Time to eliminate the battleground states

[Geoist]

Yep, some let their national legislature choose the top executive.

Which helps those countries overcome the gridlock we see in this country. I am a proponent of cellular democracy, so I'm not opposed to the idea.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Yep, since the urban centers of the country are governed so well they (alone) should decide who governs the rest of the country.

They wouldn’t decide who governs the country. Citizens voting would decide who is potus. The governing remains as it always has, just we finally get national leaderhip that the country wants.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Every time the subject of the EC comes up, conservatives pretend it means all rights become null and void, no local leadership, and potus is now king.

Maybe they‘re not pretending.

 

[CaughtInThe]

You can look at it that way. Your complaint isnt with the electoral college. Its your own state that is disenfranchising you.

Every single state is disenfranchising voters.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Yeah, the folks who fly the confederate flag should be governing, billy bob and the proud boys. All the poor red states should show us all how to govern.

Hmm... which major political party would you describe as being the party of the rich?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Which helps those countries overcome the gridlock we see in this country. I am a proponent of cellular democracy, so I'm not opposed to the idea.

I am not opposed to having that system, however note that it places the power of (responsibility for?) taxation at the lowest level. Presumably having each small ‘council’ area responsible for raising the same amount of tax revenue. Having a system like that would also seem to limit the power (and thus expense) of higher levels of government. The US was closer to that concept before the 16A was added.

 

[bongsaway]

Hmm... which major political party would you describe as being the party of the rich?

Both major parties are beholden to their big donors and both are thieves. I see the difference as this, in my opinion the gop does nothing for we the people and as much as possible for business, big business. The R's in my opinion also steal as much as possible when in office. The dems are more for we the people than big business and they at least give back half of what they steal. The R's keep it all.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Every time the subject of the EC comes up, conservatives pretend it means all rights become null and void, no local leadership, and potus is now king.

Maybe they‘re not pretending.

It’s apparent to most that the power and expense (per capital spending) of the federal government has been rising rapidly, of course who is serving as POTUS (or how they are selected) makes little difference concerning that situation.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Whenever you discuss the EC, you just get the weirdest and vaguest platitudes for why it exists in the modern age.

Not a single one of the Founding Father Worshippers can actually objectively explain why the "Tyranny of the Majority" is actually any better than the "Tyranny of the Minority" or the "Tyranny of Florida, Ohio, Pens., Michigan" etc.

There's no real objective reason why that's actually any better.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Both major parties are beholden to their big donors and both are thieves. I see the difference as this, in my opinion the gop does nothing for we the people and as much as possible for business, big business. The R's in my opinion also steal as much as possible when in office. The dems are more for we the people than big business and they at least give back half of what they steal. The R's keep it all.

That stealing has increasing been shifting to borrowing. Giving half of what was stolen back (to someone else?) is not the good (great?) deal you seem to make it out to be.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

It’s apparent to most that the power and expense (per capital spending) of the federal government has been rising rapidly, of course who is serving as POTUS (or how they are selected) makes little difference concerning that situation.

The power and expense is related to the size of the population and its needs changing. And “power’ doesn’t mean anything in this context. They’re the federal government of hte United States. We cede power to them in any number of ways to leverage that power.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Whenever you discuss the EC, you just get the weirdest and vaguest platitudes for why it exists in the modern age.

Not a single one of the Founding Father Worshippers can actually objectively explain why the "Tyranny of the Majority" is actually any better than the "Tyranny of the Minority" or the "Tyranny of Florida, Ohio, Pens., Michigan" etc.

There's no real objective reason why that's actually any better.

A big (perhaps the biggest?) reason is that it would take the approval of 38 states to change it.

 

[bearpoker]

Right. Let the Dem-controlled big cities be the ones to decide who the President is.

Hell, we'll only need one party. We'll be just like the Soviet Union or China...complete with stuffed ballot boxes when necessary.

Sounds good to me.

Prove that any stuffed ballot boxes occurred. 60+ lawsuits on the subject laughed out of court for lack of evidence. Look at this rationally. Why would anybody bother to stuff ballot boxes when they already have the legitimate votes? That's you're real problem. That's the reason you rattle on about fictitious stuffed ballot boxes. You don't have a majority so you don't want majority rule. You don't want the votes from the cities to count because you don't like the way they vote.

 

[Moot]

Right. Let the Dem-controlled big cities be the ones to decide who the President is.

Hell, we'll only need one party. We'll be just like the Soviet Union or China...complete with stuffed ballot boxes when necessary.

Sounds good to me.

One person, one vote. In a national election, what difference does it make if people live in a big city or in a rural town?

 

[it's just me]

i agree that the EC should go. if Republicans want to win, they need to get more votes.

And when they do get more votes, you'll find some other way to cheat.

 

[ttwtt78640]

And when they do get more votes, you'll find some other way to cheat.

Hmm... maybe ballot harvesting could be allowed.

 

[eohrnberger]

More threats of civil war?!

I am threatening no one. I'm bringing up that the elimination of the EC is a very contentious issue which will bring with it dire reactions.

And over a bogus reason. Nobody's vote would be disenfranchised without the Electoral College: Everyone's vote would be counted at the national level and every vote would be equally weighted. You know, like every other vote/election.

When NYC and Cali are all who matter when electing a president, it would be disenfranchisement of all voters of the other 48 states.

Voting-power is highly unequal with the Electoral College, votes are prematurely eliminated at the state level, and third party votes are worthless (That's probably the real reason Democratic Congresspersons don't really want to abolish the Electoral College).

If you read the Federalist Papers this was not a consideration when the EC was put in place. It was put in place for the exact voter disenfranchisement reason is cited above.

 

[Helix]

And when they do get more votes, you'll find some other way to cheat.

projection.

 

[Antiwar]

If you were in charge, what changes would you make to the election process to achieve your goal?

Why do conservatives rarely acknowledge points they cannot deny?

 

[Antiwar]

I live in the real world

Are basic math and solid reasoning not allowed in your "real world."

 

[vegas giants]

Are basic math and solid reasoning not allowed in your "real world."

No they are. But candidates would mostly campaign in those states


Deny that

 

[Antiwar]

I am threatening no one. I'm bringing up that the elimination of the EC is a very contentious issue which will bring with it dire reactions.

Additional subtle threats aren't a good way to excuse subtle threats of civil war.

When NYC and Cali are all who matter when electing a president, it would be disenfranchisement of all voters of the other 48 states.

"When I cannot argue in good faith for why less populous states should have voting-power worth up to four times the most populous states, I'll bring up false notions about the most populous states."

If you read the Federalist Papers this was not a consideration when the EC was put in place. It was put in place for the exact voter disenfranchisement reason is cited above.

Directly quote and cite these propaganda papers to support your claim.

 

[Mycroft]

One person, one vote. In a national election, what difference does it make if people live in a big city or in a rural town?

The difference between rural areas having their voice heard and being told to shut up and color.

 

[Antiwar]

No they are. But candidates would mostly campaign in those states


Deny that

Of course candidates would have to appeal to more of the population instead of appealing to the handful of battleground states.

That would likely mean that state borders would be blurred instead of magnified. That means that every vote would be equally valuable to every candidate. Every candidate would have to decide how they plan to secure more votes than their opponent.

There aren't enough votes in the top ten most populous states combined to elect a president. There are enough electoral votes in the top ten battleground states combined to elect a president.

 

[vegas giants]

Of course candidates would have to appeal to more of the population instead of appealing to the handful of battleground states.

That would likely mean that state borders would be blurred instead of magnified. That means that every vote would be equally valuable to every candidate. Every candidate would have to decide how they plan to secure more votes than their opponent.

And thus the new battleground states would be California, ny and Illinois


They would never go to Wyoming