• 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!

GOP pushes for an ‘earthquake in American electoral power’

I believe the bolded has little to do with it.

Our founders were the wealthy, educated, elite. They put in a system to protect & profit themselves. They didn't allow women voting. They had slaves, and didn't allow the slaves to vote. They only allowed those who owned land, like themselves, to vote. Their government and voting apparatus was totally self-serving to themselves & their fellows. They even included the Electoral College, something that carries on to this day, as a tool to over-ride the voters if they didn't like what the People wanted. We see the continuation of this with the current rendition of the Republican Party, as the Electoral College is in essence the subject of this thread.

Look, our founders were (often) great men for their time. But their ideas were ideas of their time. And those ideas are no longer accepted by most, today. Luckily, the founders left us recourse to allow the Constitution to adapt with the times. As such, eventually we allowed non-landowners to vote, we outlawed slavery, allowed former slaves to vote, we allowed women to vote, etc., etc.

Now, I'm coming to believe we need to allow a more directly representative vote, putting an end to what the Republican Party is attempting to do to turn us back to this country's dark ages.
,

Sure, I agree, and amendments to the C should get started.
 
Sure, I agree, and amendments to the C should get started.

You know buddy, I'm a strong supporter of the Constitution. I supported the EC over my life-time. I never thought I'd get to this point. But now that I see the level of abuse it allows, I'm convinced we need a better way.

We will get another way? I doubt it, at least in the near term. But, that doesn't need we shouldn't have our ideals, nor does it mean we shouldn't try.
 
Straight-up - I'm getting disgusted with the Electoral College system - if these are the inherent abuses allowed.
My feeling is that you have tried to be 'less partisan', to put Republicans in a more positive light; but that you are having to recognize bits of their anti-democracy, radical, corrupt agenda that make that harder to do. I'd hope they allow you to reach an accurate understanding, even if that is very 'partisan' about how wrong one side is.
 
And, the bolded is a problem. I want the voters in those Red States heard.
Take away the EC and they will never be 'heard' from again, at least in presidential elections.

You are arguing for the politicians determining the elections, while I am arguing for the People to determine the elections, especially the voters in the Red States - since those voters are the ones being targeted.
I'm arguing for the present system as specified in the Constitution. Don't the People elect those to represent them in state governments?

If the Democrats want to make inroads in state legislatures, to have a hand in the legislation which controls that state's election laws and regulations, they just need to run better candidates, i.e. more representative of their constituency, and get elected to that state's legislature, right? That might just require supporting policies and agenda which don't align with the radicalism we've seen from the Democrat party at the national level as of late.
 
Last edited:







--

In essence, the Republican legislatures involved are arguing the courts have no say in reviewing the legislatures' decisions involving elections, and that the legislatures themselves are the final arbitrators of elections, including - at the extreme - the ability to decide the electors for Presidential elections.
So, follow the Constitution?
I personal am abhorred by this, finding it absolutely unacceptable. I do not want politicians deciding the elections; I want my vote to be the one that counts.
And why wouldn't it me?
Straight-up - I'm getting disgusted with the Electoral College system - if these are the inherent abuses allowed.
Quite frankly I think you're getting worked up for nothing. Any legislature that opts for a board of electors that doesn't match the state's election result would likely get sued if not impeached en masse.
 
yeah, making everyone's vote count equally in a national election, regardless of what dirt is under their feet, is a bridge too far for Republicans.
I'm thinking the Republicans are concerned with "making everyone's LEGAL vote count".

Democrats and Trump haters...well, they don't like that concern, do they?
 
As a staunch supporter of the Constitution, I never thought I'd say it, but I'm beginning to think it's time to let the EC go the way of slavery and non-slave-only-suffrage, male-only-suffrage, landowners-only-suffrage, and all the other suffrage laws accepted back in 1776, but wrong for these times.
I'm also for eliminating the EC.
 
By the bolded, I think you need to re-read my OP material - with a bit more attention to detail.
I think he was saying that Democrats should accept the handicap (if any) and overcome it. Then it would handicap the Republicans.

The broader point is to doubt that there is anything but legitimate oversight going on.

Why vote for president anyway? Why bother when your state legislator will vote for president for you.
Only in alt-fact world. Not on Earth.

It seems like a very convenient legal interpretation that supports and sustains minority rule.
That's backward. Democrats are the minority but they do not control the legislative bodies. If anything it would be to support majority rule

Our founders were the wealthy, educated, elite. They put in a system to protect & profit themselves. They didn't allow women voting. They had slaves, and didn't allow the slaves to vote. They only allowed those who owned land, like themselves, to vote. Their government and voting apparatus was totally self-serving to themselves & their fellows. They even included the Electoral College, something that carries on to this day, as a tool to over-ride the voters if they didn't like what the People wanted. We see the continuation of this with the current rendition of the Republican Party, as the Electoral College is in essence the subject of this thread.
Compared to other systems of the times, they did the opposite. The Constitution relinquished a lot of control and the subsequent Bill of Rights empowered and protected all classes, not just the elite.

The writers did not want to create a democracy but they made many concessions in that direction. The Articles of Confederation had a Senate but no House. The Electoral College was a compromise because they did not want a direct presidential election but they also did not want it done by Congress.

It is only in recent times when the concept of true democracy is even feasible above the town hall level but there were contemporary writings warning of the dangers of popular rule. Some called it mob rule, referring to the French Revolution. Read Adams A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America and Alexis de Tocqueville Democracy in America, not to mention the Federalist Papers.

Look, our founders were (often) great men for their time. But their ideas were ideas of their time. And those ideas are no longer accepted by most, today. Luckily, the founders left us recourse to allow the Constitution to adapt with the times. As such, eventually we allowed non-landowners to vote, we outlawed slavery, allowed former slaves to vote, we allowed women to vote, etc., etc.
The ideas were also the product of conflict. The issues of slavery and autonomy were central to the discussions. The Articles of Confederation had a legislature patterned on the Continental Congress of the prewar period. There was no popular election and each state had one vote. Merchantile states like New York, Massachusetts, and Virginia chaffed at that restriction and demanded a bigger voice. Lower population states Feared that those states would gain effective control and ignore the needs of the rest of the country. Hence, the system of balances and limits, ie two houses of Congress, a separate executive and judiciary, the Electoral College, and the Bill of Rights. The founders may not have understood modern technology but they did understand human nature. That much has not changed.

Now, I'm coming to believe we need to allow a more directly representative vote, putting an end to what the Republican Party is attempting to do to turn us back to this country's dark ages.,
I don't believe that Republicans are trying that at all. The changes I have seen in various states provide greater transparency and accountability, not control of the outcome.

One fact was reinforced by audit after audit---there were too many ballots that could not be proven either valid or invalid.
 







--

In essence, the Republican legislatures involved are arguing the courts have no say in reviewing the legislatures' decisions involving elections, and that the legislatures themselves are the final arbitrators of elections, including - at the extreme - the ability to decide the electors for Presidential elections.

I personal am abhorred by this, finding it absolutely unacceptable. I do not want politicians deciding the elections; I want my vote to be the one that counts.

Straight-up - I'm getting disgusted with the Electoral College system - if these are the inherent abuses allowed.
What anti-American assholes.

They are trying to destroy democracy in a thirst for power.
 
Take away the EC and they will never be 'heard' from again, at least in presidential elections.
Right wingers always claim this, and it's always false.



I'm arguing for the present system as specified in the Constitution. Don't the People elect those to represent them in state governments?
That system is breaking down.

If the Democrats want to make inroads in state legislatures, to have a hand in the legislation which controls that state's election laws and regulations, they just need to run better candidates, i.e. more representative of their constituency, and get elected to that state's legislature, right? That might just require supporting policies and agenda which don't align with the radicalism we've seen from the Democrat party at the national level as of late.
"Just do better" says the guy backing the team who is stacking the deck.
 
Only in alt-fact world. Not on Earth.


That's backward. Democrats are the minority but they do not control the legislative bodies. If anything it would be to support majority rule

Are you talking about the state legislatures?
 
I'm thinking the Republicans are concerned with "making everyone's LEGAL vote count".

Democrats and Trump haters...well, they don't like that concern, do they?
Hell, even if that were true (which it's not) what you're in favor of is having an illegal vote in a swing state be more important than an illegal Republican vote in California.

🤣🤣🤣🤣
 
Hell, even if that were true (which it's not) what you're in favor of is having an illegal vote in a swing state be more important than an illegal Republican vote in California.

🤣🤣🤣🤣
I don't want ANY illegal votes to count. Do you?
 
I'm thinking the Republicans are concerned with "making everyone's LEGAL vote count".

Democrats and Trump haters...well, they don't like that concern, do they?
Republicans take every effort to make sure there are more hurdles for people in the name of "security" over a problem that just isn't a problem.
 
I don't want ANY illegal votes to count. Do you?
I think you've tried to change the subject to illegal votes, which is all trump republicans have been doing and lying about since the election, instead of the subject of the OP.

And on top of that you say that democrats want illegal votes to count, which they don't. And I don't want an illegal vote to count (including the tiny few that happened).

But good job on wanting a democratic vote in a swing state to be way more important than a Republican vote in California.

Now let's count how many other ways you can change the subject from the OP. Go.
 
Right wingers always claim this, and it's always false.
Nothing to backup your assertion here? Because I rather doubt it, just simply on population, and, based on population, is why you want to eliminate the EC, so that you team will always win.

That system is breaking down.
How is it breaking down? If there's a break down going on, it's the political elite's constant failures at governing the nation and lining their pockets.

"Just do better" says the guy backing the team who is stacking the deck.
This election 'stacking the deck' is a liberal myth, the same as 'suppressing the vote', when the reality those that are claimed to be suppressed have turn out to vote has significantly increased the last few elections.
 
Nothing to backup your assertion here? Because I rather doubt it, just simply on population, and, based on population, is why you want to eliminate the EC, so that you team will always win.
Would you start voting Democrat if we got rid of the EC? Do you know anyone who would?

How is it breaking down? If there's a break down going on, it's the political elite's constant failures at governing the nation and lining their pockets.
There's that, plus numerous other problems. They designed the system when population differences weren't nearly as large as they are now.

This election 'stacking the deck' is a liberal myth, the same as 'suppressing the vote', when the reality those that are claimed to be suppressed have turn out to vote has significantly increased the last few elections.
Nothing to backup your assertion here? Because I rather doubt it.
 
OK. Then I don't understand your objection. You don't want legislatures making the rules and you don't want courts making the rules, who gets to make the rules?

The courts are the referees. If the Republicans are trying to rig the game so that they have a permanent majority in certain states, then that is simply wrong. That is what the Republicans attempted to do recently in NC, PN, and OH. Fortunately, the courts ruled against them.

Unfortunately, the Republicans essentially do have permanent minority rule in Wisconsin and it looks like they will in TX as well. The Democrats won by 10% in WI in 2018 and the Republicans maintained a huge majority in the state legislature. That is minority rule and that is wrong.
 
Sure, I agree, and amendments to the C should get started.
Which are essentially impossible, because amendments require more states to agree than will because those who benefit from the problems won't agree. On the other hand, the interstate compact on the popular vote seems it could solve much of this.
 
Would you start voting Democrat if we got rid of the EC? Do you know anyone who would?
Ignoring the population density and voting trends when it's convenient for you.
As I posted, without the EC, it would disenfranchise pretty much all the voters of all the states except for 2 coasts' blue sections, least for presidential elections.
Check out the population distribution sometime.

There's that, plus numerous other problems. They designed the system when population differences weren't nearly as large as they are now.
Why does this matter when a presidential election is 50 state level elections (plus territories)?
As opposed to mob rule.

Nothing to backup your assertion here? Because I rather doubt it.

1646867841977.png

See the upward trend line from 2012 or so to 2020? Significant increases in minority groups, except for Black, but that too on the raise equal with the national average.
 
What anti-American assholes.

They are trying to destroy democracy in a thirst for power.
My only issue with that is your surprise.

It would be like one D-Day soldier saying to another, "Hitler is an asshole! He's trying to destroy international peace!" It's sort of 'ya, but that's not news'. Don't get me wrong, I agree, I just wish people knew this earlier. How much of the country is this still news to?
 
Take away the EC and they will never be 'heard' from again, at least in presidential elections.


I'm arguing for the present system as specified in the Constitution. Don't the People elect those to represent them in state governments?

If the Democrats want to make inroads in state legislatures, to have a hand in the legislation which controls that state's election laws and regulations, they just need to run better candidates, i.e. more representative of their constituency, and get elected to that state's legislature, right? That might just require supporting policies and agenda which don't align with the radicalism we've seen from the Democrat party at the national level as of late.

If that were the case, only NY and California would need to vote. The rest of the state's votes wouldn't matter enough to make a difference.

You think the controversies surrounding the 2020 election were bad? Doing the above would only make it 10x worse.

If I might speak to the bolded first, the discussion has turned to a point where a hypothetical is being discussed. Hypothetically, an amendment could end the EC, and there could be presidential elections without the EC. If that were to be true in the future, a million votes in California would equal a million votes in Alabama. I might vote for the D and you vote for the R and it wouldn't make any difference which state we voted in. The total population of both California and NY combined ( about 60 million ) is less than the population of the rest of the country. (330 million ) But that wouldn't matter because the state legislatures wouldn't be involved in presidential elections other than writing the laws concerning how people cast ballots.

Consider a person who has voted for the democratic presidential candidate for the last 40 years in Texas. Their vote for president never made it to the final tally. The hypothetical means everybody's vote makes it to the finish line, as in the final total votes. The idea is that every presidential candidate's votes would be counted since it would be as if there were no state lines. The people just vote and the officials just count it.

I don't understand what you're claiming, if there was no EC, why would someone in Oklahoma think that their vote wasn't going to count?

I agree with you on this : That might just require supporting policies and agenda which don't align with the radicalism we've seen from the Democrat party at the national level as of late.
But I would add that both parties could heed that advice.

Still, I don't get the problem that you and I vote in the future for president, and the state we live in wouldn't matter if there was no EC. Your vote would count in the final tally and mine too . I don't understand the objection to that.
 
Last edited:
Stop making sense.


Of course. It's the only thing that makes sense. Nationally, neither party is a majority.

Sorry that it pops your bubble.


Which party has more seats in more state legislatures? Doesn't the gop have a majority in more state legislatures than the Dems?
 
Here's the best solution: Let the Republicans make these changes...then elect Democrats. Then the Democrats can take advantage of what the Republicans did.
The idea behind the plans and other GOP electoral schemes -as they have admitted- is to make it harder to elect democrats. Republicans see the demographic writing on the wall.
 
Back
Top Bottom