Elizabeth Warren says she wants to eliminate Electoral College

[durangodawood]

I've been governed by many people whom I did not elect: God, my parents, my teachers, my boss ... I've gotten used to it. In my experience, benevolent leaders are more important than elected leaders.

Regardless, you've not established a moral framework that I assent to in which choosing government is of primary concern.

Yes. I agree there are other more important matters in life than choosing your govt. But this thread doesnt happen to be about them.

 

[Desk trauma]

Please show our faith some respect. Please do not mock our Father.

You suggested your deity should be president, how is looking at the practicalities of what you suggested mockery?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Thus the admonition to pray, brother.

Living by God's words would help as well (doing things right).

 

[Resha Caner]

Yes. I agree there are other more important matters in life than choosing your govt. But this thread doesnt happen to be about them.

I'm sure you understood my point, but if that's your answer, so be it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

There is still time for your deity to file paper work to run. There maybe some issues about birth and citizenship though.

No need. God sets up rulers and tears them down. But he also gives us the leadership that we so richly deserve.

 

[durangodawood]

I'm sure you understood my point, but if that's your answer, so be it.

Thats the best I could do with your post. Really.

So what if other matters in life are more important? We're not discussing them here.

This matter is important enough to discuss.

 

[brinny]

Living by God's words would help as well (doing things right).

Amen, and one can live by God's Words only if they pray, brother.

"The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." ~Jam 5:16
..
..
..
..

 

[Resha Caner]

Thats the best I could do with your post. Really.

It's simply this: There is no absolute moral system by which you can require my agreement to your moral position. So, you may think the EC is immoral. I don't. You need a different argument.

I assumed you already knew that. My bad.

 

[Go Braves]

This fellow was 100% correct about the Electoral College:

I'm glad Elizabeth Warren agrees with him!

 

[durangodawood]

It's simply this: There is no absolute moral system by which you can require my agreement to your moral position. So, you may think the EC is immoral. I don't. You need a different argument.

I assumed you already knew that. My bad.

Seems to me the principle of one person one vote is essentially a moral matter.

If not, then what is it? A practical matter? I dont see any special logistical problem with apportioning voting power differently among individuals.

What kind of issue is it, fundamentally?

 

[Andrew77]

Seems to me this^^^ privileges the rights of states over the rights of individuals. Statist in the extreme. We sacrifice the principle of the individual person's equality before the govt to engineer equality among states.

You are part of the state you are in. Equality never existed to begin with. Besides that, trying to achieve equality is a road to ruins. Anyone who goes down that road, will ruin their country.

Regardless, you are not supposed to have the power to damage other states. Why should people in California be able to dictate the lives of those in Idaho? They shouldn't. Which is something the electoral college is supposed to mitigate.

It's always funny how people try and justify tyranny over others, in the name of equality.

 

[Andrew77]

This fellow was 100% correct about the Electoral College:
View attachment 253205

I'm glad Elizabeth Warren agrees with him!

So Elizabeth Warren is no better than Trump? I agree.

They are both wrong.

 

[SeventyOne]

This fellow was 100% correct about the Electoral College:
View attachment 253205

I'm glad Elizabeth Warren agrees with him!

A democracy wouldn't need an electoral college. But we aren't that. We are supposed to be a de-centralized republic primarily governed by states. That's why there is an electoral college.

 

[durangodawood]

You are part of the state you are in. Equality never existed to begin with. Besides that, trying to achieve equality is a road to ruins. Anyone who goes down that road, will ruin their country.

Regardless, you are not supposed to have the power to damage other states. Why should people in California be able to dictate the lives of those in Idaho? They shouldn't. Which is something the electoral college is supposed to mitigate.

It's always funny how people try and justify tyranny over others, in the name of equality.

Not generic "equality" (which is a fantasy, as you note).... but equality before the government. You get the distinction, right?

 

[Go Braves]

So Elizabeth Warren is no better than Trump? I agree.

They are both wrong.

Oh heck yes Elizabeth Warren is exponentially better than Trump, but that doesn't mean Trump doesn't occasionally gets things right. In this case, Donald Trump was correct about the Electoral College being a disaster for democracy. I commend him for that one astute observation.

 

[Resha Caner]

Seems to me the principle of one person one vote is essentially a moral matter.

If not, then what is it? A practical matter? I dont see any special logistical problem with apportioning voting power differently among individuals.

What kind of issue is it, fundamentally?

It's an issue of political philosophy. What types of government achieve what ends?

 

[Pommer]

That's who really should be our President! 1 Samuel 8!

Well, He wasn’t born here...so...

 

[Pommer]

No need. God sets up rulers and tears them down. But he also gives us the leadership that we so richly deserve.

If that’s the actual case then why bother voting at all?

 

[Albion]

House members should stay tied to equal population districts for the sake of regional representation.

No, not and be consistent with your general idea--the one that justified doing away with the Electoral College.

To be consistent, the House would have to be elected nationally, at large. Any retention of a district electing its own representative would violate that principle. It would not violate it as clearly as the Electoral College can be said to do, but it still is not consistent with the idea you advanced earlier.

 

[98cwitr]

If that’s the actual case then why bother voting at all?

Pawns on the board man...pawns on the board.