General Election 2024

Quote: RonC

It is not an outdated system. It is a system that protects everyone from heavily populated states from controlling everything. They already get a bigger share of folks in Congress due to the population. The EC helps keep a bit of balance in the government.

He has been beaten and can be beaten again. It is the Republican voters who are at fault for him being in the race, but it is not the Republicans who are picking the candidate to face him in the general election.

Why do States need to be protected when voting for a nationwide individual? One person one vote should be the standard.

It would be a lot quicker, cheaper and more efficient if we decided elections within the margin that calls for a recount with a simple coin flip. *given it is only between two people.

Quote: Gandler

Quote: Mission146

Quote: Gandler

Quote: Mission146

This is so ridiculous! The Democrats truly deserve whatever they get, at this point. I know they're floating the ability for individual states to remove Trump from the ballot, but Biden won Colorado by 13.5% and Illinois by 17%; the only thing they are doing is continuing to make Trump a sympathetic figure.

He had a fair trial, with a fair result. The Supreme Court may overrule it, but the State assessed their requirements against Trump's actions. Personally I am getting more sympathetic with the argument that he was engaged in insurrection. Will this change the mind of magas? No, but nothing will, that is not the point. If you think being nice to Trump will change the mind of magas, you are living in an alternative reality. It is not a matter of political expedience, it is a matter of holding him responsible for his actions (or inactions.)

It's about not making Trump a sympathetic figure and causing fence-sitters or supporters he might have otherwise lost to vote for him; it's not about trying to sway hardcore MAGA folks the other way. The Democrats would be more effective, in this regard, by doing nothing.

But, it is not the Democrats doing this, it was an independent judicial decision.

You are so incredibly naïve Gandler. Don't worry though it will get easier as your brain matures.

Quote: Gandler

Why do States need to be protected when voting for a nationwide individual? One person one vote should be the standard.

Seems a reasonable point.

Your procedures created by your founders were designed for a different age, where slavery had an impact.

When choosing a president, where is the logic in giving extra votes to less populous states. What's wrong with giving the presidency to the candidate that gets the most individual votes?

The 'Winner takes All' system in some states also seems an unreasonable cludge. Why should Winner take all electors in a state?

Besides, your House and Senate seats are a separate electoral process, giving (broadly) proportional representation. I'm not advocating a UK way of doing it where the house majority party elects the leader.

Anyhow, here's what looks like a balanced discussion of the topic
https://www.history.com/news/electoral-college-founding-fathers-constitutional-convention
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/electoral-college-system-founders-united-states/

Quote: OnceDear

Seems a reasonable point.

Your procedures created by your founders were designed for a different age, where slavery had an impact.

When choosing a president, where is the logic in giving extra votes to less populous states. What's wrong with giving the presidency to the candidate that gets the most individual votes?

The 'Winner takes All' system in some states also seems an unreasonable cludge. Why should Winner take all electors in a state?

Besides, your House and Senate seats are a separate electoral process, giving (broadly) proportional representation. I'm not advocating a UK way of doing it where the house majority party elects the leader.

Anyhow, here's what looks like a balanced discussion of the topic
https://www.history.com/news/electoral-college-founding-fathers-constitutional-convention
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/electoral-college-system-founders-united-states/

You are forgetting the promises made when putting any of our countries together. The smaller states were nervous of joining and losing control of their area. The systems were set up to provide some equality between the areas with small populations and large populations. If you now take away those rights you need to give them the right to separate since the rules were changed. I am sure those that were against joining are turning in their grave saying I told you so, don't trust them.

The electoral college will eventually help the left-leaning population because of abortion population math.

In an extremely low birth-rate to death-rate environment (Japan has the lowest according to today's Zero Hedge article), the pro-lifers will escalate in population relative to the other side.

Quote: kenarman

You are forgetting the promises made when putting any of our countries together. The smaller states were nervous of joining and losing control of their area. The systems were set up to provide some equality between the areas with small populations and large populations. If you now take away those rights you need to give them the right to separate since the rules were changed. I am sure those that were against joining are turning in their grave saying I told you so, don't trust them.

You have a point. Changing the terms now would need some recompense and maybe the right to secede would be it. Any state deciding to do so could take a look at Brexit to see how that works out.
I just think that looking backward to the formation of the system is not the way to justify how it is now. The founders had their reasons. Doesn't make it such a bad things to re-examine the now and say "I see how we ended up here, but is this fair and the best we could have TODAY". No-one has yet persuaded me that the EC system is fairer and maybe more workable than one man one vote. Even historians seem to look back at the opting for an EC was just the least worst option at the time.

Quote: OnceDear

You have a point. Changing the terms now would need some recompense and maybe the right to secede would be it. Any state deciding to do so could take a look at Brexit to see how that works out.
I just think that looking backward to the formation of the system is not the way to justify how it is now. The founders had their reasons. Doesn't make it such a bad things to re-examine the now and say "I see how we ended up here, but is this fair and the best we could have TODAY". No-one has yet persuaded me that the EC system is fairer and maybe more workable than one man one vote. Even historians seem to look back at the opting for an EC was just the least worst option at the time.

Changing the rules now would require the permission of the impacted states, as it would require a Constitutional amendment. The would be no need to secede, as they would be a part of any Constitutional change.

Quote: kenarman

Quote: Gandler

Quote: Mission146

Quote: Gandler

Quote: Mission146

This is so ridiculous! The Democrats truly deserve whatever they get, at this point. I know they're floating the ability for individual states to remove Trump from the ballot, but Biden won Colorado by 13.5% and Illinois by 17%; the only thing they are doing is continuing to make Trump a sympathetic figure.

He had a fair trial, with a fair result. The Supreme Court may overrule it, but the State assessed their requirements against Trump's actions. Personally I am getting more sympathetic with the argument that he was engaged in insurrection. Will this change the mind of magas? No, but nothing will, that is not the point. If you think being nice to Trump will change the mind of magas, you are living in an alternative reality. It is not a matter of political expedience, it is a matter of holding him responsible for his actions (or inactions.)

It's about not making Trump a sympathetic figure and causing fence-sitters or supporters he might have otherwise lost to vote for him; it's not about trying to sway hardcore MAGA folks the other way. The Democrats would be more effective, in this regard, by doing nothing.

But, it is not the Democrats doing this, it was an independent judicial decision.

You are so incredibly naïve Gandler. Don't worry though it will get easier as your brain matures.

You of all members should not be scolding anyone else’s brain!

Donny once again got confused tonight and said Obama is president. How many times is that now?

But yeah, tell me all about Biden flubbing the president of Mexico or Turkey or whatever country that was…