Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

Abolish the Electoral College

sgtrock21sgtrock21 Senior MemberPosts: 1,933 Senior Member


Our smarter than us founders realized the large population areas, Boston, Philadelphia, and New York City could overpower the popular vote of the rural areas.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/what-it-would-really-take-to-abolish-the-electoral-college/ar-BBUYUul?li=BBnb7Kz

"The system is ostensibly in place to ensure that nation’s rural areas have a voice in national elections, but as a larger and larger percentage of Americans settle in urban areas, the Electoral College is becoming more and more outdated." NO, NO, NO!

Replies

  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 8,249 Senior Member
    Yes. . .well. . .the vote to abolish the electoral college would first have to make it through the various representatives of the rural areas.

    Clever dudes, those founding fathers. . .

    And don't the big blue states have whoppingly more electoral votes anyway?  And Hillary STILL lost.
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • BufordBuford Senior Member Posts: 6,713 Senior Member
    Would be interesting to see some day how conservatives react if there's ever an election where their candidate wins the popular vote but loses the general election.

    Well it certainly wouldn't be to vote to abolish the electoral college.

    Just look at the flowers Lizzie, just look at the flowers.
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,669 Senior Member
    They want to abolish the E.C., pack the Supreme Court and change voting age to 16. What interesting concepts. Total power grab for generations to come, and reminds me of what they do in Communist/Fascist dictatorships.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,395 Senior Member
    Abolishing the Electoral College requires a Constitutional Amendment and ratification by 3/4 of the States. That won't happen................yet. So what around 11 states have done is to make it law that the winner of the popular vote in their state gets ALL the states electoral votes. Nice end run around the Constitution there, by Democratic Socialists.
    Would be interesting to see some day how conservatives react if there's ever an election where their candidate wins the popular vote but loses the general election. It definitely can happen with the current system. That said the system is what it is and I'm not necessarily in favor of changing it.
    That winning the popular vote but losing in the Electoral College has happened 5 times; two in recent history.

    What would happen of a Democrat won the Electoral College and lost the popular vote? Nothing. Republicans and Independents aren't a bunch of total losers and three year olds pitching a temper tantrum because they lost their binky.  Democrats are incapable of acting like functioning adults if they don't get their way. They riot in the streets, burn down cities, and loot like a bunch of unwashed heathens that they are. And attack Republicans and Independents with violence in the streets. Actually, I'll just say it; Democratic Socialists are filthy gutless cowards that attack women and old people when they don't get their way. Lots of incidents for two years to back that opinion up, too.

    Examples of recent history. Bush the Second won and Democrats lost their minds.
    Obama won, and Republicans bitched about it and endured the 8 years of mediocrity.
    Bush won and Democrats lost their minds and rioted in the streets for the last two years.
    So it appears that if a Democrat won the Electoral College and lost the popular vote, Republicans and Independents would accept it and wait for the next election.

      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • JayJay Senior Member Posts: 3,858 Senior Member
    Would be interesting to see some day how conservatives react if there's ever an election where their candidate wins the popular vote but loses the general election. It definitely can happen with the current system. That said the system is what it is and I'm not necessarily in favor of changing it.
    The newest attempt to side-step the Constitution is the popular vote interstate compact.  Basically their way of invalidating the electoral college without a constitutional amendment.  Since the states that are entering into the compact to pledge all of their electoral votes to the most popular candidate are mostly very blue states, I have to wonder how the above scenario would work out for them?  Think they're going to be happy pledging all their electoral votes to a conservative candidate?  My bet is the compact would be tossed away quickly and they'll go back to whining about wanting to do away with the electoral college and expand the Supreme Court.  But it's also not very likely to happen.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
  • sgtrock21sgtrock21 Senior Member Posts: 1,933 Senior Member
    tennmike said:
    Abolishing the Electoral College requires a Constitutional Amendment and ratification by 3/4 of the States. That won't happen................yet. So what around 11 states have done is to make it law that the winner of the popular vote in their state gets ALL the states electoral votes. Nice end run around the Constitution there, by Democratic Socialists.
    Would be interesting to see some day how conservatives react if there's ever an election where their candidate wins the popular vote but loses the general election. It definitely can happen with the current system. That said the system is what it is and I'm not necessarily in favor of changing it.
    That winning the popular vote but losing in the Electoral College has happened 5 times; two in recent history.

    What would happen of a Democrat won the Electoral College and lost the popular vote? Nothing. Republicans and Independents aren't a bunch of total losers and three year olds pitching a temper tantrum because they lost their binky.  Democrats are incapable of acting like functioning adults if they don't get their way. They riot in the streets, burn down cities, and loot like a bunch of unwashed heathens that they are. And attack Republicans and Independents with violence in the streets. Actually, I'll just say it; Democratic Socialists are filthy gutless cowards that attack women and old people when they don't get their way. Lots of incidents for two years to back that opinion up, too.

    Examples of recent history. Bush the Second won and Democrats lost their minds.
    Obama won, and Republicans bitched about it and endured the 8 years of mediocrity.
    Bush won and Democrats lost their minds and rioted in the streets for the last two years.
    So it appears that if a Democrat won the Electoral College and lost the popular vote, Republicans and Independents would accept it and wait for the next election.


    Sometimes you win. Sometimes you lose. That's the way life works. When my oldest Granddaughter was competing in gymnastics and a team member slipped up the other girls would shout an encouragement of: "NEXT TIME"! That is and always ha been my attitude concerning politics. Although my parents were FDR Democrats they "Liked Ike" and voted for him twice. Like them I tend to vote with my head, not necessarily my party.
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,557 Senior Member
    If you abolish the EC, you effectively give all electoral power to New York, California and Illinois. Screw that. 

    Look at a state like Montana. Three population centers and the remainder is rural counties with more livestock per square mile than humans. That state is being overrun by Democrats right now because states vote (mostly) purely democratically for governors and state legislators. California is another metastasized example of pure democracy run amuck. 

    The EC will not be abolished and if it ever came close it’s worth going to shows of force to protect. 
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • JayJay Senior Member Posts: 3,858 Senior Member
    edited March 2019 #9
    Yes, I know all that. When I talk about side stepping the constitution, I’m referring to the fact that they can’t get 2/3 of the states for an amendment to do away with the electoral college entirely. So the answer, apparently, is to creat a interstate compact to do it. If states individually decided to handle their electoral votes however they want, they won’t accomplish much. But a group of states planning to do it does have the power to change elections. Which is exactly why they’re trying to do it and not pursuing a constitutional amendment. 
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 6,748 Senior Member
    edited March 2019 #10
    Jay is there a news article saying what states are wanting to do this and a time line for completion????

    I think I got it.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

    As has already been indicated. Compact states stand a chance of losing individual electoral autonomy. Serious backlash from an individual state's electorate could result. Seems like a political hot potato tossed from congress to anyone that dares catch it.
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,669 Senior Member
    I wonder how happy the resident lib would be with a permanent party majority that could dictate to the masses whatever it wanted, and there would be no protections at all for individual rights, including the 1st and 2nd amendments.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 23,640 Senior Member
    That's the reality of California already!
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,395 Senior Member
    And when flyover country gets fed up and cuts off the food to the East and Left coasts, then things will really get interesting. A good case of a mega contagion of the 'hollow belly' will help sort things out. The saying 'the tail don't wag the dog' comes to mind! :D
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 6,748 Senior Member
    edited March 2019 #14
    Im looking at the color coded graph on wikipedia. These compact states can't live in the same bed without a major squabble. 

    Edit
    Also, regardless of constitutionality (as yet to be determined) If electorates in smaller population localities perceive this as unconstitutional or a power grab or tyrannical. This is significant. The consequences of such a perception will be highly disruptive of governmental function. Even without civil dissenting action. No matter what anyone's in favor or opposed to, I don't think the power of such a perception can be exaggerated. I wonder if these state legislatures have considered that????
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,395 Senior Member
    tennmike said:
    And when flyover country gets fed up and cuts off the food to the East and Left coasts, then things will really get interesting. A good case of a mega contagion of the 'hollow belly' will help sort things out. The saying 'the tail don't wag the dog' comes to mind! :D
    Eh, big city liberals control the vast majority of the coast lines. We already import over 20% of our food, easy enough to raise what we're willing to pay on the global market. most of us won't notice a thing except things may cost a bit more, bit we're used to that too.

    What are those in the hinterlands going to do when their access to fuel, electricity and fertilizers are cut off? All that agriculture is dependent upon lots of fuel and mega agro businesses owned by wallstreet. While most domestic oil production is in red States, it's run by large corporations that will want this rebellion crushed as soon as possible so they can go back to making as much money as possible. Good luck with that! I give you guys 3 months before 2/3rds of your population has given up and migrated to one of the coasts where we have plenty of food, electricity, and fuel.
    Last time I checked Texas was a red state, and so is Louisiana and Alabama. Where are YOU going to get fuel when the refineries close the valves to Blueball Land? :D:D:D
    Where you  gonna get coal for the coal fired plants for electricity?
    Fertilizer is also a big product from Texas as that's where the raw materials are brought in to make it.
    Regarding big corporations running the refineries, when the folks at the refineries tell them to go pound sand, and shut down the pipelines to Blue states, what the corporations gonna do. Use harsh language? :D:D:D
    You're being pretty short sighted. The food and fuel are NOT produced on the East and Left coasts. How you gonna grow anything with no fuel? Gonna convert those tractors and combines to run on Duracell D Cells? :D:D:D
    Flyover country will have the fuel, food, and fertilizer, and all y'all coastal elites will have bad cases of the hollow belly, and be walking a lot.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 6,748 Senior Member
    The major population centers will have a distinct advantage when photographed mass moonings hit social media in a blinding buttfest.

    😕
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,395 Senior Member
    Now lets address the elephant in the room with those states giving ALL electoral votes to the candidate with the most national electoral votes, or the one who has the most votes in that state.
    Democrats are bitching about disenfranchising voters, yet they have passed a law that GUARANTEES THAT A WHOLE BLOCK OF VOTERS, THE REPUBLICAN VOTERS, WILL HAVE THEIR VOTES IGNORED AND THE WILL OF THOSE PEOPLE DENIED. Like we said in the 60's and 70's, THAT'S MIGHTY WHITE OF YA!
    Alpha, you want a civil war, then you Democratic Socialists just keep on trying to set up a socialist/communist state and see how that goes. Y'all gonna end up 'without a pot to piss in nor a window to throw it out of' as the old folk were heard to say when I was growing up. But y'all just keep it up; the Liberty Tree needs refreshing from time to time with the blood of patriots and especially tyrants. That's where y'all are headed, so good luck with that.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,669 Senior Member
    tennmike said:
    ..................the Liberty Tree needs refreshing from time to time with the blood of patriots and especially tyrants. That's where y'all are headed, so good luck with that.
    Once all the blue states confiscate all the guns, it will be easy pickins' for the rest of us. :p
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,669 Senior Member
    zorba said:
    That's the reality of California already!
    Pretty much all the demcrap dominated states are like that.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,395 Senior Member
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,395 Senior Member
    Sectional rift was a major cause of the first Civil War. Sectional rift going on now (the coasts and Chicago) vs. everybody else is setting up the second one.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 6,748 Senior Member
    Both sides of the aisle are constantly seeking leverage in the election process through any and all means, most being at best underhanded. Then accusing the other side of the same.

    I've read a little about this as it was under my radar before this thread. I don't like it. Anything that undermines confidence in our democratic and electoral process is bad for everyone, no matter who the results are favorable to.

    You can't spin gold thread from dirt. This is what all these politicians of all stripes are doing. Sometimes the process is more important than the result. 
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member
    If you can't distinguish between a pure democracy and a republic, you will never understand how this country came into being, what caused the Civil War, or what will cause the next violent clash of philosophical radicals.

    Without the electoral college, there is no way to reconcile the rights of the minority against the rights of the majority. Without the electoral college, there is no justice, no mercy, and no humility for those who have the urge to seek freedom on the frontier, away from the congestion of the 'teeming masses.' Frontiers exist in many forms, but all have one thing in common - they are new 'places' where individuals go to find freedom, whether physically or intellectually. Without those who will risk failure on whatever frontier they wish to challenge, there is stagnation, and stagnation erodes society, over time. In effect, a pure democracy guarantees that the city-state will be able to force its will upon anybody who does not conform to whatever their politicians can sell to the huddled masses.

    At the time when the Constitution was being crafted, it was already well understood why pure democracies had never worked, long-term. The idea of the 'republic' was the newest experiment in trying to create a central government that could serve the people, and still survive against the differing opinions about what freedom actually is. The new experiment was successful for only as long as the most radical elements could be suppressed, in the face of their ability to influence those who refuse to understand the most important goal of civilization - preventing war, both civil and foreign, and all of the ravages that result from it.

    Ideological 'purity' cannot exist in a 'free' society. Radicals cannot hear the arguments against anything that does not guarantee what they seek, which is usually their immediate safety and comfort. 'The future' is a foreign concept to them, a bad dream that they do not care to hear about. They refuse to accept the clear fact that civilization is a generational challenge, one that will always be battling between the lessons of history and the vast unknown. Radicals would rather 'roll the dice' for the here and now, and let those who come after them fend for themselves, or not.

    That is why we keep re-playing this sad song, over and over, again.
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 6,748 Senior Member
    edited March 2019 #24
    I had to read this a few times Bisley. Your ability to encapsulate those ideas is impressive. I find myself in complete agreement.
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,669 Senior Member
    Bisley, I love your commentary. It's very reasoned and logical, and not hyperbolic crap like some posts.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,395 Senior Member
    Good post, Bisley. The tyranny of majority rule seems to be the new shiny thing that way too many want now without understanding what that really means, both short and long term. Instant gratification can, and often does, bring 'buyer's remorse' sooner or later, and generally sooner. I guess we have no choice but to see where the herd heads and hope they don't drive us all into the abyss.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement