Tiger Board Logo

Donor's Den General Leaderboards TNET coins™ POTD Hall of Fame Map FAQ
GIVE AN AWARD
Use your TNET coins™ to grant this post a special award!

W
50
Big Brain
90
Love it!
100
Cheers
100
Helpful
100
Made Me Smile
100
Great Idea!
150
Mind Blown
150
Caring
200
Flammable
200
Hear ye, hear ye
200
Bravo
250
Nom Nom Nom
250
Take My Coins
500
Ooo, Shiny!
700
Treasured Post!
1000

YOUR BALANCE
Blue states moving to ban the electoral college
storage This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
Archives - General Boards Archive
add New Topic
Replies: 24
| visibility 1

Blue states moving to ban the electoral college


Mar 3, 2019, 9:00 PM

Apparently the political platform of:

INFANTICIDE
NO BORDERS
FK TRUMP
ABOLISH ICE
ETC...won’t stand on its own.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/432061-dem-states-move-to-bypass-electoral-college


flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Blue states moving to ban the electoral college


Mar 3, 2019, 10:00 PM

I'm sure Felix and Flow will be right along to clutch their pearls at this thread like they did in my parody thread.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Blue states moving to ban the electoral college


Mar 4, 2019, 5:11 PM

I've heard that saying before but don't understand it. What does "clutch the pearls mean"?

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


That's not banning the Electoral College


Mar 4, 2019, 6:45 AM

That's the states choosing how their electors vote in the Electoral College.

It doesn't make any sense to me...why would a state vote based on how the nation votes, as opposed to how the individual state votes? I don't think voters would take kindly to that.

Wouldn't it make more sense for the electors to vote, in proportion to how the state votes? Like if a state had 10 electors, and one candidate got 60% of the vote, then 6 electoral votes would go to that candidate?

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Banning the Electoral College would require


Mar 4, 2019, 6:47 AM

2/3 of Congress, or 2/3 of state legislatures, to amend the Constitution.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

3/4 of the states, my apologies.***


Mar 4, 2019, 6:48 AM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Good point. I noticed it's left leaning states.


Mar 4, 2019, 8:00 AM [ in reply to That's not banning the Electoral College ]

They're playing with demographics but it's safe to assume the urban vote is not going to decrease. 40 years ago they would never propose this. In fact they'd be burned if the popular vote went right. The more AOC types you get the more likely they are to get burned with this approach. But it's not banning the electoral college. Just love to see these states hold their position when a popular conservative vote happens. They won't.

Whole point is to prevent tyranny of the majority. Something dems don't get.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpgringofhonor-tiggity-110.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: Good point. I noticed it's left leaning states.


Mar 4, 2019, 9:19 AM

republicans have an obvious advantage here, lets not dance around the issue. The guy with the R has lost the popular vote 3 times in the last few cycles and won. Seems unfair eh, that let a 150 year old law that was a concession to southern states during reconstruction to allow the person with the least number of votes to win the election. If t happened once, Ok. But literally the pubs have won 1 white house election by popular vote in the last 25 years. Seems we are ignoring the will of he people for political advantage.

badge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

What 150-year-old law are you referring to? I thought the


Mar 4, 2019, 9:58 AM

Electoral College was established day one (basically)...

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: Good point. I noticed it's left leaning states.


Mar 4, 2019, 11:29 AM [ in reply to Re: Good point. I noticed it's left leaning states. ]

Popular vote is irrelevant. Its existence and results proves the necessity of the current Electoral College system.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Might as well ban the Senate while they're at it.


Mar 4, 2019, 7:21 AM

Serves the same purpose. While they're at it they can throw out the Constitution as well since it is mandated by the Constitution. Our Senate and electoral College were designed to thwart being a pure democracy and codified our being a republic.

There's not much difference between our founding and the reign of terror in France. Our Senate and the electoral college and our 10th Amendment were three of the biggest differences.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpgringofhonor-tiggity-110.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Our Senate was supposed to be elected by state electors.


Mar 4, 2019, 12:37 PM

But populists changed that.

I'm a skeptic of Democracy.

"Democracy, will soon degenerate into an anarchy, such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes, and no man's life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure and every one of these will soon mold itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues, and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit, and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few." John Adams

badge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

True Democracy is nothing more than mob rule.***


Mar 4, 2019, 3:10 PM



badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

GO TIGERS!!


It's interesting, the Electoral College does exactly what it


Mar 4, 2019, 10:12 AM

is designed to do. (Keep small areas of the country from dominating the will of the people in the remaining part of the country.)

Hillary won overall by 2 million votes. Take away California and NY - Trump won the remaining 48 states by 4 million votes. (4 million!)

The Founding Fathers had a reason for doing this - and maybe that reason is antiquated - but it's doing exactly what it was designed to do.

Our Founding Fathers were some pretty smart folks...

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: It's interesting, the Electoral College does exactly what it


Mar 4, 2019, 10:23 AM

https://www.historycentral.com/elections/Electoralcollgewhy.html

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: It's interesting, the Electoral College does exactly what it


Mar 4, 2019, 2:33 PM

This article leaves out that the electoral college was needed to allow the three-fifths compromise.

The three-fifths scenario was around a few years before the Constitution.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: It's interesting, the Electoral College does exactly what it


Mar 4, 2019, 2:12 PM [ in reply to It's interesting, the Electoral College does exactly what it ]

Your vote shouldn't count for more than someone else's vote but with this system it does. I don’t care which “side” you are on, that isn’t right.

We do need a way to protect the smaller states but shafting people’s votes isn't a great way to do it and it is already handled via the Senate. A state with a population of 1 gets two senators while a state of 35 million also gets two.

As for the comment on taking away California and New York, do that and you are ignoring 20% of the population. How is that a good thing? Just because you don’t like their opinion? Just because more people want to live there, they should be punished?

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

There would be no reason for any president


Mar 4, 2019, 3:13 PM

to promote policy for any other state if all they had to do to get re-elected was please two states. Hell two cities.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

GO TIGERS!!


Re: There would be no reason for any president


Mar 4, 2019, 4:07 PM

Which two cities make up 51% of the population? They must be new.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: There would be no reason for any president


Mar 4, 2019, 4:41 PM [ in reply to There would be no reason for any president ]

So, because a state is more desirable to live in their opinions shouldn't count as much.

What's even dumber is that if enough people moved back away from the coasts and spread out over the country suddenly the majority of America turns and the election swings the complete over way. Just because people moved. Nothing else changed. Seems a bit ridiculous.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: It's interesting, the Electoral College does exactly what it


Mar 4, 2019, 4:12 PM [ in reply to Re: It's interesting, the Electoral College does exactly what it ]

That which is grown by the few is consumed by the many.

The electoral college system exists and is absolutely still relevant today due to this fact alone.

Take away the electoral college, and look at this:

Take someone from the middle class in Los Angeles that has a creative or white collar career. They're a graphic designer, or a bookkeeper. They've lived in the suburban and urban areas of the California coast their entire life. They are likely Left leaning and support California's liberal politics and candidates such as Pelosi and Obama.

That LA resident is not going to know jack #### about what happens in Oklahoma, or Kansas, or Nebraska, or Iowa, or hell, even the farmland of the California valley. They do not know the needs of the farmers in Kansas, operating massive industrial farms which feed the rest of this country. The white collar or creative type from LA wont understand the needs of those other states they are far removed from. They will only understand what is catered to them in their environment, and that which is advertised to them nationally, and our national media is a #### show of partisan finger pointing.

The person from LA would likely want to see raised minimum wages and medicare for all, given the expensive, competitive, urban area they live. They likely encountered the frequent dirty climate of the LA atmosphere, and push for more environmental friendly policies. And their lack of familiarity with anything but big tech and progressive corporate America makes them unaware of the small time intricacies of big time rural operations in the midwest. This person from LA would likely vote for welfare programs that help people struggling in urban areas, and increase wages in the expensive, crowded cities. They would vote for high taxes and stricter environmental controls like carbon taxes, less oil drilling, higher gas taxes, extensive EPA regulations, more restriction of large federal lands for recreation instead of farming and commerce, etc.

All of that seems perfectly well and good, except for the farmer in Kansas running a huge industrial farm, who has to meed tens of millions worth of produce goals in order to supply the companies that bring food to cities like LA.

Those people in said big cities, who are innocently ignorant of the needs in rural America, would vote selfishly. They would vote for things that immediately improve their lives, without regard for the damage they cause to other crucial economic components.

Suddenly, that farmer in Kansas has fewer farm subsidies, higher gas taxes, stricter regulations on farm vehicles and tools, harsher water regulations, increased (and possibly arbitrary) nutritional compliances and unnecessary food certification checks to pass.

For example, a GMO crop is any crop which has intentionally or inadvertently interacted with another organic compound. Seeds or pollen, etc from one crop will blow into the field of another crop, which can change aspects of that other crop, forcing farms to label that other crop as non-GMO. Failing to meet specific standards created by the ignorant voter in LA can change the crop ratings the FDA puts on food. If something that is "Prime" suddenly can only qualify as "Choice" simply because of an arbitrary bureaucratic decision, that product will drop in price and reduce earned revenue.

With higher costs, more complex regulations, and higher taxes created by voters thousands of miles away who vote for increased environmental regulations who have know knowledge of the struggles of a farmer in Kansas would negatively impact that farm business. Farms would pass on the costs to their distributors, who would continue to pass down the cost until it reached the consumer.

Eventually, that person in LA will go to the grocery store, and find produce that is twice as expensive as it was before, or possibly a significantly scarcer supply of much needed nutritional groceries. They'll bemoan the economy, the President, etc. without realizing that THEIR domination of the election system caused this.


You can also flip that example over: rural people in agriculture and blue collar work are not going to understand how expensive and difficult it can be to live in a city where wage growth is slow, competition is high, and cost of living is expensive. The farmer types working agriculture contracts and well paying farm manager jobs in low cost areas may not realize the necessity of economic adjustments to minimum wage or welfare reform. Their rural locations may be simpler and cheaper to thrive in, thus too much control to these areas could result in elections biased against helping the economies improve in urban areas, simply because they are so far removed from said urban areas. And regulations that heavily favor the rural areas could severely negatively impact urban areas, which in turn impacts the rural areas. If it becomes too expensive to live and eat in LA, then people will not buy the products that farms are producing outside of the essentials. People would eat out less and shop for the cheapest they can, farms lose sales as produce cant move fast enough to keep it from rotting on the shelves, and the supply chain decreases their distribution to adjust for waning demand. Prices drop below economic equilibrium, and the people in the rural areas start seeing financial losses as farms shut down. They complain about congress or the President, not realizing their control of the election is to blame.

THAT is why the electoral college is so important: it brings EQUITY to our election cycle. There is a very complex economic synergy to maintaining a prosperous country. Every piece impacts the whole of the environment. Unfortunately, nations operate in such a way that "the left hand does not know what the right hand needs". Without this crucial, electoral equity, the areas and states with the highest population density will control what happens with the rest of the country, and that is not a good thing.


The Electoral College is not about making "the needs of the few controlling the needs of the many", its about making "the needs of the few equal to the needs of the many", because the impact of aligning the balance to one side or the other could put this country in a very poor economic position.


The ONLY reason the Left wants to eliminate the EC is due to the fact they spent a significant portion of the last 30 year with a majority hold on the power in Washington in elected offices, appointed offices, and bureaucratic agencies. The Left seized that opportunity to significantly expand the regulatory power of these agencies (Ever heard of Waco or Ruby Ridge? The ATF hits home for me personally). And, the Republicans that did usurp them at times, like Bush, were pushovers that never really did anything to remove the Left from power at all of these levels of government. But, after Obama, America has a very large, almost majority population of people, who are sick and tired of Leftist policies and have elected someone (Trump) who is not a Washington insider and has promised to expel any and all aspects of Left wing control from our government at all levels.

The Left and the Democrat party is currently the weakest it has ever been in terms of the power hold they have on Washington in arguably 100 years or more. They don't like it, they aren't used to it, and they are being blatant sore losers. They desperately want to gain majority power back in their camp, and they are willing to go scorched earth and do anything they can to remove the new Right wing control over our government. Thats why they want to eliminate the Electoral College, thats why they are incessant about impeaching the President without an impeachable offense, thats why they are pushing for investigation after investigation regardless of how outlandish, thats why there are perpetual leaks and national security compromises among people dissenting from the the new Right-wing oriented establishment in D.C., its why the media jumps to any slander campaign they can, why supporters of anything Right wing are written off as fascists and nazis, and why supporters of the Left wing jump to anger before they approach with discourse.


And after witnessing how unhinged an entire HALF of our political system has become after the rest of the nation rejected its ideology because we were tired of the damage it was causing, we can only see that the need for the EC is even MORE reinforced. Why would we want people that become this unhinged eliminating a key Constitutional system in order to ensure the balance of our elections and economy is forever biased? That is not a democratic process, that is not what our country is about. The damage done from eliminating the EC and enabling a system that is crafted to almost always ensure the Left Wing wins is not what this country is about. That is a form of Fascist Collectivism, not independence and individual liberties.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

As I said - "maybe their reason is antiquated". But it was


Mar 5, 2019, 1:34 PM [ in reply to Re: It's interesting, the Electoral College does exactly what it ]

put in for a specific purpose - and that purpose is still being served.

Also - Trump says stupid stuff - but he was right about one thing...The election would be run differently if it was based on popular vote.

I live in NC (a swing state) - we had to suffer through months of 24x7 commercials for Trump/Hillary. Not so in California, where the result was a foregone conclusion. If it was by popular vote - Trump would have campaigned more there (and spent more there) to try to gather a few more individual votes.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


The march toward democratic, totalitarian federalism...***


Mar 4, 2019, 12:39 PM



badge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: The march toward democratic, totalitarian federalism...***


Mar 4, 2019, 4:13 PM

I like to call it "Fascist Collectivism".

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

The element of democracy has to be in there somewhere, I believe.


Mar 5, 2019, 5:06 PM

Fascism involves dictatorial (centralized, powerful executive) authoritarianism, and collectivism usually implies a centralization of political power as well.

What we have here is almost like a zombie democracy. Instead of being tightly, centrally controlled, mass culture, mass media, unnaturally high standards of living and the tribalism of the two-party system has created a situation in which people voluntarily go with the flow that is only passively directed by elite corporations. It's odd. It's like a prisoner has been freed, but they refuse to leave the prison due to deep seated psychological flaws. Insulation from suffering and living well beyond our means has murdered our vigilance. We take everything for granted and we make it easy for the greediest busy bodies to gain more and more of the power in our society.

We vote ourselves into less personal liberty. We vote ourselves into more unsustainable debt. We vote ourselves into more corporate dominated government control. And we have put ourselves in a trance.

Many Founding Fathers knew this would happen so that's why they detested too much democracy in the republic.

badge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Replies: 24
| visibility 1
Archives - General Boards Archive
add New Topic