• 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!

Time to eliminate the battleground states

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. :rolleyes:
Can you explain why the votes of 3 million rural voters should count more than the votes of 3 million urban voters? I don't think so.
 
Can you explain why the votes of 3 million rural voters should count more than the votes of 3 million urban voters? I don't think so.
Because they have different interests that do not affect cities whereas cities are full of people with projects they want to impose on the hinterlands.
 
'Propaganda papers'?

Cliff Notes: Summary and Analysis Section XI: Need for a Strong Executive: Federalist No. 68 (Hamilton)
WHY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE

The discussion on this
Yes, the federalist papers were propaganda, as we're the anti-federalist papers and/or such.

Now that you've suggested that there's text in #68 that supports your claim, it's easier for you to find that text, quote it, and show how it supports your argument.
 
Yes, the founding slave owners knew they would have more political power when owning slaves gave them more political power.
yawn...

The slave issue was settled a long time ago.
 
Yes, the federalist papers were propaganda, as we're the anti-federalist papers and/or such.

Now that you've suggested that there's text in #68 that supports your claim, it's easier for you to find that text, quote it, and show how it supports your argument.
The Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between the population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states.

The first reason that the founders created the Electoral College is hard to understand today. The founding fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency. They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power. Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers:

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.

(See All of the Federalist 68)

Hamilton and the other founders believed that the electors would be able to ensure that only a qualified person becomes President. They thought that with the Electoral College no one would be able to manipulate the citizenry. It would act as a check on an electorate that might be duped. Hamilton and the other founders did not trust the population to make the right choice. The founders also believed that the Electoral College had the advantage of being a group that met only once and thus could not be manipulated over time by foreign governments or others.

The Electoral College is also part of compromises made at the convention to satisfy the small states. Under the system of the Electoral College, each state had the same number of electoral votes as they have a representative in Congress. Thus no state could have less than 3. The result of this system is that in this election the state of Wyoming cast about 210,000 votes, and thus each elector represented 70,000 votes, while in California approximately 9,700,000 votes were cast for 54 votes, thus representing 179,000 votes per electorate. This creates an unfair advantage to voters in the small states whose votes count more than those people living in medium and large states.
This compromise to satisfy the small states is exactly the same reason why NYC and California should not be the sole electors of presidents.
 
Can you explain why the votes of 3 million rural voters should count more than the votes of 3 million urban voters? I don't think so.
They don't.

The votes from each state count equally with every other vote...in that state. Based on their population, some states have more electoral votes than other states. Each electoral vote counts just as much as every other electoral vote.

Seriously...I shouldn't have to explain this to you.
 
This compromise to satisfy the small states is exactly the same reason why NYC and California should not be the sole electors of presidents.
You've circled back to your faulty premise.

You haven't directly quoted text from F#68. You're hoping that article scares me. I glanced at the quoted article text. I'm going to guess that it is trying to conflate F#68 with their idea that the Confederate College's purpose was to protect small states from big states. It was in a way: It was to protect the economy of slave states from the economy of industrial states.
 
They don't.

The votes from each state count equally with every other vote...in that state. Based on their population, some states have more electoral votes than other states. Each electoral vote counts just as much as every other electoral vote.

Seriously...I shouldn't have to explain this to you.
Why should it unequal amounts of people to get an electoral vote, depending on what state they vote in?
 
Why should it unequal amounts of people to get an electoral vote, depending on what state they vote in?
It's based on population. States have higher or lower populations than others.

It's the same reason some states have more House Representatives than others.

I'm pretty sure you are an American. Why don't you know this?
 
It's based on population. States have higher or lower populations than others.
It's coarsely based on population.

It's the same reason some states have more House Representatives than others.
Not a valid comparison.

I'm pretty sure you are an American. Why don't you know this?
Chuckle.
 
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.

psssstttt... com'ere I'll let you in on a little secret- in the battleground states it is the heavily Democrat cities that make them battle ground states and now are turning them blue... :oops:

Georgia went blue due to urban areas (and tRump being a total douche) Colorado, Arizona, Nevada are turning blue. Soon the flyover states will be marginalized- not by rejecting the EC but the growing urbanization of red states. Pick your poison- both are deadly as long as the GOP's keeps embracing of the deplorables.

I see the mainstream GOP being smart enough to drop the fringe groups and concentrate on the independents. and a less radical call than returning to the 50's. It helps major corporations are defunding the idiots who voted to reject the EC vote even after the insurrection on jan6th. Major lesson there- hit those who feed at the public trough in their ability to fund re-election campaigns... :giggle:

Capitalists using the system... what card carrying Republicant hates that??? ✌
 
'Propaganda papers'?
Yep. The explicit purpose of the Federalist Papers was propaganda, specifically to convince people to ratify the then-new Constitution. How do you not know this?

Back in the real world, the EC was deliberately designed as an anti-democratic measure and a sop to the smaller states.

As to the Federalist Papers? Fed 68 states:

...the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.[/quote]

Guess what? That is completely out the window. States now punish "faithless electors," who might vote their conscience and/or preference. Republicans hit the ceiling in 2016 when a handful of electors did not vote per the state's elections, and obviously the left did the same at the mere suggestion in 2020.

What else does Fed 68 say?

It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder.
Buh-bye. Next?


Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption.
"I'd buy that for a dollar!"


Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias.
Well, that settles that. Why is Trumpworld so obsessed with (non-existent) fraud, when the electors will be free from any sinister bias? :unsure:


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.[/quote]
lol... At this point, I doubt anyone would agree with Hamilton on this one. Either you're going to think that Trump is deeply unfit for office; or that Obama and/or Biden are not qualified.


It is rather clear at this point that the Electoral College has long outlived its usefulness. In fact, I'd say it never fulfilled its duty. Faithless electors never changed an election result. It didn't stop the US from electing awful Presidents like Grant, Harding or Trump. It didn't stop corrosively vitriolic elections from any era, including right at the start. It didn't guarantee a smooth transition, as seen in many elections, including 1876 and 2020.

And in case you missed it: We have the Electoral College in place, and the US is still on the brink of a civil war -- mostly because of white grievance, exploited by an authoritarian narcissistic con man, demagogue and grifter. So yeah, threatening us with or predicting something that's already happening? Not persuasive.
 
They don't.

The votes from each state count equally with every other vote...in that state. Based on their population, some states have more electoral votes than other states. Each electoral vote counts just as much as every other electoral vote.

Seriously...I shouldn't have to explain this to you.
WY gets one electoral vote for every @90,000 voters. CA gets one electoral vote for every @310,000 voters. Yes, I do need to explain the equity in this system.
 
Yep. The explicit purpose of the Federalist Papers was propaganda, specifically to convince people to ratify the then-new Constitution. How do you not know this?

I knew that it was discussions between the founding fathers regarding specific topics related to The Constitution and the Bill of Rights, expanding / expounding on some those items.

Yes, they were to persuade the reader to support and ratify the then-new Constitution. I don't agree with your likening them to propaganda.
 
Now is the time to eliminate the battleground states. Get rid of the electoral college. Your vote only counts in these states. The excessive money and attention is directed there. The potential bribes go there. A presidential campaign should be focused on all people. I think this would result in a message that would appeal to the middle. Is it really a democracy if millions are disenfranchised?
You have to know that the Electoral College is never going away. Anti-American Democrat filth have been trying to abolish the Electoral College since they lost by a massive landslide against Nixon in 1972. In absolutely every session of Congress for the last 48 years Democrats have introduced a proposed amendment to the US Constitution that would abolish the Electoral College. In absolutely every case for the last 24 Sessions of Congress the proposed amendment has always died in committee, never once reaching the floor for a vote.

You should obtain an education in basic civics. It is the State legislatures that elect Presidents, not the people. Give the US Constitution a read some time, it will inform you how your government is suppose to function. Something you clearly do not understand now.
 
Maybe they shouldn't.

If DC and Puerto Rico are granted statehood, will you still be a big fan of small states getting two Senators...?
DC cannot become a State. Not without a proposed amendment that repeals Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the US Constitution being passed by three-fourths of the State legislatures first. In fact, DC was originally part of two States (Maryland and Virginia). When the founders created the US Constitution they specifically set aside "not exceeding ten miles square" from those two States to be the federal capital of the nation. Abolishing DC would revert the land back to the two States that originally owned the property.

So anyone who espouses making DC into a State is demonstrating both their massive historical and civic ignorance. It is particularly embarrassing when an elected official proposes such massive stupidity. They should know better, but they are Democrats, which explains why they don't know better.

Puerto Rico, however, is another story. If it were adjacent to another State(s), then the other State(s) would have a say, but they are not. So Congress does have the authority to make Puerto Rico a State. If that happens, however, then Republicans are likely to make Guam a State when they get back into power.
 
Last edited:
The battleground states of GA, WI, MI, OH, PA, NC, FL, IA, and AZ have state legislatures all run by the GOP. They will control redistricting.

Reapportionment will add CDs to GOP-run states like AZ, TX, FL and NC and hurt DEMs by taking CDs from GOP-run states like MI, OH, and PA.

We saw ‘mob rule’ on 1/6 and are now militarily prepared to defend the USA against Trump’s traitors.
Redistricting will vary by State. The two major political parties alternate after every census. For example, after the 2010 census the Alaskan Republican Party did the redistricting in Alaska. Now, after the 2020 census the Alaskan Democratic Party will do the redistricting. After the 2030 census, the Alaskan Republican Party will once again be responsible for the redistricting in Alaska.

Reapportionment is not possible, unless Congress repeals the Apportionment Act of 1911. According to that law there cannot be more then 435 (438 due to the 23rd Amendment) House Representatives, regardless of the number of States.

So if you want to complain with having your vote being valued less, start with the Apportionment Act of 1911. That is what killed proportional representation in the US. Your vote is worth four times less than your grandfather's vote, and your children's vote will be valued at half of what your vote has been.
 
I knew that it was discussions between the founding fathers regarding specific topics related to The Constitution and the Bill of Rights, expanding / expounding on some those items.
Incorrect. You're confusing the Federalist Papers with various notes from the Constitutional Convention.

The Bill of Rights wasn't introduced to Congress until a year and a half after the last Federalist Paper was published. Hamilton opposed a bill of rights in Federalist 84, by the way.


Yes, they were to persuade the reader to support and ratify the then-new Constitution. I don't agree with your likening them to propaganda.
Well, that's what they were.

The Federalist Papers was Hamilton's project, which included essays written by Hamilton and Jay. They were written in the 8 months after the Constitution was completed. The explicit purpose was to convince people to adopt the new Constitution, which is why the subtitle was "A Collection of Essays, Written to Favor the New Constitution." While some of it does accurately describe the reasons for various provisions, a lot of it was putting as much spin as possible on the decisions.

For example, in Federalist 54, Madison justifies the 3/5 Compromise, saying:

- "We must deny the fact that slaves are considered merely as property, and in no respect whatever as persons."

- "In being protected on the other hand in his life & in his limbs, against the violence of all others, even the master of his labor and his liberty; and in being punishable himself for all violence committed against others; the slave is no less evidently regarded by the law as a member of the society."

- "Would the Convention have been impartial or consistent, if they had rejected the slaves from the list of inhabitants when the shares of representation were to be calculated; and inserted them on the lists when the tariff of contributions was to be adjusted?"

Clearly this is BS. The Framers adopted the 3/5 Compromise because the southern states wanted the entire slave population to count towards Congressional representation; the north only wanted to count free people. A compromise was struck to satisfy the southern states.

There is no question that slavers treated their slaves as subhuman and mere property, did not protect them, did not treat them as members of society, and neither received representation nor paid taxes -- rather, their masters paid property tax on them.

Something doesn't have to be false or harmful to qualify as propaganda.
 
Last edited:
Now is the time to eliminate the battleground states. Get rid of the electoral college. Your vote only counts in these states. The excessive money and attention is directed there. The potential bribes go there. A presidential campaign should be focused on all people. I think this would result in a message that would appeal to the middle. Is it really a democracy if millions are disenfranchised?
There is no helping the fact the the majority of states are red or blue. Until that changes this will continue. Washington state where I live is blue no matter what. Oklahoma is red as it gets. That why Georgia and Arizona where so big.
 
Redistricting will vary by State. The two major political parties alternate after every census. For example, after the 2010 census the Alaskan Republican Party did the redistricting in Alaska. Now, after the 2020 census the Alaskan Democratic Party will do the redistricting. After the 2030 census, the Alaskan Republican Party will once again be responsible for the redistricting in Alaska.

Reapportionment is not possible, unless Congress repeals the Apportionment Act of 1911. According to that law there cannot be more then 435 (438 due to the 23rd Amendment) House Representatives, regardless of the number of States.

So if you want to complain with having your vote being valued less, start with the Apportionment Act of 1911. That is what killed proportional representation in the US. Your vote is worth four times less than your grandfather's vote, and your children's vote will be valued at half of what your vote has been.
TThe GOP realized that they are outnumbered and they have minority opinions on almost every issue. Tax and guns being the possible exception. They win other ways. Gerrymandering and making it harder to vote which favors the GOP.
 
TThe GOP realized that they are outnumbered and they have minority opinions on almost every issue. Tax and guns being the possible exception. They win other ways. Gerrymandering and making it harder to vote which favors the GOP.
The Democrats do the exact same thing every other decade, and it has nothing to do with whether they are in the minority or not. Naturally you have to demonstrate your leftist hypocrisy for all to see.
 
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. :rolleyes:

Or, you know, the republican party could actually shift their platform a bit to embrace a wider pool of voters instead of refusing to budge an inch and using increasingly dishonest (and sometimes illegal) tactics to continue desperately clinging to power. That's something that is going to have to happen at some point anyway given the changing demographics in the country. Getting rid of the EC would just speed it up.
 
Back
Top Bottom