The electorial college needs to go

Donald Duck is proof that we need balance, because harmony isn't happening.

 

What most Americans "think" at any given moment- based on their 30 second analysis of an issue- bears only an incidental relationship to a considered opinion.

As for comparing bond elections or even gubernatorial elections with the presidency, you quite miss the point of our federal system of which, I suspect, you have no appreciation.

One person, one vote is not only "the simplest way" to elect, but also the simplest to think about.

 

The quantum internet is coming, which means people can talk among themselves about what kind of government they want. Payback is a bitch, and AI will teach people how to organize effortlessly.

 

People won't need to talk, because AI will just talk to each other. They can now make an AI out of every one of us, and Mother Nature says we're worthless, because 42 is as good an answer as anything. And I'm building a robot in my basement that can shoot grenades, too.

 

You mean the state that has a top 10 economy in the world? If California was a country it would outrank many other countries. For sure outranks most states Trump won. I think they are doing fine.

I suggest you learn some facts before this nonsense. To be fair Texas a red state also has a large economy but it looks like pure right wing ignorance when you make this statement.

 

I suggest two things:

1> You acquire some civility;

2> When you refer to someone else's comments as "nonsense", you offer a rationale.

 

Keep in mind they have done this while going against right wing values. They did have Mr. Terminator as Governor once. Lot of rich people there who don't like tax but as far sanctuary cities, trans rights etc.

California's economy is now the 5th-biggest in the world, and has overtaken the United Kingdom

 

I'm sorry I have showed you facts and logic. I am no less civil than you.

 

You presented to facts that were pertinent to Holly's point. And when I do criticize someone's comments, I generally offer a rationale, which seems to be beyond your ken (other than adducing irrelevancies such as the size of CA's economy when trashing Holly's point).

 

Facts don't care about your feelings. You and the other poser have presented an argument 100% in emotion. I have corrected that with real data. End of story.

 

[

Holly's "point" seems to have been that we need to have the electoral college to protect us from "mob rule".That was indeed a concern of the Framers, who were aptly described by historian James Mc Gregor Burns as the "well bred, well fed, well read, and well wed". They were a privileged elite, or rather a coalition of elites, representing, as historian Charles Beard has documented: commercial and manufacturing interests, public security interests (government bonds), creditors, land speculators and slave holders. Conspicuously absent were the small farmers and laborers who made up the vast majority of the population at the time. Naturally, they were concerned about the prospect of the latter kinds of people using the vote to redistribute the wealth. Not that they weren't noble, admirable people, but they weren't saints either. They were so concerned with protecting the rich from the poor and the small rural states from the big urban ones that they created a system with the opposite tendency. Who is to protect the majority from minority rule by the fat cats and hayseeds?

The initial vision of the electoral college is that the people wouldn't vote directly for the President, but would vote instead for electors, who naturally would be a cut or more above the masses and would exercise their independent judgment to elect the best qualified person. Man, was that ever naive! As a result of the rise of the party system, the electors are mostly political hacks pledged to one or another of the parties. Rarely have they exercised their independent judgment, and never has that made a difference, thank God! But four Presidents were elected by the electoral college even though their opponent had more popular votes: Rutherford Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, George W. Bush, and the Donald. The latter two, in particular, should put to rest any arguments that the system produces qualitatively superior results.

As I've said before, the principal functions of the electoral college these days are: to preserve the two party system and to give disproportionate weight to sparsely populated rural states. The former has been defended as a stabilizing force, but when many Americans feel that neither party represents their interests, that doesn't hold. The latter is a nod to federalism. However, getting rid of the "winner take all" rule (which two states have already done) could eliminate the most pernicious effects of the electoral college while protecting the interests of the states. While the people may be a "great beast" , as Alexander Hamilton thought, giving them the lion's share of power is prudent in protecting majority interests, providing a peaceful outlet for unrest, and giving symbolic assurance that the government is "of the people, by the people, for the people."

 

Conservatives obviously could not care less about the facts, unless you are a tall wealthy white male, like most of our presidents, or an attractive white female. Woman find Donald Duck attractive, despite the obvious fact he needs to lose well over a hundred pounds, is old, and has the most notable comb-over in history. Hence, if you wish to have conservatives pay attention to your facts, it helps to have a porn star present them or a reality TV star like Donald Duck.

 

Yeah very strange how they don't see his state. Bernie is "too old" yet he, Trump, and now even Biden are all the same age roughly. 2 of these men get a non stop mainstream ass kissing. One of these men is overweight with MANY anecdotes of stimulant drug use in 80's.

The "silent majority" likes him. I find it interesting they use that term to imply a majority rule. Like their views are real America so get over it snowflake you lost. Yet when I confront them with facts it's "oh everyone gets a voice".

OK then if we assume it's the minority who wants gun laws and open bathrooms (it's not) then we also get a say and our laws have a place in society. They don't like democracy period. This thread has shown they do not accept the concept of 51% rule and others in this section of the site show they don't accept minority opinions either.

They like a rose colored view of a past most never lived in. Often people who love the 1950's the most were either kids or not alive in others words not really dealing with the world yet and living in a sheltered place where things are good.

 

They are fucking chickens, who hear and see whatever they want, if you throw enough corn around. Donald Duck's rhetoric could not be cornier, because he is a professional wrestling fan and can talk polite smack with the best of them. Since they never share their words for the purpose of playing nice, they become their own worst enemies.

 

Interesting comment, one I cannot wholly agree with, however. Consistent with Beard (and Marxists) you appear to accept an economic motive as the major driver of history. While I hope I do not underestimate the influence of economic concerns, I believe that factor is often overstated. I think there are many times when people and groups, even nations, do not act in accord with their own economic self-interest.

Getting rid of the "winner take all" behind the electoral college is an intriguing thought. The rise of parties probably did sabotage the framers' intent, and I would like to see more third party influence in the USA.

Allow me to note that saints, in the world of politics, have historically been in short supply.

As for W, and particularly Trump, we disagree: I still believe they were preferable to their major opponents. Particularly, I might say, Trump- I considered it quite despicable, given all we knew about her, for Democrats to have nominated Hillary. Republicans might have something of an excuse in that Trump was not as well known, at least in the political arena. Consider me a reluctant supporter of the man!

 

The context is too narrow. Studies of religions concluded that they survive by supporting the wealthy who, in turn, are expected to support them during times of famine. A religion that does not support the wealthy as much, doesn't thrive and the issue is what do their economics require. Christianity evolved to promote a variety of economic extremes, with groups such as Quakers and Mormons being relegated to minority populations, because their theology doesn't support extreme capitalism and empires such as the international conglomerates. Every dog has his day in the sun, but Christianity's day is already past, and it is now peaking worldwide, spreading everywhere it can, but is destined to decline from there and never grow like that again.

The more corrupt the world has become, the faster Christianity and Islam have spread.

 

Appearances can be deceiving. I regard economic motives as a major motivator of human behavior, particularly in political arenas, but not necessarily the major one. Many of the Founding Fathers were principled statesmen who were sincerely interested in establishing a system they considered sound and good for the nation and for posterity. I generally admire their work. Yet they were, in my opinion, over-protective of privilege, which coincided with their self-interest.

I consider Trump to be a thoroughly vile, narcissistic, dishonest, unprincipled, poor excuse for a human being. He's essentially a crime boss who appears to be in league with Putin and Russian oligarchs and plays upon the worst instincts of humanity to divide the nation and perpetuate his power. Anyone who supports him is, in my opinion, at best, deluded. I thought G.W. was bad, too--managing to give us two wars, torture, and a major recession. But compared with Trump he looks better and better. The choice between Trump and Hillary was one between two evils, but I judged her to be the lesser of the two. Unfortunately, I think the 2020 race is shaping up to be similar. But Trump is still the greater evil, as he was in 2016, and if he serves another term he may do lasting damage to our republic and send your Founding Fathers spinning in their graves!

 

There we do disagree. Trump is in many ways an aberration, and the damage his presidency is causing is not lasting. At least I would have said that until ten days ago when he summarily pulled the rug out from under the Kurds, making it crystal clear what an unreliable ally the US can be. Moreover, a number of his accomplishments have "legs". The greatness that America has achieved will endure four- or eight- years of Trump.

Hillary, on the other hand- and I think many other Democrats too- do in fact do lasting damage. She would have further entrenched the "Deep State" into American lives, extending the hands of government even further into Americans' lives (and pockets). She was every bit as deceitful and unethical as Trump, merely less ostentatious about it. President Warren or Sanders would undoubtedly do the same.

OTOH, if corpses could spin, I do agree,the Founding Fathers of the US of A would be spinning in their graves at the totally classless man currently serving as POTUS.

 

Donald Duck was elected against the wishes of his own party leaders, who are now impeaching him against the wishes of the people who voted for him. That's not called an aberration, its called a lynch mob. Either somebody is in charge around here, or the public will simply walk all over the republican party again with the first professional wrestling smack talking reality TV star. Libertarians need to get a grip, either admit your bullshit and give us back our votes and constitution, or be prepared for the wrath of the mindless mob you created.

 

What accomplishments? The Wall? Tax cuts for the rich? Packing the courts? The trade wars?
If you look at his foreign policy, it seems clear he's following the Putin playbook. He has openly invited foreign powers to interfere in our elections. Trump's love of authoritarian dictators like Putin, Erdogan, Kim jong un, and Duterte is alarming, and his flagrant violations of the emoluments clause would cause the Founders to flip their whigs.
Even Fox Admits Trump Is Violating Emoluments Clause By Holding G7 At His Golf Club
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...ps-latest-violation-of-the-emoluments-clause/
Trump's G7 gambit isn't like his other emoluments problems (it's worse)

Then there's his assault on the rule of law.
The Rule of Law: Richard Painter Warns That Donald Trump Must Be Impeached for the Ukraine Scandal
Trump’s Impeachable Conduct Strikes at the Heart of the Rule of Law: Part 2 - Center for American Progress
Trump's Assault on the Rule of Law
Donald Trump and the Rule of Law
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...trumps-assault-on-the-rule-of-law-is-working/
Opinion | How Trump Corrupts the Rule of Law
All in all, I think this President poses the greatest threat to the U.S. and constitutional democracy in our history.