in Florida.
  - toast0 7y ago
    If Florida 2000 was bad, a nationwide recount would be even worse.
    - yongjik 7y ago
      The original argument was that electoral college "localizes" statewide corruption. I pointed out it didn't. Whether a popular election is also susceptible to statewide corruption is a different matter - of course it is, but unlike electoral college, a corrupt state can never wield disproportionate power.
      - toast0 7y ago
        With the electoral college, a corrupt state can force its votes, and that can swing the election if the electoral count is close enough; if it's a large state, that's pretty likely, I suppose. With a popular vote, a corrupt state (or precinct) can manufacture votes, and if they can plausibly manufacture enough votes in a close election, that can swing the election too.
smacktoward 7y ago
"I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this—who will count the votes, and how." -- Joseph Stalin (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/stalin-vote-count-quote/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/stalin-vote-count-quote/)
denom 7y ago
It also means that dynamic of political polarization become more prevalent. Imagine being accountable to only one side of the electorate and how that shapes media and institutions. It will only make the divisive, angry rhetoric worse.
- ianai 7y ago
  The US voting system of rules and procedures is full of practices which enforce this sort of extreme polarity. One person one vote makes it a two party choice through one person winning all of a persons vote-and thus unites all others through loss. One party take all makes all outside of that Rule united in opposition to the party in power. Etc etc
- chasing 7y ago
  When you steal elections you're not accountable to any side, not even the people who you claim to share a party with. That's why it's especially dangerous -- even to the voters who think everything's fine because it benefited the party they support.
kingkawn 7y ago
It means certain states like Georgia never have been democratic
opwieurposiu 7y ago
This is the reason the founders added the second amendment. If agents of the state behave in a tyrannical manner, the people have the right to shoot them.
- judge2020 7y ago
  That is absolutely not what the second amendment currently stands for, nor is it what it stood for before 2008. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/United_States_of_America_1992#141 https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/United_States... https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856 https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-sec...
- chasing 7y ago
  No. The Second Amendment does not give you the right to shoot people who work for the government.
  - opwieurposiu 7y ago
    The USA was founded by shooting people who worked for a tyrannical government, they were called redcoats! It would be the height of hypocrisy for the founders to turn around and declare this activity illegal. You are, however, correct in the sense that the constitution does not "give you rights." Your rights exist a priori, the constitution merely enumerates a few of them.
    - chasing 7y ago
      Do not shoot people who work for the government and then expect the Second Amendment will get you off the hook.
    - btilly 7y ago
      Your understanding of the 2nd amendment as an individual right is because by a line of NRA propaganda that started somewhere in the 1970s, and is unfortunately now established jurisprudence. But historically your understanding is dead wrong. In the post-Heller legal interpretation, the start of the 2nd amendment is fluff with no meaning or force. But the phrase, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," was central to the intent of the amendment in an era where every able bodied white man from 20-40 was expected to participate in an organized militia organized by local government and the state. The protected right to bear arms and what arms you were to bear belonged to the militias. And the militias included so many that they really were, "the People". See https://www.nraila.org/heller/conamicusbriefs/07-290_amicus_historians.pdf https://www.nraila.org/heller/conamicusbriefs/07-290_amicus_... for a detailed verification and for references to dig further in.

Means certain states like Georgia won’t be democratic. What the handful of people in power say goes. Doesn’t matter what the voters actually try to vote.

by ianai 7y ago

Means certain states like Georgia won’t be democratic. What the handful of people in power say goes. Doesn’t matter what the voters actually try to vote.

creaghpatr 7y ago

Good case for the electoral college, localize the corruption to the state-level.

ianai 7y ago
That system has never acted as a deliberate body. It’s merely a way to further the tyranny of the minority.
jellicle 7y ago
Can you explain more about how the electoral college is supposed to combat a state with corrupted elections?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- sokoloff 7y ago
  It partitions/firewalls the impact of the fraud to an individual state. The voting power of Georgia residents may have been compromised here, but the voting power of the rest of the country was unaffected. In a popular voting system, that would not be the case (if the fraud increased reported voter turnout, seizing more voting power into the fraudulent election, for example).
  - boomboomsubban 7y ago
    In both situations, the election is compromised. Knowing my vote was secure in a compromised election does not provide any benefit.
    - sokoloff 7y ago
      That's one way to look at it and I certainly have some sympathy for/agreement with that point of view. Another way to look at it is that each other state's Elector selection process is their business. The Constitution does not provide any assurances that other states will choose their Electors by any particular process, but instead specifically reserves that for each state's Legisature. A state would be within their rights to choose them winner-take-all, in proportion to the popular vote, or by a random draw from a Powerball machine and you and I would have no say over it (as non-residents).
      - boomboomsubban 7y ago
        >Another way to look at it is that each other state's Elector selection process is their business. Similarly, the entire election is the business of every citizen. "Their business" has a direct impact on my life, so I should have some say in the matter. >The Constitution does not provide any assurances that other states will choose their Electors by any particular process, The Constitution sets up the electoral college. That doesn't make it a good system.
        sokoloff 7y ago
        There's a process for amending the Constitution. Until that's done, this is the system we have.
save_ferris 7y ago
The electoral college is the sole reason 2 out of the last 3 presidents lost the popular vote while winning the general election. In no universe does the electoral college mitigate corruption on the federal level. In fact, one could argue that it makes corruption worse, because a candidate only has to win a few key states to tip the election, regardless of the popular vote.
- caseysoftware 7y ago
  Which countries practice direct democracy for their top executives (Presidents, PMs, etc)?
- reaperducer 7y ago
  it makes corruption worse, because a candidate only has to win a few key states to tip the election, regardless of the popular vote. The alternative is only counting the popular vote, which only serves to disenfranchise the majority of states. Without the electoral college, a candidate would only have to campaign in and win three or four large states, and the rest of the nations and its concerns can be ignored. That concern is the whole reason we have the House/Senate system: So that large states with lots of people in the House of Representatives don't run amok. The Senate balances that out.
  - creaghpatr 7y ago
    More specifically, a state that 'cheats' can only impact their share of electoral votes, rather than bleed into the popular count of all states' electoral votes.
  - erichurkman 7y ago
    > The alternative is only counting the popular vote, which only serves to disenfranchise the majority of states. The majority of red states are also the majority of the population, so this doesn't check out. (Trump states ~180mm to Hillary's ~140mm.)
    - cmendel 7y ago
yongjik 7y ago
I thought 2000 presidential election put an end to this kind of reasoning? The result of a national election, literally hanging on the chads of a few extremely poorly managed districts in Florida.
- toast0 7y ago
  If Florida 2000 was bad, a nationwide recount would be even worse.
  - yongjik 7y ago
    The original argument was that electoral college "localizes" statewide corruption. I pointed out it didn't. Whether a popular election is also susceptible to statewide corruption is a different matter - of course it is, but unlike electoral college, a corrupt state can never wield disproportionate power.
    - toast0 7y ago
      With the electoral college, a corrupt state can force its votes, and that can swing the election if the electoral count is close enough; if it's a large state, that's pretty likely, I suppose. With a popular vote, a corrupt state (or precinct) can manufacture votes, and if they can plausibly manufacture enough votes in a close election, that can swing the election too.

smacktoward 7y ago

"I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this—who will count the votes, and how." -- Joseph Stalin (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/stalin-vote-count-quote/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/stalin-vote-count-quote/)

denom 7y ago

It also means that dynamic of political polarization become more prevalent. Imagine being accountable to only one side of the electorate and how that shapes media and institutions. It will only make the divisive, angry rhetoric worse.

ianai 7y ago
The US voting system of rules and procedures is full of practices which enforce this sort of extreme polarity. One person one vote makes it a two party choice through one person winning all of a persons vote-and thus unites all others through loss. One party take all makes all outside of that Rule united in opposition to the party in power. Etc etc
chasing 7y ago
When you steal elections you're not accountable to any side, not even the people who you claim to share a party with. That's why it's especially dangerous -- even to the voters who think everything's fine because it benefited the party they support.

kingkawn 7y ago

It means certain states like Georgia never have been democratic

opwieurposiu 7y ago

This is the reason the founders added the second amendment. If agents of the state behave in a tyrannical manner, the people have the right to shoot them.

judge2020 7y ago
That is absolutely not what the second amendment currently stands for, nor is it what it stood for before 2008. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/United_States_of_America_1992#141 https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/United_States... https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856 https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-sec...
chasing 7y ago
No. The Second Amendment does not give you the right to shoot people who work for the government.
- opwieurposiu 7y ago
  The USA was founded by shooting people who worked for a tyrannical government, they were called redcoats! It would be the height of hypocrisy for the founders to turn around and declare this activity illegal. You are, however, correct in the sense that the constitution does not "give you rights." Your rights exist a priori, the constitution merely enumerates a few of them.
  - chasing 7y ago
    Do not shoot people who work for the government and then expect the Second Amendment will get you off the hook.
  - btilly 7y ago
    Your understanding of the 2nd amendment as an individual right is because by a line of NRA propaganda that started somewhere in the 1970s, and is unfortunately now established jurisprudence. But historically your understanding is dead wrong. In the post-Heller legal interpretation, the start of the 2nd amendment is fluff with no meaning or force. But the phrase, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," was central to the intent of the amendment in an era where every able bodied white man from 20-40 was expected to participate in an organized militia organized by local government and the state. The protected right to bear arms and what arms you were to bear belonged to the militias. And the militias included so many that they really were, "the People". See https://www.nraila.org/heller/conamicusbriefs/07-290_amicus_historians.pdf https://www.nraila.org/heller/conamicusbriefs/07-290_amicus_... for a detailed verification and for references to dig further in.