Democrats And Illegals

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

You only mentioned the Senate. I added the House. What's wrong with that?

No, I didn’t “only mention the Senate.” I highlighted it and explained the reason for it. And you didn’t just “add the House.” You ignored the point and asked what my point was, though I had made it plain. As I said...

"The point is obvious and applicable across the board. By fixating on just one aspect, you manage to miss the big picture and thus cannot help but get it wrong."

..

The country is called the United States of America for a reason. Federal decisions affect all states, thus each state must have a significant say in them, including who is president. Therefore, state population size alone cannot be the determining factor, but would be in your scenario.

But worse, in your Dem world, illegals and other ignorants would be determining elections until we’re driven into the abyss of socialist tyranny. May it never be.

 

[Adonia]

While California has one electoral vote per 712,000 people, Wyoming — the least populous state in the country — has one electoral vote per 195,000 people.

California still retains the advantage in electoral votes with 55 of them verses Wyoming's 3. Go to a direct election of the President by popular vote and the large population centers will pick the POTUS every time, and states like Wyoming would become meaningless.

 

[FollowTheWay]

What I am saying is you Dems never made an issue of it until it Trump got elected. If you really had a problem with it, or not, I don't know. It's easy to say that now. But the fact is that you folks were okay with it when worked for you.

All Democrats do not believe in the same things. That's inherently discriminatory. I've told you what I believe in on this topic. Case closed.

 

[Revmitchell]

All Democrats do not believe in the same things. That's inherently discriminatory. I've told you what I believe in on this topic. Case closed.

However, there are a number of things that are the named party platform therefore if you claim to be one then you own the platform.

 

[GoodTidings]

All Democrats do not believe in the same things. That's inherently discriminatory. I've told you what I believe in on this topic. Case closed.

But you are making the same arguments they are, right now.

You are arguing against a system that has elected Democrat presidents in the past. So your primary arguments against the Electoral College don't match the facts.

If the Electoral College only ever favored Republicans, you could make that argument, but the crop of Democrats elected under this system show that your arguments simply don't hold any water. It is a fair and even-handed system. And it only became problematic after Trump won.

The only reason to abolish it is to rig the election so that the Dems remain in power indefinitely, which is what would happen if we abolished the Electoral College.

 

[just-want-peace]

The answer my friend, is blowing in the wind, and since liberals in general have a problem with concepts that go beyond 30 minutes in the future, they can't/won't stay still/quiet long enough to "capture" the answer!!
IOW, if you want to discuss FACTS vs opinion, you'll have much greater success having a talk with Farmer Jones old sow than with a liberal!!!

 

[Revmitchell]

The answer my friend, is blowing in the wind, and since liberals in general have a problem with concepts that go beyond 30 minutes in the future, they can't/won't stay still/quiet long enough to "capture" the answer!!
IOW, if you want to discuss FACTS vs opinion, you'll have much greater success having a talk with Farmer Jones old sow than with a liberal!!!

and the Democrat party is imploding

 

[Adonia]

All Democrats do not believe in the same things. That's inherently discriminatory. I've told you what I believe in on this topic. Case closed.

But they are in sync on the big issues.
1. Open Borders - check!
2. Abortion on demand until the moment of birth - check!
3. Government funding of abortion - check!
4. Gun control with eventual confiscation - check!
5. Sanctuary cities and states - check!
6. Wholesale changes to the Constitution - check!
7. Massive Federal Government - check!
8. Hatred of President Trump - check!

There's 8 concurrences right off the top of my head. Please tell me where Democrat's have differences?

 

[FollowTheWay]

However, there are a number of things that are the named party platform therefore if you claim to be one then you own the platform.

I'm passing along a blog by my favorite Arminian, Roger Olson, who holds that a principle of debate should be "do not impute to others beliefs you regard as logically entailed by their beliefs but that they explicitly deny."

"There is no logical fallacy in saying that a person's belief logically entails a belief they do not hold. Logical fallacy only appears when it is said that because the person holds belief A he or she must also hold belief B which is explicitly denied."

A New Name for an Old Fallacy: "Assailment-by-Entailment"

 

[FollowTheWay]

No, I didn’t “only mention the Senate.” I highlighted it and explained the reason for it. And you didn’t just “add the House.” You ignored the point and asked what my point was, though I had made it plain. As I said...

"The point is obvious and applicable across the board. By fixating on just one aspect, you manage to miss the big picture and thus cannot help but get it wrong."

The country is called the United States of America for a reason. Federal decisions affect all states, thus each state must have a significant say in them, including who is president. Therefore, state population size alone cannot be the determining factor, but would be in your scenario.

But worse, in your Dem world, illegals and other ignorants would be determining elections until we’re driven into the abyss of socialist tyranny. May it never be.

Show me where you included the House in your post.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Show me where you included the House in your post.

Again, mentioning or not mentioning the House did not affect the point made. The point is that the COTUS delineates a system designed to prevent the larger states from dominating the smaller, and this was imperative for ever forming the union.

Had there been just the House, or a Senate formed on the same basis as the House, the problem would remain, and the smaller states would never have joined such a union.

Mentioning the House, then saying, “Your point?” is mere avoidance, or indicative of a serious lack of basic understanding. Before asking for evidence of something never argued, you should first show how mentioning the House somehow eclipsed the point first made. But you cannot for it did not.

 

[FollowTheWay]

Again, mentioning or not mentioning the House did not affect the point made. The point is that the COTUS delineates a system designed to prevent the larger states from dominating the smaller, and this was imperative for ever forming the union.

Had there been just the House, or a Senate formed on the same basis as the House, the problem would remain, and the smaller states would never have joined such a union.

Mentioning the House, then saying, “Your point?” is mere avoidance, or indicative of a serious lack of basic understanding. Before asking for evidence of something never argued, you should first show how mentioning the House somehow eclipsed the point first made. But you cannot for it did not.

I've learned that there were two reasons for adopting the Electoral College.
************************************************************************************************
WHY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE
Why the Electoral College

The Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between the population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states.

The first reason that the founders created the Electoral College is hard to understand today. The founding fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency. They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power. Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers:

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.
*****************************************************************************************************
My interpretation of this first reason includes the fact that there was no good way for citizens to know much about the presidential candidates.No telegraph, no telephone, no daily national newspapers, no TV, no internet, etc. They might be much more likely to know and trust local electors. This of course is much different today but only if we maintain freedom of the press. Trump is trying hard to do away with this constitutional right.
****************************************************************************************************
The Electoral College is also part of compromises made at the convention to satisfy the small states. Under the system of the Electoral College, each state had the same number of electoral votes as they have a representative in Congress. Thus no state could have less than 3.
****************************************************************************************************
This is your point and it is justified. But so is the first one. With far better information about the national candidates today I think it's not as applicable now as it was in the late 1700's. But then maybe it is because we have seen in Trump's election the very thing occur that the founding fathers were afraid of, the election of a "tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power."
****************************************************************************************************
There are two other important things about the Electoral College. The first is the electors are not required by the constitution to vote for the candidate receiving the most votes in their state. This hasn't happened very often but it is constitutional. Another important point is that since under the Electoral College voters vote for a slate of electors not for a candidate, if there are more than one slate of electors supporting a candidate the vote for that candidate is divided. The votes for different slates of electors supporting the same candidate are not added together. A good example of this occured in the late 60's / early 70's when blacks formed separate Democratic parties in the South and then challenged the national party at the convention.
So what's to be done about this. Doing away with the Electoral College would require a vote of 3/4 of the states. That's unlikely. Another option is:
*****************************************************************************************************
One way of modifying the system is to eliminate the winner take all part of it. The method that the states vote for the Electoral College is not mandated by the constitution but is decided by the states. Two states do not use the winner take all system, Maine and Nebraska. It would be difficult but not impossible to get other states to change their systems. Unfortunately, the party that has the advantage in the state is unlikely to agree to a unilateral change. There are ongoing attempts to change the system, but few expect them to be successful any time soon.
*****************************************************************************************************
The more I think about it the more I support maintaining the Electoral College with these conditions:
1. Require that the electors vote for the candidate receiving the most votes in their state.
2. If there are more than one slates of electors supporting a candidate require that their votes be added together, and
3. Do away with the winner take all system and allocate the electoral vote for a state according to the number of votes.

All of these changes are constitutional and could be implemented now.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I've learned that there were two reasons for adopting the Electoral College.
************************************************************************************************
WHY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE
Why the Electoral College

The Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between the population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states.

The first reason that the founders created the Electoral College is hard to understand today. The founding fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency. They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power. Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers:

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.
*****************************************************************************************************
My interpretation of this first reason includes the fact that there was no good way for citizens to know much about the presidential candidates.No telegraph, no telephone, no daily national newspapers, no TV, no internet, etc. They might be much more likely to know and trust local electors. This of course is much different today but only if we maintain freedom of the press. Trump is trying hard to do away with this constitutional right.
****************************************************************************************************
The Electoral College is also part of compromises made at the convention to satisfy the small states. Under the system of the Electoral College, each state had the same number of electoral votes as they have a representative in Congress. Thus no state could have less than 3.
****************************************************************************************************
This is your point and it is justified. But so is the first one. With far better information about the national candidates today I think it's not as applicable now as it was in the late 1700's. But then maybe it is because we have seen in Trump's election the very thing occur that the founding fathers were afraid of, the election of a "tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power."
****************************************************************************************************
There are two other important things about the Electoral College. The first is the electors are not required by the constitution to vote for the candidate receiving the most votes in their state. This hasn't happened very often but it is constitutional. Another important point is that since under the Electoral College voters vote for a slate of electors not for a candidate, if there are more than one slate of electors supporting a candidate the vote for that candidate is divided. The votes for different slates of electors supporting the same candidate are not added together. A good example of this occured in the late 60's / early 70's when blacks formed separate Democratic parties in the South and then challenged the national party at the convention.
So what's to be done about this. Doing away with the Electoral College would require a vote of 3/4 of the states. That's unlikely. Another option is:
*****************************************************************************************************
One way of modifying the system is to eliminate the winner take all part of it. The method that the states vote for the Electoral College is not mandated by the constitution but is decided by the states. Two states do not use the winner take all system, Maine and Nebraska. It would be difficult but not impossible to get other states to change their systems. Unfortunately, the party that has the advantage in the state is unlikely to agree to a unilateral change. There are ongoing attempts to change the system, but few expect them to be successful any time soon.
*****************************************************************************************************
The more I think about it the more I support maintaining the Electoral College with these conditions:
1. Require that the electors vote for the candidate receiving the most votes in their state.
2. If there are more than one slates of electors supporting a candidate require that their votes be added together, and
3. Do away with the winner take all system and allocate the electoral vote for a state according to the number of votes.

All of these changes are constitutional and could be implemented now.

Well, this is a small step in the right direction. However, your point 2 does not make clear sense. The example seems to be of a convention, which would refer to a party's nominee, not the candidate elected by the populace. Your point 3 is really a move toward the tyranny of democracy that the Electoral College is designed to avoid. AFAIK, most states already adhere to point 1.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Well, this is a small step in the right direction. However, your point 2 does not make clear sense. The example seems to be of a convention, which would refer to a party's nominee, not the candidate elected by the populace. Your point 3 is really a move toward the tyranny of democracy that the Electoral College is designed to avoid. AFAIK, most states already adhere to point 1.

Here is a much more thoughtful look at the historical development and modern importance of the Electoral College (The Danger of the Attacks on the Electoral College):

It is easy for Americans to forget that when we vote for president, we are really voting for electors who have pledged to support the candidate we favor. Civics education is not what it used to be. Also, perhaps, the Electoral College is a victim of its own success. Most of the time, it shapes American politics in ways that are beneficial but hard to see. Its effects become news only when a candidate and his or her political party lose a hard-fought and narrowly decided election.

So what are the beneficial effects of choosing our presidents through the Electoral College?

Under the Electoral College system, presidential elections are decentralized, taking place in the states. Although some see this as a flaw—U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren opposes the Electoral College expressly because she wants to increase federal power over elections—this decentralization has proven to be of great value.
…
But there is no doubt that the greatest benefit of the Electoral College is the powerful incentive it creates against regionalism.
…
In other words, the Electoral College ensures that winning supermajorities in one region of the country is not sufficient to win the White House.
…
One danger of all these attacks on the Electoral College is, of course, that we lose the state-by-state system designed by the Framers and its protections against regionalism and fraud. This would alter our politics in some obvious ways—shifting power toward urban centers, for example—but also in ways we cannot know in advance.
…
The more fundamental danger is that these attacks undermine the Constitution as a whole. Arguments that the Constitution is outmoded and that democracy is an end in itself are arguments that can just as easily be turned against any of the constitutional checks and balances that have preserved free government in America for well over two centuries. The measure of our fundamental law is not whether it actualizes the general will—that was the point of the French Revolution, not the American. The measure of our Constitution is whether it is effective at encouraging just, stable, and free government—government that protects the rights of its citizens.

The Electoral College is effective at doing this. We need to preserve it, and we need to help our fellow Americans understand why it matters.

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Imprimis_June_8pgWEB.pdf​

 

[FollowTheWay]

Well, this is a small step in the right direction. However, your point 2 does not make clear sense. The example seems to be of a convention, which would refer to a party's nominee, not the candidate elected by the populace. Your point 3 is really a move toward the tyranny of democracy that the Electoral College is designed to avoid. AFAIK, most states already adhere to point 1.

Point 2 was the case in the 1972 general election. One state I'm positive about was Alabama. Look it up.Point 1 is generally adhered to but it's not unconstitutional to not follow it. Under point 3 the small states and large states still have their current number of electors so it doesn't affect biasing the electoral count to give them more power. The electoral votes are simply proportioned according to the will of the people in that state. You seem to have a bias against having our elections reflect the people's choice. Lincoln had something to say about that.

 

[Revmitchell]

Without the electoral college a few inner cities would decide the election every time.

 

[777]

The more I think about it the more I support maintaining the Electoral College with these conditions:
1. Require that the electors vote for the candidate receiving the most votes in their state.
2. If there are more than one slates of electors supporting a candidate require that their votes be added together, and
3. Do away with the winner take all system and allocate the electoral vote for a state according to the number of votes.

All of these changes are constitutional and could be implemented now.

Sheesh, you want to abolish winner take all step 3 but enshrine it in step 1.

 

[Adonia]

1. Require that the electors vote for the candidate receiving the most votes in their state.

That is the way it is now.

2. If there are more than one slates of electors supporting a candidate require that their votes be added together, and

All the electors are bound to vote for the candidate receiving the most votes. It's a winner take all system state by state.

3. Do away with the winner take all system and allocate the electoral vote for a state according to the number of votes.

That is called "proportional voting" and in a 2 party system would bring chaos. Nice try, and thankfully you are not going to be making the decisions regarding the Electoral College voting procedures.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Point 2 was the case in the 1972 general election. One state I'm positive about was Alabama. Look it up.

Again, your point 2 sounds like an internal party problem, not a direct electoral college issue. If you think you have a point here, you should post a link for evaluation. Here is what NASS says about Alabama as of October 2016:

Political Party Nomination A presidential candidate nominated by a political party may be placed on the general election ballot. A political party must certify to the secretary of state no later than the 82nd day next preceding the day fixed for the election the names of the candidates for president and vice-president and the names of the presidential electors. A political party is an organization of electors which received more than 20% of the entire vote cast in the state at the last general election. An organization may also qualify as a political party by filing with the secretary of state on the date of the first primary election a petition containing the number of signatures equal to or exceeding 3% of electors who cast ballots for the office of governor in the last general election.

Petition An independent candidate for president may obtain ballot access for the general election by filing with the secretary of state no later than September 6th a petition containing the signatures of at least 5,000 qualified electors. The petition must be accompanied by a list of presidential electors.

Write-In In all non-municipal elections a voter may write-in the name of any person not included on the ballot.(Alabama Code §§17-6-22, 17-6-27, 17-6-28, 17-6-29, 17-13-40,17-13-50, 17-14-31).

https://www.nass.org/sites/default/files/surveys/2017-08/research-ballot-access-president-Oct16.pdf​

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Point 1 is generally adhered to but it's not unconstitutional to not follow it. Under point 3 the small states and large states still have their current number of electors so it doesn't affect biasing the electoral count to give them more power. The electoral votes are simply proportioned according to the will of the people in that state. You seem to have a bias against having our elections reflect the people's choice. Lincoln had something to say about that.

As 777 points out, your points 1 & 3 are contradictory as presented. You need to carefully read the article in post #114.

You seem to have a bias against states in general (splitting a state's votes would weaken that state's influence), but the bigger problem is the bias against the US Constitution and the republic it governs.