• 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!

The competence of 'We, the people'.

Despite your piercing rebuttal that cut to the bone, I think I’m gonna stand firm on my original take.

You would have no matter what I would have said, which is why I begged off. Life is both too long and too short to argue with idealogues.
 
* The Electoral College is, as far as is known to this writer, unique among constitutionally-defined national governments.

The electoral college is anti-democracy political corruption made systemic, pure and simple. It invoked Orwell's Animal Farm, to paraphrase, 'all votes are equal, but some votes are more equal than others'.
 
You would have no matter what I would have said, which is why I begged off. Life is both too long and too short to argue with idealogues.

Debatecentrism is over there, bud.
 
The electoral college is anti-democracy political corruption made systemic, pure and simple. It invoked Orwell's Animal Farm, to paraphrase, 'all votes are equal, but some votes are more equal than others'.

Hi!

Nice quote.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.
 
No, the original Constitution sought to give everybody a say, not just high population centers.

"The Original Constitution" included the Electoral College to preclude Foreign interference, to insulate the executive from owing political favors to the electors and electorate, and to ensure that:

The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. -Federalist Papers #68

In other words to a keep unprepared and unqualified man of "low intrigue and the little arts of popularity (like Donald J. Trump) from becoming President of The United States.

The EC was not included "to give everybody a say, not just high population centers.", that wasn't even a consideration. It was to prevent an unqualified, ill-prepared low life like Trump from entering into deals with foreign nations or domestic elected officials and/or smooth talking the Populus into voting for him. It's apparent that the EC has failed on all counts.
 
"The Original Constitution" included the Electoral College to preclude Foreign interference, to insulate the executive from owing political favors to the electors and electorate, and to ensure that:



In other words to a keep unprepared and unqualified man of "low intrigue and the little arts of popularity (like Donald J. Trump) from becoming President of The United States.

The EC was not included "to give everybody a say, not just high population centers.", that wasn't even a consideration. It was to prevent an unqualified, ill-prepared low life like Trump from entering into deals with foreign nations or domestic elected officials and/or smooth talking the Populus into voting for him. It's apparent that the EC has failed on all counts.

If that's the way you want it, the Senate was originally appointed, and I think you're full of it on the rest.
 
If that's the way you want it, the Senate was originally appointed, and I think you're full of it on the rest.

We weren't talking about the Senate????

"I'm" not full of it, if you disagree with my post then it's Hamilton that you're accusing of being full of it, that is a direct quote and common interpretation of Federalist 68.

The Federalist Papers, btw, are often refered to by the Supreme Court when interpreting the Consitituions meaning.

BUT; contrary to your post, population density had nothing to do with the origonal implementation of the EC.
 
Last edited:
We weren't talking about the Senate????

"I'm" not full of it, if you disagree with my post then it's Hamilton that you're accusing of being full of it, that is a direct quote and common interpretation of Federalist 68.

The Federalist Papers, btw, are often refered to by the Supreme Court when interpreting the Consitituions meaning.

BUT; contrary to your post, population density had nothing to do with the origonal implementation of the EC.

I will check that out and I still think you're full of it because todays constitutional scholars disagree, and anything and everything is used by the SCOTUS, more's the pity. But if you want to go back to the olld days, by all means le's go back to a state government appointed Senate. Maybe they will pay attention to their constitituents instead of kowtowing to the party.
 
I will check that out and I still think you're full of it because todays constitutional scholars disagree, and anything and everything is used by the SCOTUS, more's the pity. But if you want to go back to the olld days, by all means le's go back to a state government appointed Senate. Maybe they will pay attention to their constitituents instead of kowtowing to the party.

Pallie you were the one that first referenced "the original Constitution". I agree that having the Senate elected by popular vote was a mistake, but there again you have it upside down. When the Senate was "elected" by State legislature's it was less beholding and influenced by "constituants" and more by the States Government. The EC dilutes the vote of the common man, which truthfully was the intention of the founders; they feared the influence of an unqualified trixster like Trump. One man one vote would actually serve small states better, here's a good article on that.

The Electoral College doesn't benefit small states. What it does is even dumber.
 
That’s because they don’t have any sidewalks there.

Please provide proof of your claims along with the location, because I can prove otherwise.
 
Pallie you were the one that first referenced "the original Constitution". I agree that having the Senate elected by popular vote was a mistake, but there again you have it upside down. When the Senate was "elected" by State legislature's it was less beholding and influenced by "constituants" and more by the States Government. The EC dilutes the vote of the common man, which truthfully was the intention of the founders; they feared the influence of an unqualified trixster like Trump. One man one vote would actually serve small states better, here's a good article on that.

The Electoral College doesn't benefit small states. What it does is even dumber.

An opinion piece, pally? That's your "proof"? That postmodernist crap that the founders wanted to dilute the vote of the common man is an idea so dumb only a progressive would believe it.

Mark Levin on Why We Have Electoral College: Founders, Alexander Hamilton ‘Feared the Mob’ | CNSNews
 
Last edited:
An opinion piece, pally? That's your "proof"? That postmodernist crap that the founders wanted to dilute the vote of the common man is an idea so dumb only a progressive would believe it.

Mark Levin on Why We Have Electoral College: Founders, Alexander Hamilton ‘Feared the Mob’ | CNSNews

The Electoral College does exactly that, dilutes the vote of "the mob", in it's original form the EC could completely ignore "the mob's vote; today EC members are, pretty much, tied to vote the results of the popular vote in their state. Which ignores completely the vote of the opposition; if that's not diluting the vote what is? I was listening to Levin's OPINION PIECE until he started getting angry. Then your opinion piece became angry crap that ran off the rails; why are conservatives so angry?

The founders did not trust "the mob" with the sole authority to choose the "Chief Magistrate", but modern science has proven they should have had more confidence in We The People. Individuals in a mob rarely make the right choice, BUT when averaged together "the mob's" choice zero's in on the correct choice. That's been proven in many studies, many ways; the simplest example is when a large number of people are asked to guess the number of Jelly-Beans in a jar their guess's vary wildly, but, when averaged together the average of their choices is (almost invariably) very close to correct. Before you get hung up on that simple example or Jelly-Beans read up on it, it's quite amazing.

Anyway, I believe in We The People, the Whole American Experiment proves that, as bad as it is, OUR Constitution beats hell out of the next best thing ... EVER ... in the history of the world! IF the Constitution has failings, and the Founders knew it did - hence the provision for Amendments, the one big one is they Founders didn't put quite enough faith in WE THE PEOPLE.
 
Last edited:
The Electoral College does exactly that, dilutes the vote of "the mob", in it's original form the EC could completely ignore "the mob's vote; today EC members are, pretty much, tied to vote the results of the popular vote in their state. Which ignores completely the vote of the opposition; if that's not diluting the vote what is? I was listening to Levin's OPINION PIECE until he started getting angry. Then your opinion piece became angry crap that ran off the rails; why are conservatives so angry?

The founders did not trust "the mob" with the sole authority to choose the "Chief Magistrate", but modern science has proven they should have had more confidence in We The People. Individuals in a mob rarely make the right choice, BUT when averaged together "the mob's" choice zero's in on the correct choice. That's been proven in many studies, many ways; the simplest example is when a large number of people are asked to guess the number of Jelly-Beans in a jar their guess's vary wildly, but, when averaged together the average of their choices is (almost invariably) very close to correct. Before you get hung up on that simple example or Jelly-Beans read up on it, it's quite amazing.

Anyway, I believe in We The People, the Whole American Experiment proves that, as bad as it is, OUR Constitution beats hell out of the next best thing ... EVER ... in the history of the world! IF the Constitution has failings, and the Founders knew it did - hence the provision for Amendments, the one big one is they Founders didn't put quite enough faith in WE THE PEOPLE.

Levin is a Constitutional scholar and you're not, your ad hominem aside. And I don't trust "We the people" if all they want to do is stack the deck for their party. Jelly beans have nothing to do with it.
 
Levin is a Constitutional scholar and you're not, your ad hominem aside. And I don't trust "We the people" if all they want to do is stack the deck for their party. Jelly beans have nothing to do with it.

He's an angry conservative, and I have studied the Constitution word by word, disected it, taken it appart and put it back together; It IS the GREATEST document EVER writen by man for men. If you don't trust "WE the People", I have nothing more to say to you.
 
He's an angry conservative, and I have studied the Constitution word by word, disected it, taken it appart and put it back together; It IS the GREATEST document EVER writen by man for men. If you don't trust "WE the People", I have nothing more to say to you.

If you think so highly of it why do you want to change it? Because you want to win, that's why, you are still cheesed off about Hillary losing the last time. There's no other reason for you to want to change a perfectly good system.
 
Back
Top Bottom