The 2016 Presidential Election Trainwreck

[Jeff Lebowski]

The case is easy, I think. 1 person = 1 vote. No one's vote should be discounted because they live in a certain state. The minority should not rule the majority.

And I don't think anyone believes that the Electoral College is the loadstar that has preserved this nation thru trials and tribulations. We would be just fine if we just voted, counted the votes (1 person = 1 vote), and were done with it.

That's it? This is your entire argument?

Jeez. Stop mocking other posters for simplistic answers.

[Applejack]

Of course any voter fraud potentially affects the outcome of the election. That potential is mitigated somewhat with the EC because it is isolated to the electoral votes they affect. I think that once you break down those barriers, some people will be more motivated to commit voter fraud.

Still easier with the EC. If you realistically can only impact 10,000 votes, you can't do anything if we have a popular vote. If you can alter 10,000 votes with the electoral college, you can swing 50 delegates.

[Uncle Ted]

The case is easy, I think. 1 person = 1 vote. No one's vote should be discounted because they live in a certain state. The minority should not rule the majority.

And I don't think anyone believes that the Electoral College is the loadstar that has preserved this nation thru trials and tribulations. We would be just fine if we just voted, counted the votes (1 person = 1 vote), and were done with it.

Votes from folks that live in DC should be discounted... That isn't even a state.

[Bo Diddley]

Still easier with the EC. If you realistically can only impact 10,000 votes, you can't do anything if we have a popular vote. If you can alter 10,000 votes with the electoral college, you can swing 50 delegates.

Somewhere in there is a logical error.

[Goatnapper'96]

The EC is brilliant, and any voter not from Cali, Texas, New York or Florida should love it.

The Framers wanted views from rural and urban regions, not just from an urban region that could dominate with one perspective engaging in a tyranny of the majority. This also requires candidates to consider the views of all states, even the small states.

If you are a voter of the big four or five, your vote still counts but it is part of the chorus of votes from one region, representing one view. The President is supposed to consider the opinions of all regions and all peoples. If you return to a popular vote, the campaigning will change but the votes of the two coasts will be all that matter. I much prefer the the national, more diverse representation that this brilliant invention produces. Under your approach, no minority opinion would be represented but just the limited opinions of the elites of certain urban areas.

He is a Ute which means whining is in his DNA. I am sure if Trump won "by a landslide" he would fall into a fetal position and scream about Lavell Edwards RUTS against UTEP in 1981. However, he is also an ALUF so the whining must be connected to some type of moral highground.

The reality is that without the EC there is no country. The issue it was invented still exists. The EC becomes an anachronism when the issue it was invented to solve goes away. I am sure that even SeattleUte will agree that all reasonable and educated minds will agree that the fundamental concerns of larger populated states forcing policies onto the country that benefit only their states still exists ergo the EC is still relevant especially to those states in what we affectionately reference as "flyover" country.

[Goatnapper'96]

How do you feel about the courts overturning the vote of the people?

Also, is there a number somewhere that tells us the average education of a voter in California vs say Utah.

You mean to tell me when constitutional protections advanced Liberal causes Liberals suddenly forgot their passionate embrace of the will of the people?

GTFOH!

[Goatnapper'96]

And I don't think anyone believes that the Electoral College is the loadstar that has preserved this nation thru trials and tribulations. We would be just fine if we just voted, counted the votes (1 person = 1 vote), and were done with it.

That is true this country has no history of states having a certain passion for institutions that other states did not like. It is patently absurd to not recognize the role of Federalism in keeping this country United. The EC is one of the many institutions that seeks to strike that balance.

[Applejack]

That's it? This is your entire argument?

Jeez. Stop mocking other posters for simplistic answers.

Why on earth should it be anything other than majority rules on an issue like the presidency? There are a lot of vague notions about protecting minorities, but I don't understand them; why should we let Iowa dictate the national agenda? There is nothing about living in a rural environment that qualifies a person above another to decide what is best for them. There is nothing about living far from an ocean that gives a person superior insight about how the country should be run. If a state has a lot of people, it should have more influence over public policy.

And I don't see how small states are protected by the EC. The two most important states are Ohio and Florida under the EC; not small states. It's not as if Wyoming or Utah gains from the EC, they are completely ignored. It seems as if the EC just shifts the game from the whole nation to a handful of 50/50 states. That cannot be what the founders were trying to protect; the interests of states with an evenly divided populace.

[Applejack]

How do you feel about the courts overturning the vote of the people?

Also, is there a number somewhere that tells us the average education of a voter in California vs say Utah.

I'd love to see that number.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

The case is easy, I think. 1 person = 1 vote. No one's vote should be discounted because they live in a certain state. The minority should not rule the majority.

And I don't think anyone believes that the Electoral College is the loadstar that has preserved this nation thru trials and tribulations. We would be just fine if we just voted, counted the votes (1 person = 1 vote), and were done with it.

You should import this revolutionary idea to the UK, Canada and Germany while you're at it.

No one, except third world and totalitarian countries, has a simple popular vote.

Also, I love this idea that we should simply cast away different parts of the constitution that you find anachronistic. It's an idea that's shared by campus fascists who don't find much appeal in the exercise of freedom of speech rights by people they don't agree with. Not surprisingly, it's something that a University of Utah Law Professor espoused a couple weeks ago. The constitution was an agreement made by the states through its people to consent to being governed. This "anachronistic" feature you allude to is a novel idea as it relates to any contract. You should have gotten together with the NBA and its owners before they paid out $500 million a couple years ago to the owners of the former St. Louis ABA team because of an anachronistic feature of a contract they signed in the 70s.

With the secession talk and the general lunacy coming from the left since the election, what gives you the idea that the constitution will ever be amended to implement a simple popular vote? I'm sure 3/4 of the states would really enjoy giving California even more influence.

[Applejack]

That is true this country has no history of states having a certain passion for institutions that other states did not like. It is patently absurd to not recognize the role of Federalism in keeping this country United. The EC is one of the many institutions that seeks to strike that balance.

How is this balance struck? The EC doesn't help Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, DC, Vermont, Alaska, HAwaii, or any of the flyover states. It basically boils the election down to "who do people in Florida and Ohio like?" That doesn't seem like Federalism.

[byu71]

How is this balance struck? The EC doesn't help Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, DC, Vermont, Alaska, HAwaii, or any of the flyover states. It basically boils the election down to "who do people in Florida and Ohio like?" That doesn't seem like Federalism.

If Florida or Ohio had voted for Clinton, Trump still would have won. I wonder if any Democrat since JFK could have won the Presidency without California?

[Jeff Lebowski]

This is a funny debate. There is no way in hell that part of the constitution gets changed.

[Applejack]

You should import this revolutionary idea to the UK, Canada and Germany while you're at it.

No one, except third world and totalitarian countries, has a simple popular vote.

Also, I love this idea that we should simply cast away different parts of the constitution that you find anachronistic. It's an idea that's shared by campus fascists who don't find much appeal in the exercise of freedom of speech rights by people they don't agree with. Not surprisingly, it's something that a University of Utah Law Professor espoused a couple weeks ago. The constitution was an agreement made by the states through its people to consent to being governed. This "anachronistic" feature you allude to is a novel idea as it relates to any contract. You should have gotten together with the NBA and its owners before they paid out $500 million a couple years ago to the owners of the former St. Louis ABA team because of an anachronistic feature of a contract they signed in the 70s.

With the secession talk and the general lunacy coming from the left since the election, what gives you the idea that the constitution will ever be amended to implement a simple popular vote? I'm sure 3/4 of the states would really enjoy giving California even more influence.

France and Japan are offended. The countries you list are parliamentary republics. The US is not.

[Applejack]

This is a funny debate. There is no way in hell that part of the constitution gets changed.

No question. Are we debating the feasibility of this change, or the merits?