• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Electoral College whining

Fletch

Fletch

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
Messages
70,777
Reaction score
33,724
Location
Mentor Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Throughout this entire election cycle we heard how the electoral map favors Hillary, how she has a Blue Wall, How Trumps path to 270 is very narrow, how Trump would have to draw an inside straight to overcome Hillarys electoral advantage. Maybe I missed it, but were there any liberals out there who bitched about the unfairness of the EC then? Or did they just wait until their candidate lost to complain about the process?
 
Super delegates good for DNC but EC bad for DNC (this time). ;)
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Super delegates good for DNC but EC bad for DNC (this time). ;)
Click to expand...

It seems the super delegates were also bad for the DNC this go-round.
 
The EC is fine, the EC did this election exactly what the EC was meant to do. You have to pay attention to middle-America.

People keep saying that this should be a popular vote. How many world leaders are chosen by a popular vote? I don't actually know the answer to that. But the UK's Prime Minister, for example, isn't even voted on by the UK People. Which countries even have a popular vote for their leader?

I don't know, I haven't seen such whining and crying the likes I have seen this election. Spoiled brats not getting their way and lashing out because of it.
 
There was a 68-page discussion of the EC in the Polls forum in January. And yes, I made the same arguments in that thread that I made yesterday.
 
I for one have always despised the system and think it should be abolished, it is filled with issues as is essentially just a way top give more power to the political elites. You might as well just do away with the actual election if you are just going to keep it, stop pretending.
 
Ikari said:
The EC is fine, the EC did this election exactly what the EC was meant to do. You have to pay attention to middle-America.

People keep saying that this should be a popular vote. How many world leaders are chosen by a popular vote? I don't actually know the answer to that. But the UK's Prime Minister, for example, isn't even voted on by the UK People. Which countries even have a popular vote for their leader?

I don't know, I haven't seen such whining and crying the likes I have seen this election. Spoiled brats not getting their way and lashing out because of it.
Click to expand...

Like I said in other thread our leader may be un-elected but they are subordinate to the elected legislature whereas in the US the legislature is subordinate to the executive.
 
Carjosse said:
Like I said in other thread our leader may be un-elected but they are subordinate to the elected legislature whereas in the US the legislature is subordinate to the executive.
Click to expand...

Actually, they are made to be in contention with each other. Congress is actually more powerful than the President, and it was meant to be that way. The President has powers, Congress has powers, they both have checks on each other, one isn't subordinate to the other. They are separate, and made to fight each other.

So there's ANOTHER country that doesn't popularly elect their leader. Hmmm...interesting.
 
Fletch said:
Throughout this entire election cycle we heard how the electoral map favors Hillary, how she has a Blue Wall, How Trumps path to 270 is very narrow, how Trump would have to draw an inside straight to overcome Hillarys electoral advantage. Maybe I missed it, but were there any liberals out there who bitched about the unfairness of the EC then? Or did they just wait until their candidate lost to complain about the process?
Click to expand...

I am not a liberal and I don't whine because I like the outcome.

But I have a question: how do you defend a system which rewards one candidate with a 306 to 232 victory while at the same time the popular vote is 75 to 45 million in favor of the loser?

In this case, Hillary, even if she won every single Trump vote in the blues states, giving her a stratospheric majority of 30 million votes, would still lose.

That day you could stand on your head, talk about founding fathers and their wisdom and the American cities would burn. Remember Baltimore?

If you choose to respond, please do so without making any references to me. OK?
 
Crovax said:
Bad how?
Click to expand...

They decided that Hillary was more electable than "populist" Bernie. Those that claim to object to money in politics seem to just love HRC, despite her corporate backing and "gift" for getting rewarded for talking to them privately. If the polls showed us anything real, it as that most wanted change as opposed to yet another corporate "pay to play" shill. One may argue that Trump is far from perfect but not that Hillary is anything but a member (for life?) of the ruling elite.
 
Ikari said:
Actually, they are made to be in contention with each other. Congress is actually more powerful than the President, and it was meant to be that way. The President has powers, Congress has powers, they both have checks on each other, one isn't subordinate to the other. They are separate, and made to fight each other.

So there's ANOTHER country that doesn't popularly elect their leader. Hmmm...interesting.
Click to expand...

But like I said they are subordinate to the legislature, and cannot do anything without the confidence of said legislature and can be dissolved through a simple vote (usually a budget vote). They are are also accountable to the opposition. A president and the executive in the US has far more power than a prime minster in most countries.
 
Crovax said:
No, 16.9 million voters did. 3.7 million more than voted for Bernie
Click to expand...

With Wassermann-Schultz and her minions counting the ballots I highly doubt that, and based on what I have seen I'm about 100% sure she got nothing close to the honest popular vote over Trump.

If Hillary had gotten in most likely she would have been the first president in US history to steal it in both the primaries and general election.
 
Carjosse said:
But like I said they are subordinate to the legislature, and cannot do anything without the confidence of said legislature and can be dissolved through a simple vote (usually a budget vote). They are are also accountable to the opposition. A president and the executive in the US has far more power than a prime minster in most countries.
Click to expand...

The President is not a king, he can't just do whatever he wants. Most of the time Congress is going to have to authorize his use. While the Presidency sure has been consolidating power over the decades, the President does not get to do whatever he wants. The entire system is built upon checks and balances.
 
Fletch said:
Throughout this entire election cycle we heard how the electoral map favors Hillary, how she has a Blue Wall, How Trumps path to 270 is very narrow, how Trump would have to draw an inside straight to overcome Hillarys electoral advantage. Maybe I missed it, but were there any liberals out there who bitched about the unfairness of the EC then? Or did they just wait until their candidate lost to complain about the process?
Click to expand...

I know someone who wasn't exactly enamoured by the EC...

donald-trump-electoral-college-tweet.jpg
 
Ikari said:
The President is not a king, he can't just do whatever he wants. Most of the time Congress is going to have to authorize his use. While the Presidency sure has been consolidating power over the decades, the President does not get to do whatever he wants. The entire system is built upon checks and balances.
Click to expand...

But it is still more than a prime minster in most systems. It is much easier to override or simply remove a prime minster than it is to do so for a president.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
They decided that Hillary was more electable than "populist" Bernie. Those that claim to object to money in politics seem to just love HRC, despite her corporate backing and "gift" for getting rewarded for talking to them privately. If the polls showed us anything real, it as that most wanted change as opposed to yet another corporate "pay to play" shill. One may argue that Trump is far from perfect but not that Hillary is anything but a member (for life?) of the ruling elite.
Click to expand...

The voters also decided that too. Hillary beat Bernie by 12 points in the primary, that's what we like to call a landslide.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
They decided that Hillary was more electable than "populist" Bernie. Those that claim to object to money in politics seem to just love HRC, despite her corporate backing and "gift" for getting rewarded for talking to them privately. If the polls showed us anything real, it as that most wanted change as opposed to yet another corporate "pay to play" shill. One may argue that Trump is far from perfect but not that Hillary is anything but a member (for life?) of the ruling elite.
Click to expand...
I disagree with the bolded.

40% of the Dems supported Bernie's 'anti-money in politics' message, and many of the 60% remaining forced themselves to pull the lever while holding their noses in an effort to stop Trump and continue the Obama legacy & policies - including ObamaCare. This can be seen be her abysmally low Dem turnout & subsequent loss. Many that voted for her had their eyes wide-open, but accepted an unhappy pragmatic reality in an effort to continue the Obama legacy and stop Trump, in similar fashion to many unhappy Republicans wanting to stop HRC "coming home" to Trump at the end despite their dislike for him.

HRC is a corporatist shill, and everyone knows this including many that pulled the lever for her.
 
Carjosse said:
But it is still more than a prime minster in most systems. It is much easier to override or simply remove a prime minster than it is to do so for a president.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it is. One thing I definitely think needs to happen is for Congress to reassert itself and its power particularly against the President. I do think that over the last two administrations particularly, though something that has been occurring for some time, the President has been exercising excessive power.

At the same accord, he's not King and I don't know of a major country that popularly elects their leader. The EC is great, it is necessary, it must remain. Check the power of the President, yes for sure, but keep the EC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom