"ImmoralMinority" (araimondo)
05/25/2019 at 10:03 • Filed to: None
1
23|
"ImmoralMinority" (araimondo)
05/25/2019 at 10:03 • Filed to: None | 1
| 23 |
Toby always wants to stir the pot.
The temporary phenomenon of Trump and the rage he induces has made us go mad with the idea of tearing down institutions that have contributed to our stability. Our Founders created a system designed to force compromise (they lived in a polarized time) and designed fto ensure that no one gets their way for too long. Present circumstances would suggest that they were very wise in this regard.
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
The Electoral College is an institution that has served this nation well and has contributed to our remarkable stability. The idea of tossing it out because of a single election seems unbelievably rash. I am not demanding that you agree; I am asking you to consider the possibility that reasonable people might support the Electoral College without being Trump-loving MAGAlo dy tes. A great deal of our Constitution is designed to protect the minority from oppression by the majority, which is why the Civil Rights movement found such an effective home in our courts.
California in some ways can provide an apt lesson. Our state is geographically large and very populous. We have large rural areas, and concentrated population centers, not unlike the US. Those of us who do not live in those population centers are shut out of state policy almost entirely , and really have no effective voice. The latest trend has been Bay Area money pouring into local elections here in the San Joaquin Valley to swing districts. Whatever your politics, a democracy without a meaningful opposition is not healthy. Go talk to people in Redding...or Tulare....or Brawley...or Chico, and ask them how much voice they have in California. We have total paralysis on water, for example, and have not dealt with a population that doubled in 50 years.
So this is an institution that exists for a reason, and wanting it gone because you hate Trump is a little shortsighted. Maybe not all of those country folk are backwards rednecks who should be disregarded, and maybe numbers shouldn’t always dictate policy.
Think hard about the Electoral College. There have been five elections in US history where the winner received less votes than their opponent. We have been a remarkably stable and prosperous nation during the history of this institution. If we are going to debate it’s usefulness, perhaps it would be best if we not do so in the shadow of Trump. He tends to make conversation difficult.
You can call me names now. Come and get me.
nj959
> ImmoralMinority
05/25/2019 at 10:13 |
|
Please just help me understand why you think the Electoral College benefits small rural states, because I simply don’t see it. States that are guaranteed to vote one way or the other get ignored by candidates regardless of how many people live there. California and Wyoming both get completely ignored every four years because of this.
The only states that benefit from the EC as far as I can see are the ~10 or so that could actually go either way. Again, it doesn’t really matter their size. Florida gets lots of attention, but so does Iowa (and not just during the primaries).
Also, if the California GOP wants to be relevant again they should consider running on policy positions that appeals to at least half of the population. Massachusetts, Vermont, and Maryland all have very popular Republican governors.
ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable)
> ImmoralMinority
05/25/2019 at 10:14 |
|
Empty land does not need equal representation.
And republiCONs in California who are upset they can’t win should try a campaign platform that people actually want to vote for.
BrianGriffin thinks “reliable” is just a state of mind
> ImmoralMinority
05/25/2019 at 10:15 |
|
It’s a difficult thought experiment. Even take Cali: with the electoral college, Cali will always end up being a blue state, thereby shutting out the votes of the conservative minority and (typically) the rural population. Their votes are worthless.
In a pure popular vote, the votes of the conservatives in the state may actually count - it depends on the path of the rest of the nation, of course, but they may still count.
On the other hand, proportionally less populated states would have less total say in the outcome of an election. The average person may have more power per vote, but the states as a whole would have less.
In general, I think that we can’t go to a pure popular vote election without also having mandatory voting, like some countries (Australia for example).
LongbowMkII
> ImmoralMinority
05/25/2019 at 10:23 |
|
stable for who? We had to have a civil war to abolish slavery because the system the infallible founding fathers made political change near i mpossible.
WRXforScience
> ImmoralMinority
05/25/2019 at 10:30 |
|
The problem is that 2 of those 5 elections happened in the last 5 elections and if demographics and precedent are any indication that might be the only way a Republican President can get elected. Also, those 2 presidents rank among the very worst presidents in history and sank our country into never-ending wars and economic collapse and helped to grow the greatest wealth gap in a century.
The electoral college was a compromise to help appease the slave holding south and limit the influence of political bosses. Instead, now we’ve got Russian trolls, social media misinformation campaigns, and unlimited dark money corrupting elections. Huge portions of the citizenry have votes that are purely symbolic and have almost no influence on the outcome of the election (anyone who lives in a state with a strong majority of voters of the opposite party).
The electoral college doesn’t work and is only acceptable when it is irrelevant (even in your argument you tout how seldom the popular vote doesn’t go to the winner, and there are no examples of electors swapping there votes to prevent a terrible demagogue from being elected).
The founders weren’t sages or saints and much of what they did was burdened by compromise, ignorance, and beliefs that we now find completely abhorrent. Our system of democracy isn’t perfect, hell it isn’t even the best system of democracy in the world today. We’ve got some good parts, some inconvenient parts, and some downright asinine parts and no one would invent our current system if they were starting from a clean slate.
Hell, if Europe hadn’t self-destructed in two world wars (which greatly benefited the US economically and politically, mostly due to us waiting to join as late as possible) the US would not be a superpower today. The US is a country built on genocide and slavery, bathed in blood from birth and forever tainted.
I’m not worried about the electoral college, once Texas is no longer a republican stronghold the electoral college will be abolished immediately.
Danimalk - Drives a Slow Car Fast
> BrianGriffin thinks “reliable” is just a state of mind
05/25/2019 at 10:34 |
|
“proportionally less populated states would have less total say in the outcome of an election.”
Ive seen this argument as a negative before but i do not see a problem here. This is what equal representation means IMO.
nermal
> ImmoralMinority
05/25/2019 at 10:44 |
|
The problem with Trump isn’t his politics. It’s two fold - First, that he is actually doing things that he campaigned on, and pushing the envelope for what he can legally / politically do to accomplish those things. Second, he is doing or saying the same things that others before him have done or said, but now they are getting much more negative responses.
I think that Trump is exactly what the US needed at the right time. I also think that more of the country is in a better position today than they were in 2016. At the same time, more people are offended on the internet than every before.
Regarding the Electoral College, it’s not going anywhere. It may be challenged, but that’s ok. Removing it entirely will never make it through the highest courts or vetos.
Also, Trump got elected because he worked both harder & smarter. He was doing 3 campaign stops per day in critical locations leading up to the election.
mallthus
> ImmoralMinority
05/25/2019 at 10:44 |
|
The biggest challenge with the electoral college isn’t that exists. It’s that it’s not the institution the framers created.
Why?
I direct you to the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929, which codified the current 435 member House of Representatives .
In 1790, each member of the House represented 33,000 people. If that same level of representation existed today, the House would have about 10,000 members.
Because the Electoral College is apportioned by a state’s total congressional delegation count, a small state like Wyoming would have 22 electors. A large state like Texas would have 959 electors.
In reality, this wouldn’t necessarily “solve” the problem of the EC not matching the popular vote, but it does do a bit to minimize the over representation of small states.
TheRealBicycleBuck
> ImmoralMinority
05/25/2019 at 11:01 |
|
I find it interesting that many of the people calling for the dissolution of the electoral college are the same ones who will fight to the death for minority rights. If the electoral college is dissolved, the majority in the population centers will run over the new rural minority without concern about their rights.
Just a bit hypocritical in my mind.
|
BrianGriffin thinks “reliable” is just a state of mind
> Danimalk - Drives a Slow Car Fast
05/25/2019 at 11:03 |
|
I think the argument lies on whether you’re strongly in favor of state’s rights and semi-autonomy or if you’re more of a federalist. I personally would prefer no states and a unified, single legislative body; however that’s not how everyone feels. If you’re into what’s best for the state, you’re going to want the state to have equal(er) representation vs the more populated states.
The Ghost of Oppo
> ImmoralMinority
05/25/2019 at 11:56 |
|
There are very fine people on both sides
My bird IS the word
> TheRealBicycleBuck
05/25/2019 at 12:20 |
|
It’s just which minority in question. Ours or yours?
Bman76 (hates WS6 hoods, is on his phone and has 4 burners now)
> ImmoralMinority
05/25/2019 at 12:32 |
|
Lol, no. The abolition of the electoral college simply puts democracy back into the hands of the people. The electoral college does nothing but make Iowa arbitrarily important.
|
Bman76 (hates WS6 hoods, is on his phone and has 4 burners now)
> nermal
05/25/2019 at 12:36 |
|
“Worked smarter and harder” big f ucking lol, dude just fear mongered and dogwhistled his way into tricking white men into voting for him.
JeepJeremy
> ImmoralMinority
05/25/2019 at 12:44 |
|
I remember being super anti electoral college after Bush “stole” the election from Gore....
Then I did my own research and realized....wow....we kinda need that system
6cyl
> ImmoralMinority
05/25/2019 at 12:46 |
|
I think people would be more interested in voting if their votes counted. For instance voting Republican in Massachusetts is utterly pointless. I think more people would come out to vote in traditionally “fixed” States of we got rid of the electoral college. Having laws that give additional advantage to certain people based on location is the opposite of a fair or just.
|
nermal
> Bman76 (hates WS6 hoods, is on his phone and has 4 burners now)
05/25/2019 at 12:55 |
|
He spent more time.....everywhere, but especially in the states that he needed & did eventually win. Don’t hate the playa, hate the game, but recognize hustle, etc.
Fake News Source:
Bonus Alternative Facts Source:
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trumps-campaigns-numbers/story?id=43356783
Bonus Bonus Moving Picture With Color-Coded Dots Visual Reference Source:
Spridget
> ImmoralMinority
05/25/2019 at 14:14 |
|
This is a massive reply; I got a little carried away.
I think many of the concerns you raise about the electoral college are valid- a purely majority-based voting system would undermine the rural electorate. However, I don’t know if the electoral college is the most effective system to represent that electorate. At the national level (I won’t go into specific state politics, as you reference, as I’m not well-informed about the rural/urban split of many states), the electoral college may recognize rural voters in rural states such as Montana, Wyoming, the Dakotas, etc. However, what of rural voters in states such as Oregon, Washington, California, and New York? Since electors vote (generally) with the majority of their population, the urban centers in those states generally overwhelm the rural voters. Donald Trump won a solid 37% of the vote in New York’s general election, but all of the state’s electors went for Clinton, because the majority of the population did. If all things were fair and equal, 37% should have gone for Trump. The same can be said for North Carolina. While Trump won the state, he only did so in a 50% (rounded) to 46% split. Effectively, you can argue that the State’s 15 electors should have been essentially split. What I’m trying to say is that, while the electoral college does some to represent rural voters, it’s current iteration doesn’t help everyone- only a minority.
I also want to dispel the founder argument. The idea that the electoral college is the ideal system as determined by the founders isn’t exactly accurate. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, as well as other Federalists, wished to keep the election of the President out of the hands of the people entirely, feeling they were too uninformed to make this decision. This Electoral College wasn’t designed to force compromise; it was the compromise. It is also of note that, in Federalist #10, the section of the Federalist Papers where Madison argues against Rule by Majority , he argues that people are inherently likely to form blocks with those most like them. Madison cites two main arguments for a republic over a democracy- he argues that a large republic, on a national scale, will allow the vetting of every candidate to prevent “unworthy candidates to practice with the success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried,” and that a large republic will, by virtue of proportional representation, present “a greater probability of a fit choice.”
It is the last part which is of note. Madison was from Virginia, one of the larger states in the Union. He supported an electoral college over a direct, popular vote democracy on the condition that it was proportionally represented, the idea being that well-informed representatives and a large, national republic would prevent the will of a majority from creating an effective tyranny, but also that the views of the majority would have more weight so as to not give the minority group more power than their stature.
The electoral college of today is nothing like what Madison, the architect behind it’s implementation into the Constitution, advocated for. The current system has electors voting based on the popular vote, or rule of the majority. Furthermore, we essentially have numerous different state electoral colleges which form to decide the Presidential election, hence why certain states have so much sway. This specifically goes against Madison’s arguments for a larger republic, which he thinks will “make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens.” To argue that the college was carefully devised by the founders is not true; our present version is not accurate to their vision.
I think you have some true points that pure, popular voting would disenfranchise rural voters. But the electoral college is not the perfect solution, nor is it even an adequate one.
|
TheRealBicycleBuck
> My bird IS the word
05/25/2019 at 16:26 |
|
That’s right. When they are in the minority, they are all about protecting their rights. When they are in the majority, they don’t care about anyone else’s rights.
|
mallthus
> nermal
05/25/2019 at 17:28 |
|
I don’t entirely disagree with you. I will say that such agreement comes begrudgingly, as I really have posited for some time that Trump is the president the country deserves more than he’s the president the country needs .
Given the upward trajectory that the economy was on before Trump, it’s impossible to say whether the economic success we’re seeing is because of or in spite of Trump. It’s the classic unknowable unknown.
I’d also argue that the beauty of Trump, especially for those who , like mainstream Democrats, represent the center-right (America’s “left wing” would be “center right” when placed on the global spectrum), is that his rhetoric is openly racist, sexist, and classist, which is refreshingly different than past politicians, who’ve veiled their bigotry in polite tones. It’s easy to seem morally pure when your opponent’s transgressions are almost wholly uncamouflaged .
Further, I’d totally agree that he’s being perceived as “successful” because he is, in fact, trying to do all the things he campaigned on. I think it’s really given lie to arguments moderate Republicans gave when supporting him in the campaign and first 100 days, who argued that he wouldn’t actually govern in the radical platform he’d campaigned on.
The whole notion of “more people are offended on the internet than every before” is, I’d argue, the natural byproduct of individuals actually having a voice and is magnified by the natural anonymity of the internet. This entire conversation is an example of this. Very few of us would have, in the pre-internet era, climbed onto a milk crate to extol our particular takes on the electoral college, this (or any other) president, etc.
Certainly you’re correct in that his campaign did work harder and smarter. I’ve been a professional marketer for more than 20 years and his campaign was a master class in identifying the desires of the target audience, in his case disaffected and frightened working class and lower middle class whites, and then designing both the product (I’d argue Donald Trump the man has never had a genuine belief or principle in his life.) and the messaging selling that product.
His Stigness
> ImmoralMinority
05/25/2019 at 20:22 |
|
You know what we really need to fix? The god damn primary system. And then the election period.
We need to have the primaries on ONE DAY across the country. It’s ridiculous that by the time you get to the most diverse states in the country there’s no point. That’s how we ended up with Clinton even though many in the party didn’t want her.
And then we need to condense the election period down to six months, at most.
gmporschenut also a fan of hondas
> ImmoralMinority
05/25/2019 at 21:31 |
|
the problem as I see it is we dont’ have the system the founders put in place. We have the formu la , but the variables were changed in 1929 to cap the total number of representatives . The notion of states loosing influence isn’t just to the west, but also NH, vermont and RI.
|
nermal
> mallthus
05/27/2019 at 10:05 |
|
Any discussions of the trends of the economy pre-Trump need to include the Fed interest rate.
To summarize, Bush overcooked the economy with things like deregulations, banks got greedy, the market crashed, and Obama had 8 years of 0% interest, the only president.....ever..... to have that.
Now with the Fed rate in the 2-3% range, debt spending will slow down a bit due to payments going up. The same car loan costs $25 / mo more, or the same mortgage now costs $50 / mo more for consumers. Same for businesses borrowing $$$.
However, more people either have a job now, or a better one, and incomes are increasing. I think the average voter is both selfish and short-sighted. They will see that they are in a better position now, Trump will campaign on that, and end up with a landslide victory next year. It’s not due to any -isms. Provided trends continue, of course.