I haven’t misunderstood everyone’s reasoning for why the electoral college exists, I just don’t agree that the reasons are good enough.
I think this is spot on.
Why don’t you define it and I will take a look at it.
Then you would like say our 10 largest cities to decide who becomes President?
It exists because that was the only way to secure the Union. Without it small states would never have joined. Without it (and the weighting of congress) small states, remote states, and states with isolated minority interests and needs would be idiots to be part of the Union. That’s the strong reason. It exists because if it didn’t there wouldn’t be a united America. We’d probably have at least a couple of entirely separate countries.
1 Like
Still looking for an answer to this pfury.
1 Like
If our 10 largest cities have enough voting power to make that decision then yes. I’d much rather see that than to tell CA/TX/FL citizens that they don’t matter nearly as much as ND/SD/NE ones.
Which is a fine enough reason to CREATE the electoral college, not (imo) to keep it in place.
If something has a 51% vote, it has the majority, therefore it should win. Whether or not I personally agree with what is passed would depend on the subject matter, but I stand by majority rules.
I’ve never bought the argument that only populous cities would decide our elections if we went with a popular vote. Right now, a handful of swing states decides elections and they’re where candidates spend the majority of their time (Clinton famously not spending enough this past election). Neither Clinton nor Trump went to CA or ID much in 2016.
Okay, so you literally believe in unchecked mob rule, bold strategy. So what if you got 51% of the vote to do away with voting and install a dictator. Or 51% votes to enslave the 49%?
I believe in the people of this country having the same amount of power with their votes regardless of what state they live in. Phrase it however you like to convince yourself it doesn’t make sense for 1 vote = 1 vote in a national election.
So you don’t want to answer. That’s telling too.
If 51% of people vote to get rid of voting and install a dictator, the people have spoken and that’s what should be enacted. Bringing up an extreme hypothetical doesn’t change that 1 vote =/= 1 vote in an electoral college scenario.
Your bet, your definition.
Okay, so you want to throw out human rights, the constitution, the bill of rights, and everything in the name of voting fairness and the sanctity and authority of the majority. Ok. I got you. You endorse murder slavery and tyranny as long as it’s majority will. I think it’s insane and I’m glad smarter people figured out our system, but to each his own.
I endorse majority rules in a country that pretends to be a Democracy. If, in your mind, that means I support murder and slavery, I genuinely feel bad for you.
You lost me here, @pfury. Ditching the electoral college for POTUS elections doesn’t require abandoning the rest of the Constitution.
We’re a republic, not a democracy.
Murder and slavery have been endorsed by the majority in this country. According to you and your system black slavery in 1800’s America is what “should be”. You agree that slavery laws were what should have been enacted and practiced in the 1800s.
He posited a blanket hypothetical about my viewpoint on majority rules. I dont see removing the electoral college as having much of an impact on the Constitution or Congress if all you do is move electoral → popular vote.
Edit: I even ignored it the first time because it was clearly an over the top worthless hypothetical.
Would all who prefer a democracy over a republic, be willing to allow dissenting states to withdraw from the Union peaceably?
This is an important question since all of the (that I am aware) voluntarily joined this union. Perhaps Hawaii was more or less conscripted.
My point was actually going to be that all reasonable people favor a limit on majority rule. There are times and ways everyone believes the minority should trump the majority (enslavement for example). The difference for reasonable people isn’t on if there should be limits, but where and how we draw the line. That point is still valid, I just accidentally found out you aren’t a reasonable person.