Shadow1980 said:

Nations with full presidential systems are commonplace in the Americas, perhaps due to the American system having a strong influence in Latin America. Of those nations with a full presidential system, five have a federal system: the U.S., Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, and Venezuela. Of those, only the U.S. elects their president indirectly. Mexico and Venezuela use a FPTP system, while Brazil and Argentina use a two-round runoff system. Brazil and Argentina did have electoral colleges of their own, but have abandoned them. No unitary presidential republic has an electoral college, either, but federalism is by definition a non-issue in those nations, but it's worth pointing them out to illustrate how unique our system of indirect election for head of state is. The idea that an electoral college is a necessary component of federations with full presidential systems is without basis. Just because the U.S. is a federation doesn't mean an electoral college is either necessary or desirable.

Shadow1980 said:

Why do voters in less populous states deserve to have their votes count for more than those in less more populous states? Why is "one person, one vote" such an odious concept to some when it comes to selecting the President?

Shadow1980 said:

Shadow1980 said:

The idea that the 50 states are sovereign nations in their own right doesn't hold up, either. We're starting to go off-topic from the subject of the EC (which was admittedly off-topic for this thread, but whatever), but since you brought it up.

In nations with a federal system, the subnational units (usually called "states," but sometimes by other names) enjoy a wide degree of autonomy and possess certain powers that cannot be unilaterally rescinded by the national government. This is distinct from unitary states where the subnational units have no real autonomy and only possess whatever powers the national government delegates to them. Federations typically are geographically large and/or have a history of being a collection of distinct, usually sovereign entities that combined to form a singular nation-state. However, the states" of the U.S. and other federations are not true sovereign states in their own right since they cannot engage in activities that define such entities.

"
Article One of the U.S. Constitution prohibits the states from, among other things, engaging in foreign policy with other nations, declaring war against other nations, creating their own currency, raising their own militaries, or laying imposts and duties on imports & exports. The Constitution also gives Congress the exclusive right to set uniform rules of naturalization, and the Privileges and Immunities Clause has also been repeatedly interpreted as allowing freedom of movement between states, which nominally prevents state governments from setting up interstate "immigration" laws to regulate or prevent the passage of people from one state into theirs.

There is a reason why California, Texas, New York, Ontario, British Columbia, New South Wales, Tasmania, Saxony, Bavaria, Chihuahua, Sonora, Leningrad oblast, Tocantins, the state of Sao Paulo, and every other federated state are not recognized by any nation on Earth as nations in their own right, why none of them have their own seats at the UN, and why none of them have ambassadors to other nations. They are "sovereign" in only a very limited sense, and are not true nation-states.

Shadow1980 said:

And that's something I disagree with wholly. Balkanizing America into an EU-like entity is not a solution, and would cause more problems than it would fix. In fact, that's why the Constitution exists in the first place. The U.S. could barely be regarded as a nation-state prior to 1788. Under the Articles of Confederation, which was not so much a constitution as it was a treaty between 13 disparate nation-states, we barely functioned. The Founders realized we couldn't survive like that and created the Constitution, making the U.S. a proper nation with a relatively strong central government, but with the states retaining significant autonomy. Any further questions regarding whether states were truly sovereign nation-states in their own regard was settled by the Civil War and the Texas v. White decision, which made the supposed "right" of states to unilaterally secede from the union legally dubious at best. And historically, "state's rights" (a concept that assumes states have rights, which I reject) has been used to justify far more bad things than good, most notably slavery and Jim Crow. While I don't necessarily believe the U.S. should be a unitary state, I do think the federal government serves plenty of useful roles, and in regards to basic rights most things had to be settled at the federal level. As a resident of South Carolina, I shudder to think what would happen if my state became and independent country, what with its track record over the decades. I would have to move to California or somewhere in the Northeast.

And that's all I care to say for now. You know where I stand. We've gone way off-track, plus I need to go to bed, and I can't keep devoting 30+ minutes to writing these posts twice a day. 

Shadow1980 said:

Simply saying it's necessary doesn't make it so. I've yet to see a convincing case that the EC is absolutely necessary in the U.S. because of conditions supposedly unique to us or whatever.

It's starting to look like you're simply arguing from the point of view that "Our system is the best system because it's our system and because the Founders said so, so never question it." And considering how your comments in other threads indicate you're a Trump guy, you probably also like it because it got your guy in office. For all I know you could be one of that 34% of Republicans who two months ago decided to flip-flop on the EC since wanting it abolished after the 2012 election.

Shadow1980 said:

So America has nothing to learn from other countries? What hubris.

Shadow1980 said:

Tyranny of the majority isn't used as an excuse to make Representatives, Senators, governors, etc., indirectly elected. The President is the only notable elected officer that is elected indirectly. And that's all the "tyranny of the majority" talk is: an excuse. Direct election of the President wouldn't suddenly turn America into a despotic regime where those who didn't vote for him/her would be subject to reprisal. All it would do is make the President directly elected by popular vote.

And I used Hamilton to illustrate what one of the likely reasons (among several coexisting reasons) for the EC's existence was. I think their quotes provide insight on why we have the system we do. But I don't idolize or deify the Founders.They were a fractious bunch with different opinions on how governments should function. I think "original intent" is mostly a bunch of hokum that derives from our national obsession with "Founder worship." Sometimes I agree with what some of them have to say, and sometimes I don't. Whatever the intent of any one Founder is, America is a very different place than it was 230 years ago. Whatever political and social realities there were that led to the EC are non-issues today.

Shadow1980 said:

For the same reason we have "one person, one vote" for all other elections. It's the most fair and representative system. Sure, your side might still lose elections, and policies may get passed you don't like, but that's the case regardless of whether the President is elected directly or indirectly. The point of electoral reform is make elections more fair and representative. The EC is neither fair nor representative. 

Shadow1980 said:

It means that candidates have to win voters from all over the country, urban and rural, big state and small state. They wouldn't win states anymore. Is that a difficult concept to grasp?

In the current system, the only states that matter are the competitive states that could go either way. Uncompetitive states are considered a given and thus not visited by candidates. Republicans know they'll never win and Democrats know they'll never lose California or New York, so they don't pay them any mind, and vice versa for states like Nebraska or Mississippi. If the EC was designed at least in part to make candidates care about small states, it failed miserably in that regard. Big states like Florida and Ohio matter more than Vermont or Wyoming, even if they may be under-represented in terms of proportional voting power. Of the 25 least populous states, only three—New Hampshire, Nevada, and Iowa—get any attention from presidential candidates. If the EC is supposed to make candidates about geographically or socially diverse areas, it has also failed. See again swing states. The EC only makes candidates care about states that they can potentially swing from their opponent's column into their own.

To put it in pictures, here's how presidential candidates view America:

See that? That is indefensible.

Shadow1980 said:

The federal government has dictated how elections are played out since 1788. The rules for federal elections are spelled out in the Constitution, and have changed several times due to varying amendments and laws.

Shadow1980 said:

The EC would have to be abolished by a constitutional amendment. The amendment would have to be approved by at least 38 states. Not exactly "without their approval" of the state legislatures. Any they gave up the ability to elect Senators, passing that responsibility to the people 103 years ago. If a national popular vote amendment were to pass Congress, it would stand a very good chance of being ratified.

Shadow1980 said:

But state governments should? Why are state governments fine but the federal government is scary? A government is a government, and state governments have often times been far worse than the federal government. If the U.S. balkanized into 50 different nations, you'd probably start complaining about your state's government and demand the counties be the new "states."

Shadow1980 said:

Considering the history of South Carolina, I wouldn't trust my state government any further than I could throw them. This place would be a hellhole if it were an independent country. The spirit of the Confederate States never died, and I shudder to think what would happen if this state ever reverted politically back to where it was in the 1860s. If you're not a white heterosexual male Christian, you'd probably be fucked. I don't know if you're from the South or what your thoughts on these rebel flag-waving types down here are, but they are not the kind of people I'd want determining anything in my life.

Anyway, I realize now I've been arguing about the nature of style of governments and elections with someone who is fine with unfair, unrepresentative electoral systems and is, who possibly favors the current system because it got his guy elected, and, as far as I can tell, is fundamentally anti-government as a matter of principle (at least insofar as most conservatives  "hate" government unless it's building massive military programs, doling out corporate welfare, or "keeping the gays in their place"), which is about as fruitful as a discussion between a theist and an atheist over the existence of God. This discussion has become a dead-end back-and-forth. You know where I stand on these issues, so there's no point in elaborating on them further. You can reply if you want, but I'm out.

He wasn't elected. He was chosen by the electoral college. He lost the actual vote.

Enjoy being hated by the world community and being a laughingstock the world over. 

Enjoy being hated by the world community and being a laughingstock the world over. 

Worrying about the world first is exactly what led to the disdain needed to vote Trump into office. Globalism is a pipedream, and it's been proven how many times now that a majority of the people don't want a globalist mindset in control. No offense to any other nationality or group of people, but I'm an American first, and I want a leader that helps build up the home base before worrying about the feelings of countries that don't reciprocate the help the USA is constantly sending. 

Worrying about the world first is exactly what led to the disdain needed to vote Trump into office. Globalism is a pipedream, and it's been proven how many times now that a majority of the people don't want a globalist mindset in control. No offense to any other nationality or group of people, but I'm an American first, and I want a leader that helps build up the home base before worrying about the feelings of countries that don't reciprocate the help the USA is constantly sending.