• 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!

Minority Rule Cannot Last in America

Fishking said:
We already have it, at the state level. You get one vote per person, in the state. That will give you the results of who wins the state and then the state will award the EC votes however they deem it should be done. We don't do a direct vote for the President for a good reason.
Click to expand...

We don't do a direct vote for the president according to late 18th century reality.

Applying that reality to modernity does not equal 'good reason', for that is your opinion.
 
OscarLevant said:
We don't do a direct vote for the president according to late 18th century reality.

Applying that reality to modernity does not equal 'good reason', for that is your opinion.
Click to expand...

What do you think that late 18th century reality was? Just curious to see.....
 
OscarLevant said:
We don't do a direct vote for the president according to late 18th century reality.

Applying that reality to modernity does not equal 'good reason', for that is your opinion.
Click to expand...

It's more relevant and needed today than ever before.
 
Well should the democrats get control of the senate my hope is they would pass an amendment to abolish the electoral college.

Along that same vein the Senate should be Reaportioned to more closely represent the population. The Senate Reform Act would do it nicely.
www.google.com

The Path to Give California 12 Senators, and Vermont Just One

Maybe the two-senators-per-state rule isn’t as permanent as it seems.
www.google.com www.google.com

And adding a few justices to the Supreme Court would fix thing up nicely
 
rickc said:
Well should the democrats get control of the senate my hope is they would pass an amendment to abolish the electoral college.

Along that same vein the Senate should be Reaportioned to more closely represent the population. The Senate Reform Act would do it nicely.
www.google.com

The Path to Give California 12 Senators, and Vermont Just One

Maybe the two-senators-per-state rule isn’t as permanent as it seems.
www.google.com www.google.com

And adding a few justices to the Supreme Court would fix thing up nicely
Click to expand...
Democrats can't win fair and square, so they change the rules to win.
 
Roadvirus said:
Democrats can't win fair and square, so they change the rules to win.
Click to expand...


This most recent crap show shoots your statement all to hell........
 
sjmay said:
What do you think that late 18th century reality was? Just curious to see.....
Click to expand...

Life was simpler, it was also one whereby a state with 40,000,000 residents and it's political implications was unimaginable. There are many other aspects, though I don't have the time, right now, to elaborate.
 
Roadvirus said:
Democrats can't win fair and square, so they change the rules to win.
Click to expand...

No, the system is rigged for republicans. Dems just want to even the score.

Therefore, the opposite is true.
 
OscarLevant said:
Life was simpler, it was also one whereby a state with 40,000,000 residents and it's political implications was unimaginable. There are many other aspects, though I don't have the time, right now, to elaborate.
Click to expand...

It had nothing to do with the size of the population, or the geographical region, it was about the education of the population, that is where there is a House AND a Senate.....
 
Fishking said:
We already have it, at the state level. You get one vote per person, in the state. That will give you the results of who wins the state and then the state will award the EC votes however they deem it should be done. We don't do a direct vote for the President for a good reason.
Click to expand...
I'd add that it is a misconception that the presidential election is a national election.
It really isn't. It is 50 state elections run in parallel, each of which's results are then rendered in the selection of Electoral College representatives, as per the applicable state's laws.
 
eohrnberger said:
I'd add that it is a misconception that the presidential election is a national election.
It really isn't. It is 50 state elections run in parallel, each of which's results are then rendered in the selection of Electoral College representatives, as per the applicable state's laws.
Click to expand...

Yup...I always like to make a comparison to the 1960 World Series. You have to win a totality of the games but the team that won actually scored less total runs than the losing team, because the games the losers did win they won by a lot, but lost more total games that were closer in score.
 
sjmay said:
It had nothing to do with the size of the population, or the geographical region, it was about the education of the population, that is where there is a House AND a Senate.....
Click to expand...


I didn't say it had anything to do with the population, other than the fact that in the late 18th century, the founding fathers framed the constitution based on society as it existed at the time, whereupon things like states with 40,000,000 were far from their imagination.

the only reason republicans cling to the EC is for the simple reason is that it is there only hope of a minority achieving the WH, and the senate. The house districts they gerrymandered. They don't like direct elections because it puts them out of power. However, them out of power is the will of the people.
 
OscarLevant said:
I didn't say it had anything to do with the population, other than the fact that in the late 18th century, the founding fathers framed the constitution based on society as it existed at the time, whereupon things like states with 40,000,000 were far from their imagination.

the only reason republicans cling to the EC is for the simple reason is that it is there only hope of a minority achieving the WH, and the senate. The house districts they gerrymandered. They don't like direct elections because it puts them out of power. However, them out of power is the will of the people.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with 40,000,000 people in a state.....again.....it's all about the education of the population, not how many of them are there.
 
sjmay said:
It has nothing to do with 40,000,000 people in a state.....again.....it's all about the education of the population, not how many of them are there.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point. Because the founding fathers designed the constitution and how it sets up the legislature -- it was based on society as it existed in it's infancy.

In other words, the design of the legislature would have been different had they understood America would have mega-states which were unimaginable at the time.
 
Rexedgar said:
This most recent crap show shoots your statement all to hell........
Click to expand...
This "most recent crap show" is all about Trump's toe-chewing paranoia and how incompetently mail-in balloting was handled.

Mail-in balloting can be great...if done right. But if the people who count/sort/whatever the mail-ins are the 3 Stooges reincarnated, then yeah...there's gonna be problems.
 
Roadvirus said:
This "most recent crap show" is all about Trump's toe-chewing paranoia and how incompetently mail-in balloting was handled.

Mail-in balloting can be great...if done right. But if the people who count/sort/whatever the mail-ins are the 3 Stooges reincarnated, then yeah...there's gonna be problems.
Click to expand...


Nationwide conspiracy?
 
OscarLevant said:
No, the system is rigged for republicans. Dems just want to even the score.
Click to expand...
:ROFLMAO:

How are Senate elections "rigged for Republicans"? If it were, then they did a piss-poor job cuz they lost 2 seats(?) in November! :ROFLMAO:
 
Integrityrespec said:
The founding fathers had the good sense to realize that a couple of very large states might dominate a purely majority vote and took care to protect the rights of smaller states so they would not be bypassed in the democratic system. It's a good thing. The democrat party is always worried about equality of the minority, well with the current system we have that. The only time the system upsets the democrats is when if fails to benefit them, they never complain about the system in the years they win elections.
Click to expand...

The founding fathers had the good sense to keep slavery legal too. The founding fathers didn't come down from heaven. The Democrats complain about the Repug party every time a Repug candidate takes office over the choice of a majority of Americans who voted for the Democratic candidate...
 
Roadvirus said:
Please be more specific
Click to expand...


Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona......an awful lot of stars had to line up........🤷
 
SoCal said:
The founding fathers had the good sense to keep slavery legal too. The founding fathers didn't come down from heaven. The Democrats complain about the Repug party every time a Repug candidate takes office over the choice of a majority of Americans who voted for the Democratic candidate...
Click to expand...
Correction: The Democrats complain all the damn time!
 
SoCal said:
The founding fathers had the good sense to keep slavery legal too. The founding fathers didn't come down from heaven. The Democrats complain about the Repug party every time a Repug candidate takes office over the choice of a majority of Americans who voted for the Democratic candidate...
Click to expand...

So....what is that.....2-4 times in 250+ years ? So not often, just what...now they are more whiny and less tolerant?
 
OscarLevant said:
We don't do a direct vote for the president according to late 18th century reality.

Applying that reality to modernity does not equal 'good reason', for that is your opinion.
Click to expand...
Who among the leading western democracies does do a direct vote for their country's leader?
 
OscarLevant said:
I didn't say it had anything to do with the population, other than the fact that in the late 18th century, the founding fathers framed the constitution based on society as it existed at the time, whereupon things like states with 40,000,000 were far from their imagination.

the only reason republicans cling to the EC is for the simple reason is that it is there only hope of a minority achieving the WH, and the senate. The house districts they gerrymandered. They don't like direct elections because it puts them out of power. However, them out of power is the will of the people.
Click to expand...
The Democrats would never vote to repeal the EC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom