Trump's Post Election Fallout: Legal & Obstruction actions

knapplc said:
I think this is a very logical and realistic fear. 

Almost no citizen likes the Electoral College. It's an anachronistic tool created for an era wholly unlike today. 

What the Republicans do today could end it forever. Maybe there's some good that comes out of this farce. 
Click to expand...


As a rural Nebraskan I like that it gives my vote a fair shake

 
knapplc said:
I just hope Rudy gets the psychiatric help he needs.
Click to expand...
"Trial by combat" Okay Rudy, don't hurt us...

giphy.gif


 
Plenty of other democratic countries manage to elect presidents without the use of an electoral college like ours, and many of the reasons brought up in defense of the electoral college have been widely debuked. And the bolded line below is quite telling.

But it's pig-ignorant to say that a big, complicated country lets itself be run by the big population centers if it goes to a popular vote. Plenty of countries pull it off. So could this one. Just 12 years ago, in this country, George W. Bush was wiped out in every urban area outside of Texas, and won the presidency and popular vote.

...But it might be telling that when we've advised a country on how to write a constitution, we have never told them to copy the electoral college. Nor have we told them to let state legislators draw their own boundaries. In 2012 our system elected a House of Representatives that lost the popular vote and in 2016 it elected a president that lost it, too. That has massive distorting effects on how our country works. For all our gifts, it's something no other presidential democracy has to worry about.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Enhance said:
Plenty of other democratic countries manage to elect presidents without the use of an electoral college like ours, and many of the reasons brought up in defense of the electoral college have been widely debuked. And the bolded line below is quite telling.
Click to expand...
They do it so we should too isn’t really the best rational for change.  
 

If enough of the country wants to move to end the EC, we might as well go all the way and eliminate the filibuster, end the Senate and just have one legislative body.  In the end, what’s the real point of a Senate and a House?  Why can’t one body do both jobs and let the majority rule.  

 
Archy1221 said:
They do it so we should too isn’t really the best rational for change.  
Click to expand...


That's not the rationale.  The rationale is "Their system is better than ours because it is more representative of the electorate."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Archy1221 said:
They do it so we should too isn’t really the best rational for change.  
 

If enough of the country wants to move to end the EC, we might as well go all the way and eliminate the filibuster, end the Senate and just have one legislative body.  In the end, what’s the real point of a Senate and a House?  Why can’t one body do both jobs and let the majority rule.  
Click to expand...
An alternative I've seen to ending the EC, is to expand it to actually meet the current population and make laws to let it keep expanding. For example, expand the Senate to 3 members per state (allows Senate election every 2 years) and set the "Wyoming rule" for the House, which is to make the population count per Representative the same as the population of the smallest state. The EC has the same number of electors as the members of Congress, so it would expand the EC to more evenly cover the population.

 
Archy1221 said:
They do it so we should too isn’t really the best rational for change.  
Click to expand...
This is a silly. First, that's not what's being said, and second, you're dumbing down the argument/debate in order to warp the discussion

Your response suggests it is rational to negate the way other people do things simply because it is different, without actually giving credence to why they may do things differently.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
RedDenver said:
An alternative I've seen to ending the EC, is to expand it to actually meet the current population and make laws to let it keep expanding. For example, expand the Senate to 3 members per state (allows Senate election every 2 years) and set the "Wyoming rule" for the House, which is to make the population count per Representative the same as the population of the smallest state. The EC has the same number of electors as the members of Congress, so it would expand the EC to more evenly cover the population.
Click to expand...
something like this is much more palatable, to folks from "land doesn't vote" areas than simply eliminating it

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top