The Democrat war on the Electoral College

My Recent Posts

 

I apologize that most of the articles I post are very long, but I try and provide background in what I post to be sure people understand.  I cannot assume that everyone knows what I do and I have to make sure people understand the point I am making.

 

Article 2 clause 2 of the U.S. constitution - Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

 

This is REALLY important.  This is the entire point of the checks and balances and how progressives disrupted our constitution initially.  If you have read my previous posts, the house, more commonly known as “the people’s house” was intended to be a representational body of the people, as our republic grew, each representative district would be proportionally representative of the people.  That is why is known as “The people’s house”.

 

That way, one part of the federal government always reflects the people’s wishes.  The second body, the Senate was intended defend the interest of the state.  So, it was proportionally representative with 2 senators per state, selected by state legislatures.  The legislatures would select Senators that would defend the interest of the state itself, and so the interest of the citizens needed to coincide with the interest of the state to pass legislation that would reach the president at the federal level.  That way, the people, the states, and the entire country would agree that a law was necessary before it was passed.  That worked for over 100 years until the progressives started screwing up our system of government.

 

This was completely screwed up by the passage of the 17th Amendment (which I believe desperately needs to be repealed) making senators elected by popular vote, not by the legislatures and no longer do the states have a voice in the federal government. Both houses are now popular vote houses of the people, making the senate irrelevant except for the few constitutional things they must do, but they do not by will of the state, but by will of the people.

 

While this is interesting (and important) historically to understand, what does this have to do with the title and topic?  Well you need to understand the background and thought process to understand the point I am going to make.

 

In the same way they wanted to have checks and balances in lawmaking, they wanted checks and balances in elections.  They knew, even back then, that by a popular vote for President, it would be a small minority of the population overall (even if majority numbers) who would select a president.

 

At that time, it would always be a New York/Virginia decision, the other states would be mostly irrelevant unless ever state aligned.

 

Today It is a NY/CA decision.  Or even more specifically, west coast/NE coast who would elect every president.  Seattle vote dominates WA, Portland vote Dominates OR, LA/SF/Sacramento vote dominates CA, NYC vote dominates NY, Boston vote dominates MA, etc.

 

The most populous cities would always elect the president disenfranchising virtually all other states.

 

This is why we have the electoral college.  It isn’t an 18th century relic, it isn’t because of slow communications, it is to ensure that all states have an adequate voice.

 

What determines the electoral college? 

 

The amount of representatives plus the 2 senators each state has determines how many votes they get in the electoral college (how many actually knew that?)  That means that each state has a representative voice to get a majority vote in the electoral college.  No state is ignored, every state is ignored.

 

Again, this is history, and knowledge building, but how does it build to my topic?  Well what happens if you under mine and/or get rid of the electoral college and/or convince people it is irrelevant?

 

The popular vote always wins the election.  Also, do you understand with this background why it not only should not, but it CAN NOT be allowed?

 

With this background, this leads me to hoping you understand enough about why the electoral college exists and the entire premise to understand what the democrats are doing (and I am sure you understand why) to undermine it and get rid of it and convince everyone it is antiquated and worthless.

 

When you have a limited number of states you can win because much of America (often belittled by democrats as “flyover” country) rejects them, you can’t win those states through the electoral college.  You can only win them by ignoring them, which brings us back to the popular vote (aside from the open borders immigration to simply try and change the electorate, but a different topic)

 

I am not going to post a bunch of links, just a couple, it is easy enough to search for if you want to, it takes little effort, I will just explain what they are doing – you know understand WHY they are doing it, so what are they doing?

 

They are trying to thwart the constitution and get around it through the state to make the electoral college irrelevant.

 

They are working hard in states to prevent the “winner take all” popular vote in the state, they want electoral votes divided.

 

If the electoral votes are divided, then LA/NYC/SF would decide ever future presidential election from now on. 

 

How democratic is that really?  Especially in a constitutional republic?

https://thehornnews.com/revealed-democrats-plot-destroy-electoral-college/

 

There is much other proof out there, this was just a quick link, but this is their stated goal since the Trump election, aside from impeachment.  They know they cannot win without a majority vote that they can live with, because most of the country has rejected them, and will not vote for them, which is why they are going all for illegal immigrants and trying to change the voter base...

Comments

Ken Added Sep 11, 2018 - 3:04am
Just to clarify the article I posted, I should also point out the 17th amendment passed under woodrow wilson.
 
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
 
My Bold highlight - bot intended to point out the subtle, but incredibly significant change
Ken Added Sep 11, 2018 - 3:05am
Just by reading my articles, sadly, many of you, even the foreigners have read more of the constitution than most of our government that swear to protect and defend it...
Flying Junior Added Sep 11, 2018 - 4:46am
Good history.  Interesting question.  I had quite forgotten how Senators were once elected over one hundred years ago.
 
I won't comment on certain democrats wishing to do away with the Electoral College.  It could very well come back to bite them.  I do not count myself to be among them.
 
Certainly the elimination of the filibuster will come back to bite the eliminators thereof some day.
 
In a related question, there is a very real movement within the Democratic Party to do away with the super-delegate system of nomination.
FacePalm Added Sep 11, 2018 - 7:52am
Ken-
As you are well-aware, the F&F did NOT want a strong central government directing everything, but a DE-centralized government, with MOST of the power being retained by the States or the People.
 
The 17th was a naked power-grab, allegedly because State legislators were picking corrupt Senators to represent the States in the general government - but it was ratified, so it IS the Supreme Law until repealed.
 
i am in complete favor of restoring the Constitution and COMPELLING public servants to obey their Oaths of Office, preferably on penalty of perjury charges(felonies) and removal from office.  However....
 
"Can the real Constitution be restored? Probably not.  Too many Americans depend on government money under programs the Constitution doesn't authorize, and money talks with an eloquence Shakespeare could only envy.  Ignorant people don't understand The Federalist Papers, but they understand government checks with their names on them."
-- Joseph Sobran(1946- ) Columnist
 
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."
-- Alexis de Tocqueville[Alexis Charles Henri Maurice Clerel, le Comte de Tocqueville] (1805-1859) French historian
 
Since most Americans will NOT vote against their financial self-interest, i'd say the chances are slim; few understand the danger the Republic is in from Unconstitutional laws and derelict-if-not-depraved(but certainly criminal) oath-breaking cretins on the inside, and external threats(now) like China and it's new allies, Google and Apple.
 
FMO, Democrats have sought and maintained a power base by bribing people with their own money(or perhaps more accurately, using taxation to "redistribute" funds from working people to those who don't want to work, under the guise of "helping the poor"- and yes, FJ, some are the "deserving poor," but most are not).  Now, their narrative is disappearing - independence and self-reliance due to actual pride-inducing JOBS is increasing - so they appear to desire naked tyranny to replace the bribes, hence the recent support of that most-tyrannical and deadly form of governance ever known to afflict mankind, socialism.  Now, they want to FORCE people to obey "their leaders," instead of obeying the voice of the People within the Constitutional limits they voluntarily swore to abide by.
 
Ever hear the story of the "Wild Hogs of Horseshoe Bend"?  Quite illustrative, and supports your point quite well, IMO.
Brabantio Added Sep 11, 2018 - 8:07am
"Both houses are now popular vote houses of the people, making the senate irrelevant except for the few constitutional things they must do, but they do not by will of the state, but by will of the people."
 
I find it hilarious that having Senators selected by those elected to State legislature is supposedly valid because those elected representatives somehow constitute "the will of the state".  You have the same people voting for the Senators as you do voting for the state legislatures.  But it's not right to have the people vote for Senators, it only makes sense if the people validate the power of another group of people who only then have the proper right to make this decision.  How is that supposed to make sense?
 
And this, in turn, is the logical justification for the Electoral College?
 
"Seattle vote dominates WA, Portland vote Dominates OR, LA/SF/Sacramento vote dominates CA, NYC vote dominates NY, Boston vote dominates MA, etc."
 
While Indianapolis, Detroit, Milwaukee, Philadelphia/Pittsburgh, Miami/Orlando/Jacksonville, Phoenix, Houston/Dallas/San Antonio, etc, etc, didn't "dominate" their states.  Further, you're actually providing a strong argument against the EC, since all of the minority party voters in those states have no reason to vote for President.  And at the same time, red states elect Democrats to office and blue states elect Republicans as well.  Those events occur even with the supposed domination of larger cities or with larger rural areas.
 
Another strong point against the EC is that rural areas are already over-represented in Congress, which you unwittingly showed.  A repeal of the 17th Amendment would only make that worse, of course, since you would be disenfranchising everyone in the more populated areas of a state.  In both the House and the Senate, smaller states have more power per person than the boogeymen of California and NY.  Why would another layer of such favoritism be necessary for the Presidency?  And I have yet to hear of a single issue where this is supposed to have a devastating effect.  "OMG, if everyone gets an equal voice, then ______ are going to be hurt because of the President's stance on ______".  Anyone?
 
Just because we have a representative democracy doesn't mean that we have to have layer upon layer of representatives.  If it's supposedly a brilliant idea to have state legislatures pick Senators, then why wouldn't we have the House pick the President directly?  We already voted for those people, so then they could be the voice of "the state" for that vote.
 
And yes, that is the system put in place.  I'm well aware, and it's idiotic in every aspect.  There is no logical reason to weigh one person's vote more that of someone else, especially in this day and age.  The only honest argument is "it's good for my side, so I like it".
Even A Broken Clock Added Sep 11, 2018 - 10:06am
Ken - one thing that would make the electoral college better to reflect the nature of the country now would be if all states adopted the practices of Nebraska and Maine, where the Presidential vote in each Congressional district accounted for the selection of one Electoral College vote. That way, solid red or blue states would be more in play, since there are usually parts of every state that disagree with the majority of state voters. Heck, in Nebraska, this did result in one electoral vote for a Democrat back a couple of elections ago. The winner of the state total vote continues to receive the extra 2 electoral votes coming due to the Senators, but it makes the system better than it is at present, and since states are using it now, it obviously does not require a constitutional amendment.
Brabantio Added Sep 11, 2018 - 10:24am
"That way, solid red or blue states would be more in play, since there are usually parts of every state that disagree with the majority of state voters."
 
That would probably be an improvement.  The "winner-take-all" aspect is what makes the least amount of sense.  Florida in 2000 is a key example; "OK, we have no idea what the actual effect of Bush's brother and co-campaign chair being in charge might be, but just stand by while we figure out where to put all 25 votes."  It would seem that any situation where we lack faith in the results should require the votes to be somehow split.  It would make sense generally as well, but that situation certainly leaps to mind.
 
It would also provide incentive for more people to vote, since God only knows how many people didn't bother going to the polls because they "knew" that the results would go against their views.  If we make it about a district, then many of those people have more of a chance to have their voice heard.
Ken Added Sep 11, 2018 - 12:03pm
FJ - I strongly doubt the democrat party has any serious plans to remove the super delegates, any more than the republican party wants to stop open primaries but I don't follow their internal politics closely enough to know.  They want to guide the nominations of their parties as those in power want.  This was the hazard of a 2 party system we were warned of by George Washington in his farewell address.
Ken Added Sep 11, 2018 - 12:17pm
Barbantio - all it takes is a little bit of subtlety and some critical thinking to understand the difference.  Being directly answerable to the people is one thing.  Being directly answerable to the state legislature is quite different.  Not to mention, if senators were elected by state legislatures, you wouldn't have states that have 1 republican/1 democrat or such.  You would have more effective term limits.  As legislatures change, policies change, and if the senator isn't fighting for those policies they can be changed.  Special interests play less of a role because they aren't perpetually fundraising for reelection.  When I say "the will of the state", I am meaning "The priority of the state".  What are the legislative priorities of a state?  For example, is it in a particular state's best interest to have a nationalized health care?  For many if not most states the answer is unequivocally no, but the senators no longer have to answer to the state legislatures, but to those same voters who already spoke in the House and are almost certainly not as involved as those much closer to the pulse of the needs without the populism.  If you can't see this, I don't know how to explain it any more clearly.  It is quite clear and a stark difference once you actually think about the subtle difference in whether the people vote or the legislatures vote.
 
Not all cities are equal.  Dallas/Houston do not dominate TX or texas.   Also, most states don't have one or two megalopolis that dominate the state.
Ken Added Sep 11, 2018 - 12:22pm
EABC - Each state has the right to choose how to distribute their electoral votes as there is no constitutional requirement, however I think that would be a mistake to break them down more and more.  The point is not to get closer to a popular vote, the point is to force a candidate to earn a vote by the going to the state and convincing the majority to vote for them.  The closer you get to a popular vote, the more control you give to a very small segment of the overall population and you are no longer speaking for the overall people.  If larger population states split their delegates, the democrat (in current examples) would pick up 10-12 Florida delegates, for example, and would have no reason to go to other tight states.  go ahead lose, NC, VA, PA, OH by a little bit and still get a chunk of delegates, and coast to victory
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Sep 11, 2018 - 12:26pm
Stated succinctly, the leftists need the popular vote to gain power since they have stuffed ballot boxes in blue states, illegally if not elegantly. 
 
But, amending the Constitution will be rough given the political power at the disposal of their enemies 
Dino Manalis Added Sep 11, 2018 - 12:27pm
 The electoral college is based on the popular vote in each state.  The winner has to earn a majority of the electors across the country.  Super-delegates are necessary, because, sometimes, voters may not be able to decide overwhelmingly on one candidate.
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Sep 11, 2018 - 12:27pm
 
ken
 
"FJ - I strongly doubt the democrat party has any serious plans to remove the super delegates,"
 
Why should they as their obvious act of abrogating democracy with the elite still works?
Ken Added Sep 11, 2018 - 1:22pm
They have no requirement to, Ryck.  They are a private entity.  They can operate on whatever rules they choose.
Benjamin Goldstein Added Sep 11, 2018 - 2:03pm
I like the Electoral College. But I think the change of the senate to a chamber that is both a representation of the states and elected by the people of said states was defenitely a change for the better.
Ken Added Sep 11, 2018 - 2:38pm
Why Benjamin?  It breaks the entire foundation of our government.
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Sep 11, 2018 - 2:38pm
Ken
 
"They have no requirement to, Ryck.  They are a private entity.  They can operate on whatever rules they choose."
 
Because this makes a farce out of the strict definition of democracy ranking just below Leninism [social democracy] and NOKO. It is an embarrassment to all but the ignoranti that democracy is abrogated here and placed in the hand of, what, now 400?
 
Benjamin Goldstein
 
"I like the Electoral College. "
 
I agree as I like anything the left cannot stand and the College balances off the size of the larger states. 
 
It will remain as so.
 
Ken Added Sep 11, 2018 - 2:42pm
Ryck - They are a PRIVATE ORGANIZATION.  They can operate under whatever rules they choose.  This has nothing to do with democracy.  The Republican Party and the Democrat Party are not public institutions.  They are not legislated in any way.  You can choose to be a member under their rules or not.
Jeff Michka Added Sep 11, 2018 - 3:34pm
It matters to Scyk Ryck, Kenny, how DARE Democrats be a private organization, just like the Ts, formerly republicans, are?  Democrats MUST always be held to higher standards, preferably standards that Ts can manipulate.  You can, as a member also choose to change rules, too, not just, like Ts, march in lockstep into the ditch.  Besides, the "blue wave" will, of course, be insured by those millions of illegals voting.  The buses full of illegals holding their "free stuff," are already spreading out to vote in all 50 states.  *shakes head*  Trunpists.  my o my.  Surrender, it's useless.  LOL
Brabantio Added Sep 11, 2018 - 3:40pm
"Not to mention, if senators were elected by state legislatures, you wouldn't have states that have 1 republican/1 democrat or such."
 
And this would be a benefit, how?
 
"For many if not most states the answer is unequivocally no, but the senators no longer have to answer to the state legislatures, but to those same voters who already spoke in the House and are almost certainly not as involved as those much closer to the pulse of the needs without the populism."
 
But you are talking about people in the national legislature, so why shouldn't they be viewing an issue like nationalized health care on that level?  What you seem to be saying is that people in Washington D.C. are supposed to be accountable for national legislation based on the opinion of people thinking about state legislation.  While, of course, American citizens are just that and not just citizens of their state.  And they're still accountable to the voters of that state.
 
"Not all cities are equal."
 
Then the existence of cities aren't really a problem, then.  The thirty-three million or so people that aren't overwhelming the seven million in California's largest four cities could lean Republican, but they happen not to.  And the five and three/quarter million people outside of Indianapolis happen to lean right, as compared to about nine hundred thousand in the city.  Notice that those ratios really aren't that far apart, and yet we're supposed to associate California with San Francisco and  Indiana with the common folk.
 
Most people don't live in large cities, so shortchanging Americans that happen to live in states with large cities still doesn't make any sense.  I get that that's how it's set up, but it's not logical.
Thomas Sutrina Added Sep 11, 2018 - 4:10pm
Ken I live in Illinois (the city state of Chicago) since as most state Nebraska being the only exception have two houses in their legislatures.  As 'house' elected by population  and a 'senate' also elected by population in every state I examined and including Illinois.  Illinois's failure to balance the budget or even to pass a budget in 4 years.  Over half the people live in the metropolitan area around Chicago.  So they set the big city policies of the state.  "Illinois has the 43rd position  on the ALEC-Laffer State Economic Outlook Rankings for 2016.  Clinton took 11 of the 102 counties.  All containing major cities.   Clinton won counties with  22,508 or more votes.  Trump won counties with 130,944 or less voters.    6.1% or the votes went to others candidates."   http://www.theblaze.com/news/2016/12/17/blue-states-that-voted-for-hillary-clinton-share-something-in-common-theyre-dying/
 
On a national level "There are 3,141 counties in the United States.
Trump won 3,084 of them. Clinton won 57.  In percentage: 98.2% to 1.8%.   In area assuming average counties size: 372,809 square miles for Trump and 6,890 square miles for Clinton.
 
There are 62 counties in New York State.  Trump won 46 of them. Clinton won 16.  Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.

In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties, Trump won Richmond)  Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the
entire country.

These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.
The United States is comprised of 3, 797,000 square miles.  And this does NOT include the Peoples Republic of California!

When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those that encompass a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election."
Thomas Sutrina Added Sep 11, 2018 - 4:13pm
Please note the area of the United States given above does include California.
Ken Added Sep 11, 2018 - 4:15pm
And this would be a benefit, how?
 
instead of 51 republicans right now, there would be 62.  They wouldn't have to worry about turncoats like susan collins or Jeff Flake, Murkowski, etc they would have the votes they need to govern more effectively.  On top of that, many of the people that are there wouldn't likely be there.  Some of them clearly aren't serving the interest of their states and the legislatures could replace them with someone better aligned. Again, all it takes is a little creative thinking to understand the implications that could mean.  
 
CA has become a one party state.  This is why they are so hell bent on sanctuary status for illegals.  San Francisco has even now given illegals the right to vote.
 
You are also reflecting the actual population within the city, not the urban area around it  When I say San Francisco, I am talking about the bay area which includes Oakland, San Jose, and many other areas in the tri-valley area.  LA isn't just inner LA, but the great LA area.  Your argument about the cities breaks down because you are disingenuously using just the numbers of the city itself, not the area it influences.
 
We do not have a "national legislature"  We have a "federal " which is very different. The president is the one who looks out to determine if it is good for the entire country or not, if it is he signs a law.  If it is not he vetos it.   If the states disagree and 2/3 of them say "yes it is good" then they override his opinion.  The Senators are supposed to be looking out for what is the best interest of their state.  Too many of them do that only through pork, but not when thinking about how many of the laws they pass will impact their state negatively.  We would never have gotten Obamacare if they did.  It has been a disaster in many states,
 
I am not sure what it is you don't get about this.  It all seems quite intuitive to me and fits together nicely as the framers intended when they put this masterpiece together.  Maybe it is because I have studied it from many different directions, but while I am describing it the best I can and maybe not as eloquently as I would like, in  my mind's eye, I can see exactly why they set up the way they did and how they intended it to function.  It is absolutely brilliant.  Let go of preconceptions and think of it from their perspective.  If you have questions about what their perspective was, read the federalist and antifederalist papers.  Read Montesque and Locke and Cicero, 3 primary philosophers that guided them.
 
The entent was to make an enduring but diverse society.  The states were intended to be "50 separate cauldrons of democracy".  Let each state decide what is best ofr them, see what works and what doesn't, and then if necessary, incorporate that federally, but for the most part, federally to stay completely out of state's business.
Thomas Sutrina Added Sep 11, 2018 - 4:25pm
I think it is obvious why the Democrats want to end electoral college.  They have concentrated on getting the votes from two groups.  The college educated by changing the demographics of the instructors to mostly socialist (Marxist no believing in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence)  and the people and communities dependent on government subsidies and corporate special treatment.  The cities is where they have concentrated.  The poor by the planning of welfare services concentration in the cities.   The Demographics I presented above.  
 
The effort should be in the states.  All states including those under the socialist control still want autonomy, that is the nature of government and socialist are just as power hungry at all levels.  So every federal program or decision that takes power from the states is a reason why for the states to get together as a group to beat the bully. 
 
One level down from the state is the county government which are in a similar situation.  They can band together to make the state Senates actually perform the reason for two houses in a state.  If senators represented the counties then Illinois and California would not be run by the iron fist of the Democrat politicians. 
Jeff Michka Added Sep 11, 2018 - 6:28pm
Mr. & Mrs. "FDR did it!", Sutrino claims Nebraska is the only state with two houses.  Wrong, of course.  WA state has both senate and house.  Having two houses has nothing t do with the electoral college, it's the way the state government was configured in the 1880s, but don't let that spoil the narrative where "Illinois and California would not be run by the iron fist of the Democrat politicians.  What complete hyperbole, Sutrino.  By your terms Sutrino, those states would be ruled by the soft, pliable mittens of the Ts, right, running dog lackey?  You need a law passed outlawing black people in your neighborhood, Sutrino?  Better go to the feds.  Beg Trump.  He'll help with an EO in a Denny's menu holder. 
Ken Added Sep 11, 2018 - 6:34pm
Again Jeff, your reading comprehension lacks.  He said every state except Nebraska has a bicameral legislature, not the other way around
Brabantio Added Sep 11, 2018 - 8:04pm
"When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those that encompass a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election."
 
Because land votes?
Thomas Sutrina Added Sep 11, 2018 - 8:07pm
Brahantio, land doesn't vote but the residents on the land do vote.  Senators are elected by a state that is defined by a land not population.  So a Senator is elected to represent the interest of the land that the state occupies.  The economic, environmental, etc. situation in the state that the people experience.    
Brabantio Added Sep 11, 2018 - 8:20pm
"instead of 51 republicans right now, there would be 62."
 
So it furthers your political views.  Which is not a benefit, objectively, but it certainly validates my previous comment.
 
"San Francisco has even now given illegals the right to vote."
 
In school board elections where children are involved?  How frightening.
 
"Your argument about the cities breaks down because you are disingenuously using just the numbers of the city itself, not the area it influences."
 
I'm not doing anything disingenuously.  When looking at Detroit, am I supposed to look at the Metro Detroit area?  I lived in a suburb which was just as far from the country as it was from the city.  Who was I "influenced" by?  What practical difference does any of this make?
 
Also, you can double the numbers, and there's still more people outside of the cities.  Not only is it utterly unclear what possible difference it makes, I don't see how they have the power to "dominate" anything.
 
"We do not have a "national legislature"  We have a "federal " which is very different."
 
It's not remotely different, as your lack of follow-up suggests.  The laws affect everyone in the country, not just those in their state.
 
"If the states disagree and 2/3 of them say "yes it is good" then they override his opinion.  The Senators are supposed to be looking out for what is the best interest of their state."
 
If those voted in by those states disagree, not the states.  Begging the question.
 
"The states were intended to be "50 separate cauldrons of democracy".  Let each state decide what is best ofr them, see what works and what doesn't, and then if necessary, incorporate that federally, but for the most part, federally to stay completely out of state's business."
 
Which isn't remotely an argument for either having Senators picked by state legislatures or for the Electoral College, since it doesn't suggest that there shouldn't be a separate federal government.  I've also read your citations in the past.  None of it justifies giving one person more of a voice in an election than someone else, and I doubt that anything ever could.
Brabantio Added Sep 11, 2018 - 8:29pm
"Brahantio, land doesn't vote but the residents on the land do vote.  Senators are elected by a state that is defined by a land not population."
 
You were talking about the Presidential election, as "country" and "national election" should have reminded you.
 
And, obviously, if you don't think that land votes, then claiming that it makes a difference is ludicrous.  I seriously doubt that if there were a hundred million Republicans within five hundred square miles, that a Democratic win from sixty million votes would be just fine and dandy.  Those people obviously just wouldn't matter, since they live so close together.
Cullen Kehoe Added Sep 11, 2018 - 9:10pm
Without the electoral college the East and West Coast would elect every president. And nowhere outside New England, NYC, or LA would ever see a presidential candidate campaigning there. 
Brabantio Added Sep 11, 2018 - 9:18pm
"Without the electoral college the East and West Coast would elect every president."
 
There aren't enough people there to outweigh the rest of the country.  And those people are also Americans, just as much as anyone in any other state.
Ken Added Sep 11, 2018 - 10:36pm
Brabantio are you obtuse just for the sake of being obtuse or are you really thick witted?  Do you have no concept of making inferences without your hand being held to walk you through every micro piece.
 
So it furthers your political views.  Which is not a benefit, objectively, but it certainly validates my previous comment.
 
At the current time it would help my political views and help restore us back toward the constitution, but that  was simply showing what a difference it would make as an example.
 
"San Francisco has even now given illegals the right to vote."
 
Interesting how you keep taking things out of context to make a point against examples and avoiding the actual point made, as you have done in virtually all your responses, which is why we keep going around in circles.
 
Not only is it utterly unclear what possible difference it makes, I don't see how they have the power to "dominate" anything.
 
Most people have fled detroit, so that is hardly a good example.  If it is unclear, you are about the only one unclear to.  It has been explained as far back as the founders how it makes a difference.
 

It's not remotely different, as your lack of follow-up suggests.  The laws affect everyone in the country, not just those in their state.
 
It is completely different.  Senators shouldn't be voting on things for their party, they should be voting on things that are good for their state.  If they happen to coincide with enough other states they may then become federal law, if the person who is responsible for the overall republic (the president) believes they should.  I can only follow up with the same explanation so many times before it becomes redundant and clear either I can't get you to understand or you are just intentionally being obtuse for agrument's sake.
 
If those voted in by those states disagree, not the states.  Begging the question.
 
What's your point?  Those voted in by the states are representing the interest of the states
 

Which isn't remotely an argument for either having Senators picked by state legislatures or for the Electoral College, since it doesn't suggest that there shouldn't be a separate federal government.

 
It wasn't intended to be an argument for the Electoral college, it was pointing out the difference between national and federal.  I have no idea what the last part means, by "separate federal government"  Separate from what?  The one we currently have?  I never suggested anything of the kind.
 
None of it justifies giving one person more of a voice in an election than someone else, and I doubt that anything ever could.
 
Multiple people have described it multiple ways and you are just completely locked in on "The popular vote is all that matters".  I doubt there is anything that will ever change your mind which is sad. Try Reading Federalist 68 for James Madison's point of view
 
The Burghal Hidage Added Sep 12, 2018 - 12:18am
obtuse just for the sake of being obtuse ?
 
Yes
Flying Junior Added Sep 12, 2018 - 12:40am
I think y'all are making way too much of a fuss over the failed 2016 election and perceived differences that have led to the highly polarized political climate that we find ourselves in today.  You appear to believe that this will be a permanent landscape.
 
Hopeless.
 
Two or three more years and your modes of thinking will be completely out-of-date.  To classify states as red or blue is just a waste of time for everybody.
 
How about you republicans and conservatives clean up your own act so that you don't lose any more support?  Lord knows that democrats are doing serious soul-searching.
 
One thing and only one thing is for sure.  People hate the demon Trump.  Righteous people hate him.  Not the ideologues that hated Kennedy and Obama.  Decent and God-fearing Americans absolutely detest the monster.
 
If you honestly believe him to be a populist candidate, you may be surprised how unpopular he really is.  If you are a desperate republican who can't stand the thought of losing the power you now enjoy, of course you will hold your nose and vote for him again.
Jeffry Gilbert Added Sep 12, 2018 - 12:41am
One posits he was both born obtuse and has worked at it his whole life. 
 
Thats just me, I could be wrong. 
Jeffry Gilbert Added Sep 12, 2018 - 12:56am
There aren't enough people there to outweigh the rest of the country
 
Mr Obtuse is talking out his ass again. 
 
39% live on the coast
50% live within 50 miles of the coast. 
 
2010 figures. Projected to grow 8%by 2020.
 
Source: NOAA
 
 
 
Brabantio Added Sep 12, 2018 - 2:17am
"At the current time it would help my political views and help restore us back toward the constitution, but that  was simply showing what a difference it would make as an example."
 
Your difference isn't a benefit.  The Constitution was legally changed, so you're just wishing for something else that's politically convenient to you.  Why would anyone else agree with you on that, objectively speaking?
 
"Interesting how you keep taking things out of context to make a point against examples and avoiding the actual point made, as you have done in virtually all your responses, which is why we keep going around in circles."
 
I didn't take you out of context at all.  You brought up an example, and I challenged the validity of it.
 
"Most people have fled detroit, so that is hardly a good example."
 
I thought you were just saying that the surrounding area is important?  There isn't a Metro Detroit area any longer?
 
"It is completely different.  Senators shouldn't be voting on things for their party, they should be voting on things that are good for their state."
 
They're voting on things good for the entire country.  How are you demonstrating a vital difference between "national" and "federal" here?
 
"What's your point?  Those voted in by the states are representing the interest of the states"
 
What if your state is full of racists or other idiots?  Are you obligated to cater to them, or to do what's right for the entire country's population?  Really, if you think that our elected representatives are supposed to do whatever the voters want no matter what, we could just have a direct democracy instead.
 
"It wasn't intended to be an argument for the Electoral college, it was pointing out the difference between national and federal."
 
So this: "The states were intended to be "50 separate cauldrons of democracy".  Let each state decide what is best ofr them, see what works and what doesn't, and then if necessary, incorporate that federally, but for the most part, federally to stay completely out of state's business" says something about "national"?  That makes no sense at all.
 
"Multiple people have described it multiple ways and you are just completely locked in on "The popular vote is all that matters"."
 
Or I'm still saying that there's no justification for shortchanging American voters, even if you don't like the way that they vote.  Again, I've read the Federalist papers, now you try Googling "appeal to tradition" and "appeal to authority".  Even if it made some sort of sense at some point, and I still have yet to see one concrete example of any issue where this could make any sort of difference, it's still nonsense in this day and age.
Brabantio Added Sep 12, 2018 - 2:18am
"39% live on the coast
50% live within 50 miles of the coast."
 
I thought about 40%, yes.  If you go fifty miles out, then you have even numbers, not enough to outweigh the rest of the country.
Ken Added Sep 12, 2018 - 2:24am
I thought about 40%, yes.  If you go fifty miles out, then you have even numbers, not enough to outweigh the rest of the country.
 
Again, you are either being intentionally obtuse, or just don't get it, or are simply arguing for argument sake.
 
The rest of the voting pretty much balances out  you are simply throwing numbers out to offset the argument and making the seriously lame conclusion that "everyone else is going to predominantly vote a specific way".  That isn't what anyone is saying, and if you don't get it, you are intentionally and specifically trying not to just muddy the waters and make an invalid argument simply to try and argue an incorrect and irrelevant position to discredit.
Ken Added Sep 12, 2018 - 2:33am
obtuse just for the sake of being obtuse ?
 
Yes
 
I am tending to agree TBH.  He is trying to confuse and cross the facts and catch me in some kind of cross-statement that contradicts something else I said.  I am believing there is absolutely no intention of honest discord but an attempt to discredit the source so as to discredit the discussion that he clearly disagrees with.
 
It is very frustrating to deal with disingenuous people.  At least most of those here that tend to block against my postings (I don't mean ignore by that, I mean put up their front) are honest about their disagreement.  This person is trying to catch me in a "process crime" so to speak where I say something different than I did previously - Like Mueller wants to do if can get Trump to testify under oath.  "Can't prove any wrongdoing/disprove the argument, so let's discredit the voice"  Alinsky tactics to isolate, marginalize....
Ken Added Sep 12, 2018 - 2:37am
I think y'all are making way too much of a fuss over the failed 2016 election and perceived differences that have led to the highly polarized political climate that we find ourselves in today.  You appear to believe that this will be a permanent landscape.
 
What failed?  While I was no fan of Trump at that point, the country won the house, the senate and the white house.  It certainly isn't permanent, but if Trump runs again in 2020 there is no legitimate challenge to him "at this point" - if something seriously negative happens who knows, but for now, he is sailing to another term.  Remember GHWB had 92% approval at end of gulf war and squandered it with his "read my lips, no new taxes" so anything could happened, but at this point, re-election is not in any doubt.
Ken Added Sep 12, 2018 - 3:00am
The Constitution was legally changed, so you're just wishing for something else that's politically convenient to you.  Why would anyone else agree with you on that, objectively speaking?
 
The constitution was legally changed to prevent liquor.  It was also changed back a few years later when that was proven to be a mistake and a failure.  This has NOTHING to do with political convenience.  It has EVERYTHING to do with our  bicameral legislature, intended to represent 2 different interests.
 
I don't believe you have been objective in this conversation in a single post you have made.  I believe it has been a "trap" to catch me in a contradiction or indefensible position.  You have not given an honest argument, nor have any of your posts taken what I have argued in context.  You have offered absolutely NO alternative rational as to why what I have said is wrong.
 
I never said there wasn't a metro detroit, but it is half the size it was just a couple of decades ago, yes, most have fled. and they didn't just move to the burbs.
 
They're voting on things good for the entire country.  How are you demonstrating a vital difference between "national" and "federal" here?
 
First of all, who are you (or them) to "decide what is good for the entire country".  the intention was NEVER to have the congress "vote for the good of the country" - I have cited many sources on that.  You are stating them as a nationalist congress there, I am saying no they aren't, they are federalist exactly for the reason you state that is 100% wrong
 
What if your state is full of racists or other idiots?  Are you obligated to cater to them, or to do what's right for the entire country's population?  Really, if you think that our elected representatives are supposed to do whatever the voters want no matter what, we could just have a direct democracy instead.
 
So if a single state is full of racists or other idiots, they will be rejected nationally.  Nothing obligates you to stay in a state you disagree with, nothing ties you there, you can leave at any time you choose.  The voters vote in representatives who they believe will server their interest.  That is the entire purpose of the house of representatives.  The state legislatures are supposed to vote in senators who will vote in the state's best interest.  I don't understand why conceptually you cannot grasp the difference here unless you are intentionally obtuse, which it is clear you are.
 
I don't believe you have EVER read the federalist papers.  I am unsure you even know what they were until I cited federalist 68.  I also bet you have NEVER read antifederalist papers which tried to refute them as you never cited not quoted in a single attack.
 
In fact, you complain about my citations not convincing you which is fine, but you have never cited a single thing that refutes what I say.  It is all your opinion.  Your opinion is fine to have, you have that right.
 
You do however do no credit to your credibility when I am stating facts and citing the founders, and you say "sorry, I disagree, and nothing you say will change my opinion".
 
You clearly didn't even bother to read the Federalist 68 link I posted by Madison, but just came out to continue ranting against my position.
 
I am over you bar.  Come out with something legitimate instead of talking out of your ass and being intentionally obtuse and I will listen and discuss.
 
Until then I agree with a couple of previous posters that called you "Mr. Obtuse"
Brabantio Added Sep 12, 2018 - 3:38am
"This has NOTHING to do with political convenience.  It has EVERYTHING to do with our  bicameral legislature, intended to represent 2 different interests."
 
Then how can you possibly be trying to sell me the idea of having more Republicans as being a benefit?  The Senate provides balance by giving the <i>people</i> of each state equal standing, and it's not necessary to give that much power to state legislatures in order for Senators to be accountable to the constituents.
 
"You have not given an honest argument, nor have any of your posts taken what I have argued in context."
 
You haven't shown how I've taken you out of context or said anything otherwise dishonest at all.  Did you forget to do so?
 
"You have offered absolutely NO alternative rational as to why what I have said is wrong."
 
It's unreasonable, not "wrong".  And of course I have, you simply don't like what I've said.
 
"So if a single state is full of racists or other idiots, they will be rejected nationally."
 
Who says that it's the only state?  And would you represent the interests of racists as long as you thought that they would fail, while you personally disagree with them?
 
"The state legislatures are supposed to vote in senators who will vote in the state's best interest."
 
You brought up health care as an issue that is supposedly not in the state's best interest, while that affects American citizens on an individual level.  Clearly, "the state's best interest" is not separate from the opinions of the voters in the state.  Hence the question about racists and idiots; how would you determine what's right for the state without catering to those people, should they happen to be a majority?
 
"I don't believe you have EVER read the federalist papers."
 
I couldn't possibly care less what you believe.  If you want to cite something specific, do so.  Just saying "read all this" is meaningless.
 
"In fact, you complain about my citations not convincing you which is fine, but you have never cited a single thing that refutes what I say."
 
Because it doesn't matter one whit if anyone has ever expressed my opinion before.  In order to say that some people should have more voting power than others, there needs to be some concept of risk involved in an equal standing of votes.  What is that risk?  In what possible situation are we supposed to be aghast at some tragic policy result because people that live in metropolitan areas lean Democratic and rural areas don't?
 
For extra credit, can anyone explain how the converse situation is also not supposedly inappropriate?  If I'm supposed to believe "well, group A will dominate group B" as a rationale, then the following result of your affirmative action plan would be group B dominating group A.  I'm just supposed to take it as gospel that one group deserves to have a greater voice, even though it doesn't have greater numbers.
 
Again, why?  The smaller states already have their concerns balanced out by equal representation in the Senate, so why would we further need to tip the scales in order to give the smaller states extra voting power when voting for President?
 
I admit it's been some years since I've read all the documents, but I've asked dozens of people to come up with some specific concerns, especially something that applies today.  If there's something that satisfies that requirement there, then someone, someday, should be able to tell me what it is that I have forgotten.
 
Apparently, and unsurprisingly, it doesn't seem like you're going to be that person, either.
Brabantio Added Sep 12, 2018 - 3:43am
"The rest of the voting pretty much balances out  you are simply throwing numbers out to offset the argument and making the seriously lame conclusion that "everyone else is going to predominantly vote a specific way".  That isn't what anyone is saying, and if you don't get it, you are intentionally and specifically trying not to just muddy the waters and make an invalid argument simply to try and argue an incorrect and irrelevant position to discredit."
 
This was the quote: "Without the electoral college the East and West Coast would elect every president."
 
And I said that the coasts don't have enough people, which "39%" confirmed.  It's really that simple.  So, what's your problem?
Jeffry Gilbert Added Sep 12, 2018 - 4:30am
Ken, you call this obtuse asshole disingenuous but I see him much more elementally than that he's intellectually dishonest. Just another Alinskyist win at all cost leftist rat bastard POS. 
The Burghal Hidage Added Sep 12, 2018 - 9:29am
there's that brevity again :)
Ari Silverstein Added Sep 12, 2018 - 9:36am
It’s not a war on the Electoral College to express your displeasure of it.  Based on the fact the liberals won the popular vote, I don’t blame for being frustrated.  However, I didn’t read one thing in this article to suggest they have waged war on the Electoral College. 
 
As for the purpose of the Electoral College, it’s not to make sure all states have an "adequate voice."  It’s a shield against fraud.  If it weren’t for the Electoral College, if one state wanted, it could stuff the ballot box and swing a national election.  By limiting each state to its electoral votes, stuffing the ballot box can only yield the same quantity of votes as if the state was won fairly. 
Brabantio Added Sep 12, 2018 - 10:03am
"Ken, you call this obtuse asshole disingenuous but I see him much more elementally than that he's intellectually dishonest."
 
You're free to make an argument any time you like to try to show that.  So far, it just seems like angry blathering on your part.
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Sep 12, 2018 - 10:32am
From all the noisy banter and rants it seems that the Dems are frantic to change the Constitution. 
 
I would too, I want to change 'person' to citizen and retract all anchor babies' phony citizenship. 
 
No regrets. 
Ken Added Sep 12, 2018 - 12:29pm
.  If you want to cite something specific, do so
 
I did and provided a link.  You ignored it.  You have tunnel vision simply to "win" an argument and are completely ignoring context or the reason for them.  No one here can explain it to you because you simply don't want to understand.  You are in ideological tunnel vision with no interest in being persuaded.  I can see why no one has been able to explain it to you, and they are probably all as frustrated as me that you choose to remain ignorant.
Ken Added Sep 12, 2018 - 12:34pm
Jeff - Ken, you call this obtuse asshole disingenuous but I see him much more elementally than that he's intellectually dishonest. Just another Alinskyist win at all cost leftist rat bastard POS.   
 
Yes, the first several times to just be reasonable, but he just became redundant and is clearly parsing what I say and not thiking about the context at all, simply arguing for argument's sake.  I am giving up on it since he clearly has no interest in a reasonable discussion.  Every point he has made I have put a cogent rationale for that he either parses or ignores simply in an apparent effort to make it seem my point is irrational.
Ken Added Sep 12, 2018 - 12:47pm
It’s not a war on the Electoral College to express your displeasure of it.  Based on the fact the liberals won the popular vote, I don’t blame for being frustrated.  However, I didn’t read one thing in this article to suggest they have waged war on the Electoral College
 
It has been a key democrat talking point for a long time - there are plenty of links easy to find, here are just a few
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/05/10/blue-states-rally-to-upend-electoral-college-with-addition-connecticut.html
 
https://www.trunews.com/article/democrats-war-against-electoral-college#!
 
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/306350-sudden-liberal-opposition-to-electoral-college-not
 
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/09/12/why-do-democrats-want-to-dump-electoral-college.html
 

As for the purpose of the Electoral College, it’s not to make sure all states have an "adequate voice."  It’s a shield against fraud.  If it weren’t for the Electoral College, if one state wanted, it could stuff the ballot box and swing a national election.  By limiting each state to its electoral votes, stuffing the ballot box can only yield the same quantity of votes as if the state was won fairly. 
 
There are a number of reasons for it, that is another one.  I also posted Madison's reasons in Federalist 68 to prevent the election of an unqualified president.
Ken Added Sep 12, 2018 - 12:54pm
retract all anchor babies' phony citizenship. 
 
None of that was ever intended by the 14th amendment and was even said so at one point in the late 1800's by the person who wrote the amendment.  All anchor babies and their children should not be citizens, but there is little we can do about that now of those currently citizens, we need to get the supreme court to litigate the 14th amendment somehow and have a case go through - so far they haven't weighed in.  In fact people coming across the border just to have a baby and make it a citizen should never be covered by the 14th amendment the language itself specifically states that the parent must be subject to the jurisdiction thereof the state or the country.
 
an illegal foreign national doesn't fall under that scope at all.
Brabantio Added Sep 12, 2018 - 12:58pm
"I did and provided a link."
 
No, a specific argument.  If you can't express it in your own words, then you aren't really committed to it; you're just regurgitating something that benefits your political ends.
 
Remember this line?: "Maybe it is because I have studied it from many different directions, but while I am describing it the best I can and maybe not as eloquently as I would like, in  my mind's eye, I can see exactly why they set up the way they did and how they intended it to function."
 
You're essentially saying that you can't express your reasoning or address my questions, but you think it's brilliant and I'm supposed to find that compelling.
 
And then you say, with no sense of irony: "You are in ideological tunnel vision with no interest in being persuaded."
 
Classic.
Brabantio Added Sep 12, 2018 - 1:43pm
Here, Ken, I'll humor you.
 
I only vaguely remembered why I was laughing at the citation of Federalist No. 68, since it had been a while since I'd read it.  Here's the phrasing that I had in the back of my mind: "The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States."
 
Oh, yes.  Clearly, the Electoral College saved us from Trump's "low intrigue" and "little arts of popularity".  We sure dodged a bullet there.
 
The Electoral College, like the idea of political parties, only works if people act in good faith.  Clearly, that's not the case; Trump is the poster boy for this application of the EC, and yet they still selected him.  Under what possible conditions should we expect this to apply?  Are people really going to vote for the opposing party, under any circumstances?  Your own words regarding Democrats and compromise show that you don't believe that Democrats would switch over to prevent their hypothetical version of Trump, so how can you possibly think that this is still a relevant purpose?
 
"...In an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications."  I will try not to forget that phrase again.  Utterly riotous.
Thomas Sutrina Added Sep 12, 2018 - 2:31pm
 "There are 3,141 counties in the United States.  Trump won 3,084 of them. Clinton won 57.  In percentage: 98.2% to 1.8%.   In area assuming average counties size: 372,809 square miles for Trump and 6,890 square miles for Clinton.
 
Just the facts above.  The founders didn't want a city state that makes all the decisions for the people that put the food on their tables.  Yep, the food on those city liberals tables comes from open sky country.  The wood, steel, concrete, fish, and oil and gas come from open sky country.   They can not exist without a relationship with open sky country.  The Byzantine Empire, a city state Constantinople collapsed due to loosing all their supporting open sky country.  The Muslim conquerors turned them into their slaves.   The rural people before the Muslims came were the serfs of the city Byzantines.   
wsucram15 Added Sep 12, 2018 - 3:14pm
Why do you apologize for long articles dont you want your readers to think?
Ken Added Sep 12, 2018 - 3:32pm
Why do you apologize for long articles dont you want your readers to think?
 
I do want them to think, which is why most of what I write is lengthy.  I try to put it in full context.  The modern attention span is very short and people frequently want the answer in a couple of paragraphs, but I am commenting on issues that are too complex to have a simple answer.  If the expanation were simple, there would be no need to write a treatise about it.
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Sep 12, 2018 - 3:56pm
"The modern attention span is very short and people frequently want the answer in a couple of paragraphs, but..."
 
The libs tend to think backward to advice and commands from the media, which is very short term and does not require many neurons. 
 
Ken Added Sep 12, 2018 - 4:08pm
The herd mentality doesn't require much critical thinking or effort.  The attention span of a goldfish is 9 seconds.  The average attention span of a human is now 8 seconds.
Benjamin Goldstein Added Sep 12, 2018 - 5:25pm
Why Benjamin?  It breaks the entire foundation of our government.
I think you mean that having delegates would voice the interests of the state on the federal level. This is best achieved when politicians simply respect what competence is the states' and what is the federal government's.
 
Sending delegations to a chamber does the opposite. The second chamber of the German congress is still construed how the Senate used to be. The result is that the state governors are no longer voted for the powers they have. Instead the elections are always a referendum on the president (in Germany, the Chancellor). So you end up with states not even having a representative of the state on the state leve. That is pretty messed up. State elections should be only about the state and federal elections only about the federal government. It is good the way it is now in the US.
 
For whatever the original intentions of the Electoral College were, today's value is that they better represent the living situations of the citizens than a pure majority vote would. If the federal government neglects areas that are less populated, young people flee from these areas and overcrowd the cities even more, exacerbating the situation further.
Ken Added Sep 12, 2018 - 6:27pm
This is best achieved when politicians simply respect what competence is the states' and what is the federal government's.
 
 
that was the intention, but for 100 years the left has been trying to subvert that principle in the constitution and make EVERYTING the domain of the federal government.
 
"today's value" according to whom?  It isn't my value.
 
I won't comment much about Germany's government or how it works, I don't know enough about the specifics or intricacies.  I do know however that their very convoluted constitution passed in 1948 has a number of individual liberties restrictions (some are somewhat understandable coming out of the Nazi era, but their constitution is more about what the government must do rather than what it cannot do as more of a socialist type constitution.  Other than freedom of association and freedom of movement and freedom of employment, I don't believe it grants any other specific individual freedoms.
 
your last part is decidedly unamerican.  if you don't have enough population where you live so you are under-represented, then move?  How about people who make their living farming or other areas?  Do we starve or do we just say "sorry, your area is underpopulated, so your vote is irrelevant"?
 
The party that is supposedly all about "standing up for disenfranchised voters" is attempting to do exactly that to millions by trying to go to a national popular vote rather than a representative vote.
Ari Silverstein Added Sep 13, 2018 - 1:13pm
“Talking points” are not the same as waging war.  Because we live in a free country, there is nothing wrong with making an effort to eliminate the Electoral College via the political process.  In addition, in this country, peaceful protest is perfectly legal. 
 
As for Madison’s reasons for having an Electoral College, like liberals who rail against it, he’s also entitled to his opinion.  I have no intention of reading the Federalist 68, however I would argue that the Electoral College is just as likely to pick an unqualified president as the popular vote.  Of course, if you had summarized Madison’s argument I may have agreed with you.  However, just saying something is so because Madison said so, is not good enough. 
Ken Added Sep 13, 2018 - 1:21pm
Yea, Madison is only "The father of the constitution" and wrote most of it, so his opinion is irrelevant, huh?  Sure, why read federalist 68 and educate yourself?  It would take all of 5-10 minutes.  Have someone feed you their interpretation which may or may not be correct.  intellectual laziness is one of the big problems and products of the current state of our educational system.
 
You cannot eliminate the electoral college through the political process.  That is unconstitutional.  You can only eliminate it through a constitutional amendment
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Sep 13, 2018 - 1:52pm
Ken
 
"You cannot eliminate the electoral college through the political process.  That is unconstitutional.  You can only eliminate it through a constitutional amendment"
 
They could IF  they packed  the high court with more activist  stooges. They could even rule  that an amendment to the Constitution would be unconstitutional. 
 
Note that SCOTUS by 5:4 determines WHAT the words say and WHAT they mean. Any thing is possible. There is no limit to what these slugs might do. 
 
The High Court was never intended to be a co-equal branch of government, but, wow, why not pack the court with conservatives and start rewriting amendments like A14? The rabid left would do this if given the chance and they did during the phony Warren Court. 
 
A good start: change the word 'person' in the law, everywhere where appropriate and replace it with 'citizen' or 'natural born citizen' of natural born parents. 
 
A second change: For voting, every voter must have a federal ID with finger prints and pictures and no votes would be counted without  such an ID. Felons would not be able to vote and those in drug rehab, prison, parole would have their privilege permanently removed. 
 
And, all this could be 'legal' giving leftist dogma and legal theories. 
Ken Added Sep 13, 2018 - 7:51pm
Ryck - The real war is that many Blue states are banding together and writing laws that say "the winner of the national vote gets our electoral votes" - which is technically legal, but is their attempt to circumvent the Electoral College.
 
that would guarantee them about 235 electoral votes if all blue states banded together (and if PA and WI and MI had a law like that....well, you know....)
 
Technically states can decide what determines their electoral votes and that is absolutely frightening to me
Jeff Michka Added Sep 13, 2018 - 9:34pm
"The War on...."  Always a "war" to be fought with leftists.  We'll bring in the heavy artillery and tanks next, but why don't you want to promote "The War on Xmas?"  If it wasn't for the Electoral college," rightists would be without their Orange Il Duce, and rightists need it to keep their cryptofascist agendas afloat and get thoe "right" Judege that will help send this nation back to the 19th C, but then, that's the idea.  The hysteria of the right shown in "....if all the blue states banded together,"  Must be foreshadowg a Stalinist agenda?  It gets so confusing, never being sure of which "communist" ideological group is pushing it's agenda on rightists and "good white people."
Ken Added Sep 13, 2018 - 9:55pm
and you forget the so-called Republican "war on women"? the failed War on poverty? both sides use that terminology and in some cases it is absolutely accurate terminology.  Wars aren't always fought with projectile weapons
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Sep 14, 2018 - 11:15am
The leftists cannot handle peace or wars. They just grub for monies and dope. 
John Minehan Added Sep 14, 2018 - 4:51pm
The best argument for the Electoral College is that presidential candidates would not campaign in smaller states unless they had a somewhat inflated value in the Electoral College.
 
The counter argument is that coverage is national and media markets are essential national, if now increasingly illustrative of the phenomenon of "narrowcasting."
John Minehan Added Sep 14, 2018 - 4:55pm
I tend to agree with you on the Seventeenth Amendment.  However, it is worth noting that the States started to adopt popular election of US Senators unilaterally, in places like Montana.
John Minehan Added Sep 14, 2018 - 5:03pm
Sorry!  It was Nebraska and Oregon first.
Ken Added Sep 14, 2018 - 9:53pm
I agree John, I think that is the best reason for it  And the founders noted that states like Virginia and NY would choose all presidents on a pure popular vote (of the original states).  The reason democrats are so against it is because there are large sections of the country that their message just simply doesn't resonate.  I believe their hard left turn in recent years is even alienating many in their own part that don't understand them any longer, but it is all about power to them.
Jeff Michka Added Sep 16, 2018 - 7:16pm
ol "Campaigner Kenny" tells us  "their are large sections of the country that their message simply doesn't resonate."  Uh huh, and those nonresonating areas ring the bells of Trumpist and T party rightist wisdoms, instead, eh?  Maybe its the steady diet of jello salads, pot roasts and boiled vegetables that make them Trumpists.  What are you rightists going to do about the millions of illegals voting in the next election on a straight D ticket?  Those buses are already rolling out....They just got their universal voter registration cards and first box of "free stuff."