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.
No, the EC was pure elitism by the founders who were a bunch of aristocrats. They believed in giving the vote to the common people (as long as they were white males) but still didn't trust them to vote "right" so they put in place the EC which was supposed to be a bunch of rich white guys who would be more likely to vote the "right" way. It was always an elitist sham and it is time for it to go.
Wow- That is an interesting (and grossly incorrect) view of why the electoral college was created that manages to inject the current hatred of everything related to white males.
The Electoral College was created to give the less populous states some say in the election of the president. It was recognized at that time that Virginia (then the most populous state) would essentially select the president every election.
In order to ensure the less populous states that they would have SOME input in the election of the POTUS, the electoral college was created.
To eliminate the electoral college today would mean that 3/4 or the states in the US would have very little input as to the election of the POTUS, and thus the Supreme Court. It would be, in effect, a declaration of civil war. There would be very little reason that less populous states would want to be a part of the Union any longer.
Libs love tyranny and their contempt for the EC is just another manifestation of this.
Wow- That is an interesting (and grossly incorrect) view of why the electoral college was created that manages to inject the current hatred of everything related to white males.
The Electoral College was created to give the less populous states some say in the election of the president. It was recognized at that time that Virginia (then the most populous state) would essentially select the president every election.
In order to ensure the less populous states that they would have SOME input in the election of the POTUS, the electoral college was created.
To eliminate the electoral college today would mean that 3/4 or the states in the US would have very little input as to the election of the POTUS, and thus the Supreme Court. It would be, in effect, a declaration of civil war. There would be very little reason that less populous states would want to be a part of the Union any longer.
Libs love tyranny and their contempt for the EC is just another manifestation of this.
Your post is spot on. The person you're responding to is either trolling, lying, or sadly miseducated.
Why would any low population state have agreed to join the union, if they wouldn't have had a voice in government? It seems only fair that any discussion of ending the EC, also includes the options for secession for those states that will no longer have a voice in their own destiny.
At the end of the day, there will never be a serious discussion about this topic. It's a non-starter. One that would inevitably lead to a civil war. The tyrannical nature of people who desire to disenfranchise most of the country, so they can obtain more power is disgusting.
Your post is spot on. The person you're responding to is either trolling, lying, or sadly miseducated.
Why would any low population state have agreed to join the union, if they wouldn't have had a voice in government? It seems only fair that any discussion of ending the EC, also includes the options for secession for those states that will no longer have a voice in their own destiny.
At the end of the day, there will never be a serious discussion about this topic. It's a non-starter. One that would inevitably lead to a civil war. The tyrannical nature of people who desire to disenfranchise most of the country, so they can obtain more power is disgusting.
Indeed- However, gaining authoritarian control of a population is the intent of the liberal agenda. The unifying theme is restriction/elimination of individual liberties to increase the power of a central government.
1. elimination of EC
2. expanding EPA powers over private property
3. gun restrictions
4. eliminating free speech by censorship
5. "political correctness" to inhibit free speech by intimidation
6. threats of physical force and violence toward those with opposing views
7. imposition of higher and higher taxes to divert resources from the private sector to the government
8. "book burning" in altering or eliminating texts with views opposed to the left
The left, as has always been in the case, is squarely on the side of tyranny throughout history.
What about right wind nuts who also wanted to get rid of the EC?
Quote:
Originally Posted by vacoder
Republicans in the past have tried to get rid of the Electoral College. Historical fact. So now you can say republicans will go to any length to win elections including destroying the constitution.
You will find that no one will address your posts as I also posted about this twice.
It just doesn't fit their "Democrats are Bad" narrative.
Indeed- However, gaining authoritarian control of a population is the intent of the liberal agenda. The unifying theme is restriction/elimination of individual liberties to increase the power of a central government.
1. elimination of EC
2. expanding EPA powers over private property
3. gun restrictions
4. eliminating free speech by censorship
5. "political correctness" to inhibit free speech by intimidation
6. threats of physical force and violence toward those with opposing views
7. imposition of higher and higher taxes to divert resources from the private sector to the government
8. "book burning" in altering or eliminating texts with views opposed to the left
The left, as has always been in the case, is squarely on the side of tyranny throughout history.
Lord God, I have never seen a bigger wall of fiction.
Remember how Sensitive Republicans demanded that Michelle Wolfe be fired?
That's a non starter. The system was set up specifically to ensure a handful of densely populated centers didn't dictate to the rest of the country. You will not disenfranchise the rest of the country. Period.
Going by popular vote for the presidency doesn't disenfranchise rural folk.
Lord God, I have never seen a bigger wall of fiction.
Remember how Sensitive Republicans demanded that Michelle Wolfe be fired?
Nah. You won't.
Introspection can sometimes be difficult. If you disagree with the above list, perhaps you are actually a conservative. Without a doubt libs endorse all of the above as a matter of course. As it is difficult to admit that one is a totalitarian, most libs will deny nearly all of their core beliefs when they are printed out in front of them, but always support such policies in the voting booth.
So are you for:
1. eliminating the electoral college?
2. reducing border enforcement?
3. allowing college campuses to shout down/intimidate conservative speakers?
4. The use of ANTIFA to intimidate and harass conservatives?
5. higher taxes?
6. restricting/eliminating gun rights?
7. expanded EPA control over private property?
8. judges using judicial activism to promote leftist agendas?
Increasing governmental always occurs at the expense of individual liberties. Government is supposed to insure personal freedoms and liberties, not restrict them.
Changing the winner take all is not eliminating the EC
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.
