The GOP once said it stood for objective truth, for honor and integrity, & against moral relativism

Albion said:

I believe that the point there was about the unrestrained will of a temporary majority. That's not the same as talking about the will of the people or representative government.

Click to expand...

Not sure. We were talking just about the method to select the president. He wants the will of the people expressed but he doesnt want us to actually vote? Seems contradictory.

And, currently, the EC just functions as way of assigning different weights to individual votes from different states, for the purpose of federalism. Its got nothing to do with diminishing direct democracy, anymore.

durangodawood said:

Not sure. We were talking just about the method to select the president. He wants the will of the people expressed but he doesnt want us to actually vote? Seems contradictory.

Click to expand...

I didn't notice anything about not actually voting.

And, currently, the EC just functions as way of assigning different weights to individual votes from different states, for the purpose of federalism. Its got nothing to do with diminishing direct democracy, anymore.

Click to expand...

First, there is a slight weighting, to the extent that one Electoral College vote is assigned for every Senator. Therefore, each state, big or small, has two. Then the rest are apportioned by population, i.e. according to the number of Congresspersons. So, in sum, it accounts for both the identity of the state and also for the population of the state. It is an intentional compromise.

As for the comment about "diminishing direct democracy anymore," the Electoral College operates today in the same way as it always has operated and for the same reason it was set up by the founders.

rjs330 said:

Then you don't know his voters.

Click to expand...

You’re not providing an alternative explanation. The Trump voters I interact with like the things about him that cause me to say he lacks character.

Albion said:

I didn't notice anything about not actually voting.

Click to expand...

Sounded like he thought voting directly for the candidate as named on the ballot, rather than through the sham of an elector, was tyrannical.

There's two different things here.
1. The sham that is the elector.
2. The EC tabulation method, expressed as the number of electors each state gets, which may as well be a 2 line algorithm these days..

I call the elector notion a sham, because the original notion of a trusted and wise representative we send to make the choice for us is dead.

Albion said:

...First, there is a slight weighting, to the extent that one Electoral College vote is assigned for every Senator. Therefore, each state, big or small, has two. Then the rest are apportioned by population, i.e. according to the number of Congresspersons. So, in sum, it accounts for both the identity of the state and also for the population of the state. It is an intentional compromise...

Click to expand...

Like I said, for the purpose of federalism. Not sure why you needed to elaborate upon our agreement.

durangodawood said:

If democracy for president is a bad idea, then we shouldnt be voting in a presidential election.

Click to expand...

I agree that the electoral college is an outdated system, but it’s almost pointless to argue about it. As long as Republicans hold any power, they’ll never let it go. They need it too much.

durangodawood said:

I call the elector notion a sham, because the original notion of a trusted and wise representative we send to make the choice for us is dead.

Click to expand...

I guess I don't see any reason for thinking that.

lasthero said:

I agree that the electoral college is an outdated system, but it’s almost pointless to argue about it. As long as Republicans hold any power, they’ll never let it go. They need it too much.

Click to expand...

Actually, it appears more and more the case that it is being held onto because of 1) opposition to some of the screwy alternatives that have been circulating around (not all are about a simple, nationwide direct popular vote system), 2) respect for the concept of a representative government, and 3) concern about the consequences of a direct popular vote (that most states would never see a candidate since their populations are too small to matter).

The idea of a direct popular vote being injurious to Republican chances, though, is highly questionable. It is more likely that a popular vote system would give the Republicans a better chance of victory than the current system.

Albion said:

I guess I don't see any reason for thinking that.

Click to expand...

Really?

Pretty much my whole life Im bombarded with campaigning from the presidential candidates.... and not once ever from an elector. Then when I go to vote, do I decide upon wise and trusted electors who will choose a pres for us? No, I choose among the actual candidates. I dont even know who these so called electors are. How could I possibly know if they are "wise and trusted" per the original vision of electors?

Not sure what alternate reality youre living in.

It is more likely that a popular vote system would give the Republicans a better chance of victory than the current system.

Click to expand...

Putting aside the rest for time’s sake at thee moment, but this strikes me as an odd statement, considering how, to the best of my knowledge, the electoral college has only ever come to the rescue for Republican candidates, in particular the last two.

durangodawood said:

Really?

Pretty much my whole life Im bombarded with campaigning from the presidential candidates.... and not once ever from an elector. Then when I go to vote, do I decide upon wise and trusted electors who will choose a pres for us? No, I choose among the actual candidates. I dont even know who these so called electors are.

Click to expand...

But your point was about having a wise elector. If you haven't bothered to find out who the electors are, that doesn't make the system defective. And even if you do not, these are experienced party stalwarts and loyalists, not some random people filing to run for precinct delegate or something like that.

rjs330 said:

I think you may need to brush up on your history.

Click to expand...

That's what I was taught back in the 60's and 70's, you know, before the republicans and democrats learned they could re-write history to fit their needs.

lasthero said:

Putting aside the rest for time’s sake at thee moment, but this strikes me as an odd statement, considering how, to the best of my knowledge, the electoral college has only ever come to the rescue for Republican candidates, in particular the last two.

Click to expand...

You would be right if this were thirty or forty years ago. But no more. With the massive influx of immigrants and the successful efforts of the Democrats to make voting so easy that someone else can do it for you without even your knowledge...

the situation has changed.

Consider. Trump won the last election without winning the popular vote (although he probably could have won the popular vote if that were what determined the race), but what is the situation today?

If Florida, Texas, Georgia, and Arizona--or even some combination of them--were to go Democrat, and the margin is very slim for the Republicans nowadays even though these all used to be "safe" for the GOP, the Democrats would win easily.

The whole of the West Coast states and New England and the Eastern seaboard as far south as the North Carolina line are safely Democratic now, no matter who that party nominates.

That candidate starts out with about 200 of the Electoral College votes in the bag, out of the 270 needed for victory.

rjs330 said:

I think you may need to brush up on your history.

Click to expand...

Just so we are on the same page, can we agree that this is the current accepted understanding https://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/electoral-college

lasthero said:

I agree that the electoral college is an outdated system, but it’s almost pointless to argue about it. As long as Republicans hold any power, they’ll never let it go. They need it too much.

Click to expand...

And there we have it folks. The real reason why the left wants it gone. They don't want the rest of us to have a voice.

rjs330 said:

And there we have it folks. The real reason why the left wants it gone. They don't want the rest of us to have a voice.

Click to expand...

Congratulations. I'm not sure how you tortured my rather simple statement into me wanting to 'deny your voice' but you found a way.

Ricky M said:

Just so we are on the same page, can we agree that this is the current accepted understanding https://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/electoral-college

Click to expand...

Yes that's how I understand it. You aren't voting for individual electors. You vote for president and the electors from that block cast their ballots for the president.

lasthero said:

Congratulations. I'm not sure how you tortured my rather simple statement into me wanting to 'deny your voice' but you found a way.

Click to expand...

Ah but didn't you say the Republicans need it too much. I think that's an obvious clue saying if it wasn't for the college the Democrats would win and the Republicans would lose. So if the Republicans didn't have it they wouldn't really have a say now would they becaus the Democrats would win without it catering to the majority all the time. We conservatives just would be denied a voice.

The left just hates the college because they would have won all the elections since Al Gore (including that one) without it. Thus silencing the rest of us. That was the point of the electoral college. To prevent the Tyranny of the masses.

I think that's an obvious clue saying if it wasn't for the college the Democrats would win and the Republicans would lose.

Click to expand...

If that’s what I meant, I would’ve said it. I didn’t say it, so that’s how you know it’s not what I meant. Clearly, Republicans CAN win elections and get the popular vote, too. It’s only happened once this century, but it can happen. I do believe it favors them, though, and they’re not likely to let it go while they have any power. You seem to agree with me.

So if the Republicans didn't have it they wouldn't really have a say now would they becaus the Democrats would win without it catering to the majority all the time.

Click to expand...

Because the president is the only position of any power in this country.

Oh. Wait. It’s not.

So if the Republicans didn't have it they wouldn't really have a say now would they becaus the Democrats would win without it catering to the majority all the time.

Click to expand...

Why does this ‘tyranny’ of the masses thing only apply at the national level? If you’re a Republican in a state that’s predominately Blue, are you being silenced there, too?

Sparagmos said:

Yes, but people could have picked one of the many other republicans who were running on similar platforms as Donald Trump. It would seem that it was his lack of character ppl were attracted to.

Click to expand...

It seems that way to me too. On a side note, did you know that there are psychological studies on why people support Trump? I didn't realize how extensive that was until I found this article while searching for another article that I read not too long ago about his conservative voting base.

rjs330 said:

And there we have it folks. The real reason why the left wants it gone. They don't want the rest of us to have a voice.

Click to expand...

This is so ironic, since under the electoral college system Republicans end up with more of a voice than Democrats. We just want an equal shot, one person one vote.