Purpose of the Electoral College

Ikari said:

First off, in this case, you can prove the "negative" with a complete set of data. It would be the same set, in fact, necessary to prove the "positive". Because we would need to know the thoughts of all the electors to know if they did or didn't consider their duty in protecting the Republic against an unfit candidate. Thus, in this instance, to prove that it did occur has the same ability as to prove that it did not. You are only deflecting because, like me, you are not a mind reader and thus do not have that set of data. Do YOU comprehend that?

Click to expand...

What set of data are you pretending exists and should be referred to?

That is completely ridiculous. When the electors met in state after state after state after state those meetings had reporters and media there.The entire Russian question was very much alive and well then. There is not one single media news story - in print or over the airwaves - that even a single electors meeting even discussed for seconds the Russian question. Not one. Had it happened, it would have been major news and you know it. The absence of it is evidence that nothing of the kind happened in even a single state. Not a one.

The duty that Hamilton said they had was never performed.

The EC did what the EC was supposed to do. It helps to protect against popularism and ensures that the system does not become dominated by a few, most populated states. Hillary messed up, should have been easy to beat Trump, but didn't. That's her bad. I know you're upset at that, lots of people are, but it doesn't mean the EC didn't do its job. It just means that Hillary couldn't do her job.

Click to expand...

What part about the fact that no single electors meeting performed as Hamilton promised the American people they would so baffles and befuddles you that it causes you to babble repeating nonsense that has already been refuted?

Furthermore, it was not through the EC that there was any foreign intervention. They way that the EC helps to limit the ability of foreign interference is that the electors are changed out, and not announced until much later, thus without some stable office or permanent electors, it's harder to insert agents or bribe electors. Not only that, but what we have now is perhaps some collusion but no proof that the election results were changed by Russia. Do you have that proof?

Click to expand...

Nobody ever said it was. Nor was that what Hamilton was referring to. This is a fantasy of your own making .
The chief threat comes from a foreign adversary supporting a candidate for the office - not the electors for the office. Hamilton saw the electors as protection against that foreign adversary and their chosen candidate. Please get this straight and stop repeating nonsense. You are smarter than that and you know better than that.

The reasons that the EC was constructed are still needed, and was demonstrated in this last election. California shouldn't have the final say in the President, the President must represent the whole Union or at least appeal to a large proportion of it. That's more than just the People (as we are not a direct democracy), but also the States. The concerns of Wyoming shouldn't be overruled just because they do not have as many people as LA. Without the EC, the rural areas of the US will lose their influence in the Presidential elections.

Click to expand...

California does NOT have the final say in the election. No state has the final say in the election. You re smarter than that and you know better than that.

If you operate under the belief that small states and rural areas have influence in the election, please provide evidence for it. The travel schedule of ALL the major candidates says completely the opposite. Nothing supports you claim in reality. But please feel free to present the evidence that these little states and rural areas have some serious influence in the election.

The reality is the advantage you think exists in the electoral college system DOES NOT EXIST IN REALITY.

The reality is the advantage Hamilton told us exists in the electoral college system did not function as promised in 2016.

It is a lose / lose proposition.

MrPeanut said:

How does the EC protect against populism in the modern age?

Click to expand...

Federalist 68 is great for reminding us that the Electoral College today fulfills literally none of the objectives it was ostensibly intended to when it was created.

Even its primary purpose, leveraging the 3/5 compromise into an electoral advantage for slave-heavy states, is (thankfully) no longer relevant.

These days it's just an absurd vestige of a long-gone era.

haymarket said:

What set of data are you pretending exists and should be referred to?

That is completely ridiculous. When the electors met in state after state after state after state those meetings had reporters and media there.The entire Russian question was very much alive and well then. There is not one single media news story - in print or over the airwaves - that even a single electors meeting even discussed for seconds the Russian question. Not one. Had it happened, it would have been major news and you know it. The absence of it is evidence that nothing of the kind happened in even a single state. Not a one.

The duty that Hamilton said they had was never performed.

Click to expand...

Do you have evidence for that? Or is it just that Trump won and you're pissed and trying to find anything you can to do so. I'm pissed Trump won too. And I would have loved for some faithless electors to have come out of it, I think that a few things we need to do is get back to what Hamilton wanted for the EC. Any State law that requires the Electoral Voter vote as the popular vote of the state should be struck down as Unconstitutional. We need to put more emphasis on the ideals of the EC, that the Electoral Voters are to be a last line against Popularism. Too many party cronies getting put up, we need to ensure those casting the EC votes are of the highest quality and intelligence.

The ideas behind the EC are not wrong, nor does Trump winning mean we have to scrap the EC. The EC demonstrated itself in the election, in fact. Can't win with NYC, Chicago, and LA....you need the Union.

haymarket said:

What part about the fact that no single electors meeting performed as Hamilton promised the American people they would so baffles and befuddles you that it causes you to babble repeating nonsense that has already been refuted?

Click to expand...

How is this fact? Is there proof that not a single one considered their larger duty and voted as they saw fit?

FYI, you've refuted nothing. The full of your arguments have come down to you saying "Nuh uh!" or "No it didn't"

haymarket said:

Nobody ever said it was. Nor was that what Hamilton was referring to. This is a fantasy of your own making .
The chief threat comes from a foreign adversary supporting a candidate for the office - not the electors for the office. Hamilton saw the electors as protection against that foreign adversary and their chosen candidate. Please get this straight and stop repeating nonsense. You are smarter than that and you know better than that.

Click to expand...

And the EC does make it easier to avoid it. It's not impossible, there's rarely a 0 probability in real world mechanics. But again, there's no evidence that Russia changed the results of the election, that's just fear mongering by the ones who cannot stand that Hillary lost. There's evidence that there could have been some wrong doing, and hopefully anything and everything regarding that is found out and all people, regardless of political position, are properly punished. But not that the election results themselves had been changed because of it. And therefore, we were to get Trump Russia or no Russia.

This is Hillary's fault, she lost to Trump. She should have resoundingly beat him, and she didn't. So don't start going to blame the EC because Hillary ****ed up. Blame Hillary, she lost to Trump.

haymarket said:

California does NOT have the final say in the election. No state has the final say in the election. You re smarter than that and you know better than that.

If you operate under the belief that small states and rural areas have influence in the election, please provide evidence for it. The travel schedule of ALL the major candidates says completely the opposite. Nothing supports you claim in reality. But please feel free to present the evidence that these little states and rural areas have some serious influence in the election.

The reality is the advantage you think exists in the electoral college system DOES NOT EXIST IN REALITY.

The reality is the advantage Hamilton told us exists in the electoral college system did not function as promised in 2016.

It is a lose / lose proposition.

Click to expand...

It's certainly not lose/lose. The EC did exactly what it was designed to do, makes the President have to campaign across the entire Union. Hillary lost a great number of States, and even though she won a popular vote because big cities liked her, she lost because big cities, the most populous states, are not the whole of the Union. The EC did what it was designed to do. Hillary ****ed up. She forgot the middle.

The EC is proper and still necessary. We need to reemphasize it even more these days as well. It's not just a party tool, but a mechanism by which the People can safegaurd against the threats of popularism and ensure that the Union on whole is considered in a Presidency, not just the big States.

Ikari said:

Do you have evidence for that?

Click to expand...

Lets take this one step at a time and exhaust that before moving on shall we?

There is not a single media report, either on a state level or on a national level that even a single state elector meeting took up the issue of Trump being supported by a foreign power who worked for his election and interfered illegal in the election. Not a single one. And the issue was front and center in the news at that time and the meetings of electors were covered by reporters who were poised and primed to issue such reports if there was cause to make one. But the absence of them clearly indicates that not one state brought this up.

If you insist otherwise, I am more than open to reading any news reports you can provide that the issue was discussed in state electors meetings.

But if something did NOT happen - I cannot offer you positive proof that it did not happen. I can only tell you that the absence of any news reports for something that was so prominent and front and center in the news clearly shows that it did not happen as I have stated.

But again, feel free to prove me wrong with verifiable evidence that it DID happen. The news media covers events that DID HAPPEN and would have covered this one. And I strongly suspect you darn well know that.

haymarket said:

Lets take this one step at a time and exhaust that before moving on shall we?

There is not a single media report, either on a state level or on a national level that even a single state elector meeting took up the issue of Trump being supported by a foreign power who worked for his election and interfered illegal in the election. Not a single one. And the issue was front and center in the news at that time and the meetings of electors were covered by reporters who were poised and primed to issue such reports if there was cause to make one. But the absence of them clearly indicates that not one state brought this up.

Click to expand...

That's not true. Not being seen in the media doesn't mean that it wasn't brought up or talked about. We may not have been privy to every discussion had, or every thought that the Electoral had when casting their vote.

So in the end, it's still supposition that not a single one did, not fact.

Ikari said:

That's not true. Not being seen in the media doesn't mean that it wasn't brought up or talked about. We may not have been privy to every discussion had, or every thought that the Electoral had when casting their vote.

So in the end, it's still supposition that not a single one did, not fact.

Click to expand...

I ask you one question: in which state elector meeting did the issue come up and was discussed? Which one?

The fact that despite being front and center in the news at that time, there is not one single report of any state elector meeting where the issue was discussed is indeed proof.


There is not a single media report, either on a state level or on a national level that even a single state elector meeting took up the issue of Trump being supported by a foreign power who worked for his election and interfered illegal in the election. Not a single one. And the issue was front and center in the news at that time and the meetings of electors were covered by reporters who were poised and primed to issue such reports if there was cause to make one. But the absence of them clearly indicates that not one state brought this up.

If you insist otherwise, I am more than open to reading any news reports you can provide that the issue was discussed in state electors meetings.

But if something did NOT happen - I cannot offer you positive proof that it did not happen. I can only tell you that the absence of any news reports for something that was so prominent and front and center in the news clearly shows that it did not happen as I have stated.

But again, feel free to prove me wrong with verifiable evidence that it DID happen. The news media covers events that DID HAPPEN and would have covered this one. And I strongly suspect you darn well know that.

haymarket said:

The fact that despite being front and center in the news at that time, there is not one single report of any state elector meeting where the issue was discussed is indeed proof.

Click to expand...

No, it's evidence that perhaps it wasn't, but it's not proof. It's proof that it wasn't reported by the media, it is not proof that it did not occur nor was considered at all.

Ikari said:

No, it's evidence that perhaps it wasn't, but it's not proof. It's proof that it wasn't reported by the media, it is not proof that it did not occur nor was considered at all.

Click to expand...

I ask you one question: in which state elector meeting did the issue come up and was discussed?

haymarket said:

I ask you one question: in which state elector meeting did the issue come up and was discussed?

Click to expand...

I don't know, I wasn't there. I don't know what the electors thought about, I'm not a mindreader. Not knowing is not proof that it didn't happen.

Ikari said:

I don't know, I wasn't there. I don't know what the electors thought about, I'm not a mindreader. Not knowing is not proof that it didn't happen.

Click to expand...

You are playing games. You are playing dishonest games. You are engaging is nonsense that is contrary to true debate. And you are better than that. This tactic is beneath you.

Nobody is asking you if you can read minds. That is not now nor has it ever been the issue.

Nobody is asking you if you attended a state electors meeting. That is not now nor has it ever been the issue.

I was NOT present at the last game of the 2018 World Series but I know it happened because there is verifiable evidence of it that it did happen.
I was NOT present at the Trump inauguration last January of 2018 but I know it happened because there is verifiable evidence of it that it did happen.
I was NOT present at the assassination of Bobby Kennedy in 1968 but I know it happened because there is verifiable evidence of it that it did happen.

Do you have any verifiable evidence that even a single state electors meetings discussed the issue of Russian assistance to Trump when they voted for him?

haymarket said:

You are playing games. You are playing dishonest games. You are engaging is nonsense that is contrary to true debate. And you are better than that. This tactic is beneath you.

Click to expand...

I'm not playing games. I told you, I do not know. I told you, not knowing is not proof. These are true facts.

Here's the thing, you keep shifting things about because you want a certain outcome. You want your supposition to be taken without question because you want to use it as a way to make an attack. So you keep putting on me the requirements of proof, despite you having been the one to make the claim, and if I cannot prove it, you take that as proof of the contrary. But it's not proof of the contrary.

The data set necessary to prove or disprove that even a single state electors meeting discussed Russian interference does not exist. We do not know.

Though even now the extent of the influence is unknown and there is no evidence that Russia flipped the election results. So all of this is a moot point.

Ikari said:

I'm not playing games. I told you, I do not know. I told you, not knowing is not proof. These are true facts.

Here's the thing, you keep shifting things about because you want a certain outcome. You want your supposition to be taken without question because you want to use it as a way to make an attack. So you keep putting on me the requirements of proof, despite you having been the one to make the claim, and if I cannot prove it, you take that as proof of the contrary. But it's not proof of the contrary.

The data set necessary to prove or disprove that even a single state electors meeting discussed Russian interference does not exist. We do not know.

Though even now the extent of the influence is unknown and there is no evidence that Russia flipped the election results. So all of this is a moot point.

Click to expand...

There is not one shred of evidence that any of the fifty state Electors meeting did as Hamilton promised the nation was the protection of the Electoral College and discussed the reality that a foreign adversary was implicated in the election of a president.

Can you dispute that?

The electoral college keeps causing trouble.

It needs to die.

haymarket said:

There is not one shred of evidence that any of the fifty state Electors meeting did as Hamilton promised the nation was the protection of the Electoral College and discussed the reality that a foreign adversary was implicated in the election of a president.

Can you dispute that?

Click to expand...

Did I not say that "The data set necessary to prove or disprove that even a single state electors meeting discussed Russian interference does not exist."?

Why are you being obtuse...likely because you want to say "there's no evidence that it happened, so that's proof it didn't happen". It's not proof. It can be used as evidence that can collectively be built up to demonstrate probabilities, but it is not proof in and of itself.

Ikari said:

Did I not say that "The data set necessary to prove or disprove that even a single state electors meeting discussed Russian interference does not exist."?

Why are you being obtuse...likely because you want to say "there's no evidence that it happened, so that's proof it didn't happen". It's not proof. It can be used as evidence that can collectively be built up to demonstrate probabilities, but it is not proof in and of itself.

Click to expand...

"Being obtuse" is exactly what you are doing. Any rational person who is at all familiar with reality would be more than willing to concede that my point is correct that there is no evidence to indicate that even one single electors meeting considered the Russian interference in our election as founder Alexander Hamilton explained quite clearly was the CHIEF threat to nation posed in a presidential election.

The absence of even one news media story showing that any state meeting did this is proof indeed that nobody did.

To be but here ... to be direct here ... to be frank here ... to be without any holding back here .... if you cannot concede that, I truthfully consider you less than a rational person capable of discussing this any further.

A big part of it was to placate slave states who feared that non-slave states would overwhelm them in federal power, seeing as they had decided to treat a certain class people as non-human. They got the EC on one side and the 3/5ths compromise. The latter went away. The other hasn't, because when they have that power they aren't giving it up for anything.