Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why won’t any of you cowards respond to my earlier post (#356)? Is it because you’re only capable of speaking in slogans like “tyranny of the majority”? Honestly I give up on this thread. None of you want to get serious on this and actually try to explain why you believe your position is the fair solution.
It has been explained many times. The Senate represents the States as equals and the House represents the people proportionately, and this is what the electoral college represents. It makes abundant sense for a constitutional republic comprised of 50 States. It is logical and it is fair.
And if Hillary had won the EC none of you would be complaining right now about our Constitution and how our President is elected. I remember quite well before the election, some left leaning media claiming how great the EC was because it might be the only thing that stops Trump from being the President.
NO - the Republicans would - just like they did in 2013.
Ya'll act like the EC has never been before discussed in our history. It has and it will continue to be.
I note that none of my posts below have received responses, which is quite telling. I'm astounded at the utter inability of posters to articulate why the Electoral College system is more fair than the popular vote in presidential elections. See the below posts that have received zero substantive responses.
Come on, let's hear the argument.
I bet there are at least 30 threads, many of them in 'elections,' where we have gone over this ad infinitum.
The EC was a compromise reached in 1787 in order to get a constitution that small states were willing to ratify. They feared being run roughshod by the larger states, in particular Virginia. In retrospect they were exactly right.
It takes only 13 states to block an Amendment, and the 13 smallest states are never going to support repeal of the EC. It's a waste of time to try, and probably a waste of time to even talk about it.
The Declaration of Independence did not create the United States but it did create the "united States" -- the actual words. It create 13 separate and independent States.
"United States" was treated as a plural form until the 20th century. People wrote "these United States," not "The United States."
No, “people” didn’t. At least not in this part of the western world.
So I looked into this a little further, and technically I was wrong about 'these United States.' But I was right in that "the United States" was largely considered a plural form until at least the Civil War, and often until the 20th century. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!ms...k/z3YTOZmTqv8J
Quote:
indeed, the Constitution consistently uses the plural construal, e.g.:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in
levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies,
giving them Aid and Comfort.
Even the 13th Amendment, passed *after* the Civil War, uses the plural:
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a
punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been
duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or
any place subject to their jurisdiction.
No, you live in a federal republic, not a unitary State.
It's more fair because you live in a federal republic.
There are only three systems of government.
One is a unitary State.
The classic example of a unitary State is France. Others are Romania, the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the United Kingdom and et al.
Unitary States are best suited for nation-States, which have homogeneous societies with the same Culture, which consists of:
1] a common ancestry;
2] a common language;
3] common customs and mores;
4] worshiping the same god(s);
5] revering the same heroes;
6] cherishing the same history;
7] celebrating the same holidays; and
8] sharing the same music, poetry, drama and literature.
The Framers of the Constitution were keenly aware of the tremendous diversity within the United States.
You have English, Scots, Irish, Welsh, Dutch, Swedes, Norwegians, Danes, a variety of French peoples, including Normans, Lombards, Bretons and Ligurians, and a variety of Spanish peoples, including Valencians, Aragonians, Catalonians, Galicians and Andulasians, a variety of German peoples, including Hessians, Bavarians and Saxons -- and yes, those people all spoke different dialects and had different customs -- and others.
There were a variety of religions, including Catholics, Protestants and Jews, and unlike some nation-States which were only Lutheran or only Calvinist, a great variety of Protestant sects.
The Framers were keenly aware that the US would never be homogeneous, and would instead increase in diversity, becoming more heterogeneous.
For that reason, they wisely opted not to impose a unitary State.
The other option is a confederation, and while that is a good option for heterogeneous States, it had been tried and in the eyes of many had failed.
The only option left was federalism.
Federalism is also best suited for diverse heterogeneous populations, like the United States.
The Declaration of Independence did not create the United States but it did create the "united States" -- the actual words. It create 13 separate and independent States.
Those 13 separate independent States agreed to forego certain functions inherent to a State in order to speak as one unified voice, and thus become very powerful.
Those States -- countries -- agreed to surrender the right to coin currency, declare war, and engage in diplomacy and enter treaties and agreements with other foreign States to speak as one unified voice.
That's what the United States is -- 50 separate countries who have agreed to give up certain powers inherent to a State in order to be more powerful.
That's why the Senate represents the States, and why only the Senate can ratify treaties and agreements, plus it confirms appointments of all federal judges and members of the Cabinet as well as other key positions within the federal government, such as the Chairperson for the Federal Reserve and the Director of the CIA.
That's why the States appointed Senators, instead of Senators being directly elected by the people up through 1913.
That's also why the States elect the President and Vice-President, and not the people.
The fact that Leftists and Democrats have constantly usurped the power of the States in their quest for a unitary State system of government does not alter the fact that you are still have a federal government.
However, GWB won both the popular and electoral vote in the 2004 election.
With complaining by some whiny John Kerry supporters that Dubya stole the electoral votes in Ohio. Just goes to show you, Democrats are prone to crying when they don't win no matter what rules are in use.
Actually, the House doesn't represent the people proportionately. The cap on the number of Representatives skews the numbers wildly. And that means the Electoral College is skewed. While I don't believe that we need to remove the Electoral College, we do need to address the representation issue so that each elected representative actually represents a roughly equal number of people.
Well we also have the constant "gerrymandering" problem. My state has done it in favor of Democrats for years. The Senate acts as a check on this.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
