Is the US Electoral System really democratic?

[MKSheppard]

Are you going to bitch, or offer that "sincere difference?" I said this because I cannot see any modern, real reason for it, and none of its proponents to memory before have offered anything beyond the same hive arguments and appeals to tradition.

I bet it really burns your ass that the EC and it's make up is mandated in the constitution and any attempt to change it must be ratified by 2/3rds of
all states.

Fat chance of that happening

[Howedar]

Without an electoral college, on paper a Californian's vote is worth exactly as much as mine. However, this is the problem: while his vote is worth as much as mine, no pres. candidate will give a flying fuck about the needs of the population outside of the major states because they're fairly inconsequential. So I will be able to vote for whomever I choose with as much sway as Kernel, but I really will have no candidates to choose from who in any way represent or address my needs.

Presidential candidates shouldn't give attention out of proportion to population. That's the point of the vote and democracy.

The whole idea is that they'll pay attention to whichever location and demographics have more people and thus more people in need.

California and New York and Texas will never be ignored, becuase they have a godawful lot of people. However, without the EC, smaller states can be ignored (and still are, to a lesser extent).

[Illuminatus Primus]

Are you going to bitch, or offer that "sincere difference?" I said this because I cannot see any modern, real reason for it, and none of its proponents to memory before have offered anything beyond the same hive arguments and appeals to tradition.

I bet it really burns your ass that the EC and it's make up is mandated in the constitution and any attempt to change it must be ratified by 2/3rds of
all states.

Fat chance of that happening

I bet it burns your ass everytime you have a siezure in your prefrontal cortex and you shit things like that and imagine that it is a rebuttal.

[Perinquus]

No, you acted like it caused unlimited democracy and then rebutted that unlimited democracy is bad... What's that? Oh yes, a Strawman Fallacy.

How is merely pointing out that something is not democratic "acting like it caused unlimited democracy"? Do tell?

Probably where you specifically referred to unlimited democracy.

The founding fathers were highly suspicious of pure democracy.

It's a good thing that not all of our institutions are purely democratic.

And where does it say or even imply in the obove quotes that the EC is the only feature of our government whose removal would result in pure democracy? Remember, that would have to be the case for your assertion to be true. If removal of the EC would lead to pure democracy, then the EC has to be the only institution that prevents this. Please tell me where I made this connection. All you've done so far is quote me referring to pure democracy in a general sense, and pointing out that the founding fathers were suspicious of it. No shit sherlock.

I pointed out that this particular element of our government was not democratic. I never even hinted that it was the only one, which is what I would have had to do to portray its removal as causing unlimited democracy. You provided that little leap of logic. The strawman is yours.

Lies and damned lies. Your reply to the idea the EC is undemocratic is to whine that the Founding Father's were leery of pure democracy.

And they were. It's a fact. Deal with it. That does not mean for a moment that the EC was the only check against pure democracy that they built into the constitution, nor does it mean that I claimed that it was. You're the one spouting lies and damned lies here. I never claimed what you say I claimed.

[SirNitram]

And where does it say or even imply in the obove quotes that the EC is the only feature of our government whose removal would result in pure democracy? Remember, that would have to be the case for your assertion to be true. If removal of the EC would lead to pure democracy, then the EC has to be the only institution that prevents this. Please tell me where I made this connection. All you've done so far is quote me referring to pure democracy in a general sense, and pointing out that the founding fathers were suspicious of it. No shit sherlock.

You made this connection implicitly by your rebuttal being solely on 'The Founding Father's were leery of pure democracy and here is why'.

I pointed out that this particular element of our government was not democratic. I never even hinted that it was the only one, which is what I would have had to do to portray its removal as causing unlimited democracy. You provided that little leap of logic. The strawman is yours.

Lies and damned lies. Your reply to the idea the EC is undemocratic is to whine that the Founding Father's were leery of pure democracy.

And they were. It's a fact. Deal with it. That does not mean for a moment that the EC was the only check against pure democracy that they built into the constitution, nor does it mean that I claimed that it was. You're the one spouting lies and damned lies here. I never claimed what you say I claimed.

So your rebuttal was in fact not even vaguely on topic?

[MKSheppard]

I bet it burns your ass everytime you have a siezure in your prefrontal cortex and you shit things like that and imagine that it is a rebuttal.

I'm not the moron ranting over and over over something that will not be changed.

[Keevan_Colton]

I bet it burns your ass everytime you have a siezure in your prefrontal cortex and you shit things like that and imagine that it is a rebuttal.

I'm not the moron ranting over and over over something that will not be changed.

No, you're just the shithead spamming it up with pointless crap.

[Perinquus]

And where does it say or even imply in the obove quotes that the EC is the only feature of our government whose removal would result in pure democracy? Remember, that would have to be the case for your assertion to be true. If removal of the EC would lead to pure democracy, then the EC has to be the only institution that prevents this. Please tell me where I made this connection. All you've done so far is quote me referring to pure democracy in a general sense, and pointing out that the founding fathers were suspicious of it. No shit sherlock.

You made this connection implicitly by your rebuttal being solely on 'The Founding Father's were leery of pure democracy and here is why'.

Lies and damned lies. Your reply to the idea the EC is undemocratic is to whine that the Founding Father's were leery of pure democracy.

And they were. It's a fact. Deal with it. That does not mean for a moment that the EC was the only check against pure democracy that they built into the constitution, nor does it mean that I claimed that it was. You're the one spouting lies and damned lies here. I never claimed what you say I claimed.

So your rebuttal was in fact not even vaguely on topic?

Oh, I see. Nevermind what you said; this is what you meant. Whatever.

[MKSheppard]

No, you're just the shithead spamming it up with pointless crap.

I'm merely pointing out an obvious fact which everyone ignores. And a hearty
"fuck you very much", too, Colton.

[Keevan_Colton]

No, you're just the shithead spamming it up with pointless crap.

I'm merely pointing out an obvious fact which everyone ignores. And a hearty
"fuck you very much", too, Colton.

In a debate on whether something should be changed, you point out none of us can change it...how fucking useful. It's almost as good as Perry there with his tangent about intentions of the founding fathers and all that shit, where has yet to make a point that wasnt a fallacy...

Frankly contribute something or stay the fuck out of the thread.

[SirNitram]

Oh, I see. Nevermind what you said; this is what you meant. Whatever.

It's relatively simple. Your rebuttal was solely on the case of the downsides of pure democracy. For this to be in any way a valid rebuttal, pure democracy must follow from removal of the EC. Since it doesn't, you're full of shit.

[MKSheppard]

In a debate on whether something should be changed, you point out none of us [/i]can[/i] change it...how fucking useful.

Hey, if you want to go rail against windmills, fine by me, but don't
get bitchy at me when I point that out.

Frankly contribute something or stay the fuck out of the thread.

I am; Pointing out that you're all goddamned morons for arguing over this.

Go wank off or something. Like I'm about to do

[SirNitram]

In a debate on whether something should be changed, you point out none of us [/i]can[/i] change it...how fucking useful.

Hey, if you want to go rail against windmills, fine by me, but don't
get bitchy at me when I point that out.

If you're going to try and make references, make them right. It's tilt at windmills.

[Keevan_Colton]

Hey, if you want to go rail against windmills, fine by me, but don't
get bitchy at me when I point that out.

-----

I am; Pointing out that you're all goddamned morons for arguing over this.

Go wank off or something. Like I'm about to do

If you think a discussion is pointless then dont get involved in it you annoying little shit.

[MKSheppard]

If you think a discussion is pointless then dont get involved in it you annoying little shit.

*Takes out pencil and puts a tick mark on his TO DO LIST next to "Annoy Keevan Colton*

Are we done playing that violin yet, Mr Colton?

[Darth Wong]

Hey, if you want to go rail against windmills, fine by me, but don't get bitchy at me when I point that out.

When you argue about Israel or gun control or any of those other political issues which you have no influence over, that's tilting at windmills too.

Go wank off or something. Like I'm about to do

I think I speak for all of us when I say that none of us wanted to hear about your plans to wank off now.

[tharkûn]

This I will never understand, the American left bitches (and I suspect the right would if the EC favored the left) that the EC is undemocratic, and it is, but the far more egregious Senate (the second largest reason the EC sucks) is completely ignored.

Yes Alaskans get a higher proportional say in who becomes president than Californians, but hell compared to the power in the senate that is peanuts.

I can see the logic in the US system, using the senate and the presidential election to limit the effects of mob rule; whilst using the House to limit the ability to which a minority can run roughshod over the majority. In order to run the country it becomes necessary to find some compromise between the hicks and the urbanites ... not all that bad a thing from my perspective.

What completely amazes me is that EC votes are winner take all; the people's who votes are REALLY overcounted are these individuals in swing states like Florida where effectively a few thousand people decide the presidency. I'm told that winner take all policies were introduced to increase the importance of states in the presidential election; for the life of me I can't understand how that works. Seriously a place like California can be considered a lock and 40% of the vote is ignored; yet they think politicians care more when BOTH sides write them off than if they say split their EC votes along the popular vote lines (or even along congressional lines with winner taking just the senatorial electors)? It simply boggles the mind, California knows it is written off, California knows that millions of people's votes are going to be effectively worthless, and they persist with winner take all rules. If California actually wanted presidential candidates to speak to their specific issues; why in hell wouldn't you split your EC votes? Is the dominant party that enamored with national political payout that they don't mind dicking over their local constitutients?

It is quite amusing to hear the American left bitch about the EC being undemocratic, but not taking steps to make it more democratic when it is within their power, and not giving a rat's ass that the senate makes the entire EC look like a paragon of direct democracy in comparison.

[MKSheppard]

When you argue about Israel or gun control or any of those other political issues which you have no influence over, that's tilting at windmills too.

No, those can be changed. The electoral college simply can't. Unless
you believe the small states will commit political suicide by ratifying
an amendment abolishing the electoral college. It does take 2/3rds of
all states to get it ratified, not just CA and NY...

I think I speak for all of us when I say that none of us wanted to hear about your plans to wank off now.

*Chatters excitedly*

[The Kernel]

No, those can be changed. The electoral college simply can't. Unless
you believe the small states will commit political suicide by ratifying
an amendment abolishing the electoral college. It does take 2/3rds of
all states to get it ratified, not just CA and NY...

Shep, when this country still had slavery, do you think people just sat back and said "oh well, no way to change it since we'll never get enough states to agree to an Amendment, so I guess we shouldn't argue about it...".

[Perinquus]

No, those can be changed. The electoral college simply can't. Unless
you believe the small states will commit political suicide by ratifying
an amendment abolishing the electoral college. It does take 2/3rds of
all states to get it ratified, not just CA and NY...

Shep, when this country still had slavery, do you think people just sat back and said "oh well, no way to change it since we'll never get enough states to agree to an Amendment, so I guess we shouldn't argue about it...".

No, it just took a long and very bloody war to do it. The reason it took that is that the southern states felt their economies were far too heavily dependent on slavery for them to be able to afford to dispense with it. Now do you honestly think that the smaller states, who feel at least as strongly that their political influence in this country is dependent on non-democratic institutions such as the EC will ever voluntarily reliquish the EC, any more than the south was willing to voluntarily relinquish slavery?

And somehow, I can't see us every having a war over whether or not to abolish the electoral college.

[The Kernel]

No, it just took a long and very bloody war to do it. The reason it took that is that the southern states felt their economies were far too heavily dependent on slavery for them to be able to afford to dispense with it. Now do you honestly think that the smaller states, who feel at least as strongly that their political influence in this country is dependent on non-democratic institutions such as the EC will ever voluntarily reliquish the EC, any more than the south was willing to voluntarily relinquish slavery?

And somehow, I can't see us every having a war over whether or not to abolish the electoral college.

You obviously completely missed my point which was just because it doesn't seem likely that you can change something does not mean you should sit back and accept it.

[Perinquus]

No, it just took a long and very bloody war to do it. The reason it took that is that the southern states felt their economies were far too heavily dependent on slavery for them to be able to afford to dispense with it. Now do you honestly think that the smaller states, who feel at least as strongly that their political influence in this country is dependent on non-democratic institutions such as the EC will ever voluntarily reliquish the EC, any more than the south was willing to voluntarily relinquish slavery?

And somehow, I can't see us every having a war over whether or not to abolish the electoral college.

You obviously completely missed my point which was just because it doesn't seem likely that you can change something does not mean you should sit back and accept it.

No, I got the point quite well. What you obviously missed - and this is remarkable given the example you chose - is that there are some issues that people feel so strongly about that nothing short of force will pry them loose from their position. So unless you are willing to use force, you really can't change it. Now in the case of slavery, it was an issue where people were willing to use force (and even then, that was not a popular cause to fight for, perserving the union was promoted more as a cause to fight for). That simply is not going to be the case with the electoral college.

The fact is that losing the electoral college would deprive the smaller states of a lot of power and influence in the presidential elections. There is simply no way in hell they will ever voluntarily give that up, not under any conceivable circumstances. So unless the larger states are willing to coerce them, it's not gonna happen.

[tharkûn]

You obviously completely missed my point which was just because it doesn't seem likely that you can change something does not mean you should sit back and accept it.

So tell me this, if a great people like you want the president elected in the most democratic manner as possible; why does no one actually do anything where they have power to? For instance why do so many states have clearly undemocratic winner take all rules for distribution of EC votes? Why doesn't California, Hawii or some of the other state come out and opt to split its EC votes based upon the relative strength of the candidate in the state?

Just like back when slavery was an issue, if your ultimate goal is not politically feasible, then take small steps in line with your goal. The abolitionists fought to ban slavery in D.C., preclude slavery in the territories, restrict the importation of slaves, and other small victories in line with their goal.

It is amusing to no end when people bitch about a goal they can never reach and yet refuse to take small steps in line with the ideal. Political tunnel vision at its finest.

[MKSheppard]

It is amusing to no end when people bitch about a goal they can never reach and yet refuse to take small steps in line with the ideal. Political tunnel vision at its finest.

Except you'd have to change the fucking constutution to do away or
modfiy the Electoral college. And that requires ratification by
two thirds of the states

[Joe]

It is amusing to no end when people bitch about a goal they can never reach and yet refuse to take small steps in line with the ideal. Political tunnel vision at its finest.

Except you'd have to change the fucking constutution to do away or
modfiy the Electoral college. And that requires ratification by
two thirds of the states

No, it requires three fourths of the states to ratify a constitutional amendment.

Two thirds of the states however can call for a Constitutional Convention to put new amendments on the table, but this has never happened. All the amendments that have been passed have gone through Congress.