This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
MasterDvdC · 61-69, M
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
sarabee1995 · 26-30, F
@OWTFWN: Shame the popular vote isn't relevant and not how we elect presidents, huh?
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
sarabee1995 · 26-30, F
@OWTFWN: The Constitution intended it to be exactly what it is: A proportional vote of the States insulated from undue influence of large cities. Read the Federalist Papers.
Maybe the Electoral College is a good thing. Maybe it's a bad thing. That's a legitimate debate and I can argue either side. But the fact remains that a national popular vote currently means nothing. If that were the race, then every candidate would run a very different campaign and the vote totals would not be what they were yesterday.
Maybe the Electoral College is a good thing. Maybe it's a bad thing. That's a legitimate debate and I can argue either side. But the fact remains that a national popular vote currently means nothing. If that were the race, then every candidate would run a very different campaign and the vote totals would not be what they were yesterday.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
room101 · 51-55, M
@master......whatever you want to call yourself, i'm lucky enough not to live in America so, i don't have to stand behind the egotistical, misogynistic, racist, sociopathic, fraudster that "y'all" voted for.
sarabee1995 · 26-30, F
@OWTFWN: Okay, I don't know why I bother. Every time I try to talk to you, you resort to insults. I'll ignore that and try to address your "point" ...
Of course one man one vote is a different system. That is exactly what I said (did you read my words?). "One man one vote" is an interesting system, but it is not our system. Maybe it should be, maybe it shouldn't be. As I said, that is a legitimate discussion point.
But our system is not one man one vote. If it were, we would not have a Senate with two senators from each state. And we would not have an Electoral College. If we had one man one vote, then you would see campaigning biased strongly toward New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago and other large population centers. Election issues would be very different. And the popular vote result would be very different. As I said, this is all very interesting, but this is exactly what our founding fathers did not want. They wanted the election of the president to be "insulated" from the whims of the masses (again, good or bad can be discussed, but this was their opinion).
That is why I said that the popular vote result in an Electoral College campaign is interesting, but irrelevant. I saw a protester on TV this morning saying he wanted to march to the Supreme Court (whose job it is to enforce the Constitution) and insist they overturn the election on the basis that the popular vote went to Hillary. He looked my age. I'm embarrassed at the ignorance of most of my peers on stuff like this. The Supreme Court would likely just post Article Two on the doors in large print until someone in the crowd learned to read.
Of course one man one vote is a different system. That is exactly what I said (did you read my words?). "One man one vote" is an interesting system, but it is not our system. Maybe it should be, maybe it shouldn't be. As I said, that is a legitimate discussion point.
But our system is not one man one vote. If it were, we would not have a Senate with two senators from each state. And we would not have an Electoral College. If we had one man one vote, then you would see campaigning biased strongly toward New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago and other large population centers. Election issues would be very different. And the popular vote result would be very different. As I said, this is all very interesting, but this is exactly what our founding fathers did not want. They wanted the election of the president to be "insulated" from the whims of the masses (again, good or bad can be discussed, but this was their opinion).
That is why I said that the popular vote result in an Electoral College campaign is interesting, but irrelevant. I saw a protester on TV this morning saying he wanted to march to the Supreme Court (whose job it is to enforce the Constitution) and insist they overturn the election on the basis that the popular vote went to Hillary. He looked my age. I'm embarrassed at the ignorance of most of my peers on stuff like this. The Supreme Court would likely just post Article Two on the doors in large print until someone in the crowd learned to read.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
sarabee1995 · 26-30, F
@OWTFWN: I'm going to assume you meant to say [i][c=#003BB2]"The Electoral College was added for convenience..."[/c][/i] Nothing could be further from the truth. The Electoral College was not an ammendment ("add-on") at all. In fact, it resides in Article 2. If you've misplaced your copy of our Constitution, I'd be happy to loan you mine. 😁 Just teasing, sorry, back to the serious stuff...
The Electoral College (along with the make up of the upper chamber of Congress, "The US Senate") was very specifically a compromise struck between the larger more populous states and the smaller less populous states. The smaller states feared they would have no say in the new Federal government so their voice was strengthened with these two institutions.
If you feel the "people" have been screwed by this election or by the 2000 election, then you must also feel that the "people" are screwed every time a Senator is elected from a small state? It's the same principle.
Our Constitution (and the federal government it created) is, after all, a contract between and among the various states, not the people (despite what the first three words of the preamble would have you think). As such, there are many compromises contained within our government that might not make sense if we take the perspective that this should be some kind of one-man,one-vote democracy. It is not. It is a Constitutional Federal Republic formed from sovereign States.
(PS: The US Congress is not determined by population. Only half of it is. The lower Chamber, known as the House of Representative or "The People's House" is determined by population with every Representative having roughly the same number of constituents. The other half of Congress or the upper Chamber, the US Senate, is NOT determined by population at all. If I am confusing you, you can find clarification in Article 1 of the aforementioned Constitution! 😌)
The Electoral College (along with the make up of the upper chamber of Congress, "The US Senate") was very specifically a compromise struck between the larger more populous states and the smaller less populous states. The smaller states feared they would have no say in the new Federal government so their voice was strengthened with these two institutions.
If you feel the "people" have been screwed by this election or by the 2000 election, then you must also feel that the "people" are screwed every time a Senator is elected from a small state? It's the same principle.
Our Constitution (and the federal government it created) is, after all, a contract between and among the various states, not the people (despite what the first three words of the preamble would have you think). As such, there are many compromises contained within our government that might not make sense if we take the perspective that this should be some kind of one-man,one-vote democracy. It is not. It is a Constitutional Federal Republic formed from sovereign States.
(PS: The US Congress is not determined by population. Only half of it is. The lower Chamber, known as the House of Representative or "The People's House" is determined by population with every Representative having roughly the same number of constituents. The other half of Congress or the upper Chamber, the US Senate, is NOT determined by population at all. If I am confusing you, you can find clarification in Article 1 of the aforementioned Constitution! 😌)
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment