Well, it's not the "states" President. It's the people's. Or in a just world it would be.
Best Discussion of the Electoral College
- Thread starter What Would Jesus Do?
- Start date
Well, it's not the "states" President. It's the people's. Or in a just world it would be.
I would say "subservience to the majority" is the guiding principle in a democratic process. That's not perfect, but it certain makes more sense than "subservience to the minority" which is our current state of affairs.
Not to mention the current state of things gives a big advantage to white people.
Last edited:
I fail to understand why at the very least we can’t consider amending the electoral college to try and make it align to the popular vote, or at least make it much harder to win the presidency without winning popular support.
Which state will be the first to leave the union if the electoral college is eliminated? How many states will follow?
Tyranny of the majority is bad. Tyranny of the minority is good though.
Of course it's not inappropriate per se, just of very limited relevance to the point you're trying to make. The problem with the EU or UN is that they are so distinguishable from our constitutional compact that they offer little analogous support for our Electoral College. Under the Constitution, the states ceded a significant portion of their sovereignty to the national government, which became the overarching nation state for international relations and trade. EU member states ceded very little sovereignty (arguably none), and UN member states absolutely none.
I actually favor the EC over nationwide popular vote, but the EU or UN provide no comparable justification for our system. And yes, the slavery question was a root cause of many of the compromises at the Constitutional Convention, including the way we decided to elect presidents. It's like saying the Civil War was fought not over slavery but states' rights--the right of states to do what?
And why Madison described it as inimical to individual rights.
I hold individual rights as the guiding principle of good government.
The minority in our system can often thwart a majority’s actions, but that’s by design.
So instead of enacting the policy at the federal level on the whole of the Union, try that shit in California or somewhere else you have sufficient political capital to make it happen and convince the rest of the nation by example.
Yeah, those ****ers are the worst. People the world over flee countries run by white people so they can live in countries not run by white people, amirite?
Compared to the US, very little. To say nothing of their right to leave voluntarily.
That’s still way off.
But rather than go down the rabbit hole of EU sovereignty (I mean, we can, but let’s start another thread on that specifically if it interests you) why do you think, with no slavery to defend, the EU members eschewed a representative model that was based purely on population?
Some policies enactments require unanimous consent (totally undemocratic!), whereas others required a ‘qualified majority’:
effective since 1 November 2014:
- Majority of countries: 55% (comprising at least 15 of them) and
- Majority of population: 65%.
Art seems unable to think of any reasons why states would only agree to join the EU under these stipulations.
Can you?
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:12016M016
Click the button at the bottom to display the text in the language selected.
It’s all of four paragraphs deep in the article:
Article 16
1. The Council shall, jointly with the European Parliament, exercise legislative and budgetary functions. It shall carry out policy-making and coordinating functions as laid down in the Treaties.
2. The Council shall consist of a representative of each Member State at ministerial level, who may commit the government of the Member State in question and cast its vote.
3. The Council shall act by a qualified majority except where the Treaties provide otherwise.
4. As from 1 November 2014, a qualified majority shall be defined as at least 55 % of the members of the Council, comprising at least fifteen of them and representing Member States comprising at least 65 % of the population of the Union.
The point of this, apparently lost on some, is to try and ensure the government of the whole acts where there is large consensus, and not the barest of majoritarian margins.
I think you actually have confused yourself. This might be fun.
Yeah man, I'm not disagreeing with you about the legit reasons to reject proportional direct representation based on population. Just that the EU and UN are such fundamentally different creatures as to have no real bearing on an assessment of our presidential electoral system.
Continue to deny the role of the peculiar institution in the framing of our Constitution if you wish, but that fact is so thoroughly documented, even in Madison's own notes on the convention, that it should be beyond serious debate.
As to EU sovereignty, I'd argue the member states have retained all of their sovereignty in the strictest sense, as they can leave the international compact at any time and regain their full power of self-determination. What they have is a binding but revocable system of collective decision-making, as opposed to a true federalist system, in which the member political units irrevocably cede some of their power to a national-level government. There's a reason the whole thing is held together by treaties, and the EU Constitution was rejected.
Last edited:
So, to be clear. You believe it’s good to let white people have more power because they’re better at governing than non-whites.
Well, that sums it up nicely.
In my lifetime there have been 13 presidential elections. This year will be #14.
In those elections every single candidate - Democrat or Republican - who received 50.0% or more of the popular vote won the election.
Clinton, Bush, Trump, all won their first elections with less than 50% of the popular vote.
; Hillary lost despite winning more than 50% of the vote.
Want to play some more?
Hillary did not win 50% of the popular vote. She won 48.2% of the popular vote.
Only four times in my lifetime has the Democratic candidate won at least 50% of the popular vote - Carter-1976 (50.1%), Obama-2008 (52.9%), Obama-2012 (51.1%), and Biden-2020 (51.3%).
In each case where a candidate lost the EC vote despite winning the popular vote, they won a plurality of the popular vote but not a majority.
And your point is?
If you're arguing in favor of IRV or Approval voting, so that the eventual winner always has over 50%, then good. But somehow I think you are just nitpicking the meaning of "popular vote winner" as a way to deflect from the obvious harm caused by the EC.
I don't think anyone is saying such an amendment has a chance in hell. Just that your screed about hating the Constitution for suggesting possible changes to it, while the document itself contemplates the people's power to amend it, is dumber than dogshit.
Screed?😂😂😂😂😂 Nothing worse than a middle school English teacher who has never been laid.😂
