Trump's New Years Message

[fatslob-:O]

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.

I support Trump only because of the grief he brings among his detractors, nothing more and nothing less ...  

The electoral college isn't the best system and I'm not arguing that, it's the system that most states will agree on and America was made on that compromise ... 

Shadow1980 said:

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

Why insist that they do have something to learn from other countries when the conditions and circumstances are different ? 

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.

Not really, tyranny of the majority is a very real thing when one party has absolute power to pass any legislation provided with popular support ... 

That's why we have filibusters in the senate and it's why biparistan support is heavily encouraged between the incumbent and the opposition when passing legislation ... 

An administration could easily devastate smaller states with passing legislation they don't like when they have supermajority support in the senate and a majority in the house of representatives ... 

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. 

Let's get this out of the way, you don't think the electoral college is fair or representative but the states seem to disagree with you ... 

The idea of what's "fair" is beyond me ... 

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.

The electoral college is not designed to form each states political climate, it's formed in mind as a compromise in voting power between the small and the big states ... 

I don't see the problem when the big states get what they want like having more power in the end with the house of representatives and the small states having equal representation in the senate ... 

The "you can't compete in non-swing states" argument is just toxic in general and toxic to the presidential candidate itself. It's no wonder tons of presidential candidates lose with that type of attitude ... 

Republicans used to once think that MI, WI, and PA were lost causes up until this election and there may be hope yet for them to one day flip states like Minnesota and Maine at large which were known democratic strongholds prior to the recent election. One day a democratic candidate with far more appeal to the south could make Arizona vote blue if this election was anything to go by ... 

You don't win by just appealing to just the swing states when you still didn't have a path to victory as most pundits pointed out for Trump (winning OH, FL, and NC or other republican leaning states wasn't going to cut it), you win by walking across the party lines and Trump heavily outperformed Clinton in that regard when he did a far better job at appealing to democratic leaning states like in the midwest and rural areas ... 

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.

No they don't. It's like Obama said, "elections are run by state and local officials" ... 

The consitution lists out that states will elect their electors like you said before. If the federal government dictates how a state will choose their electors that's a clear violation of the constitution ... 

The consitution makes it clearer than ever that it is states that will dictate presidential elections and not the other way around ... 

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.

I doubt it in the current conditions when republicans have utter domination in the state legislatures and in governorships. If you wanted to know why republicans are so good at gerrymandering this is practically it when both of those positions control the redistricting process which will go on to help republicans in the house of representative's elections ... 

In fact republicans are just 5 states away from being able to ratify constitutional amendments unopposed and without congress to boot cause democrats don't pay enough attention to state level elections ... 

Those who control the states have everlasting and persisting powers in America as that power can override congress itself! The founding fathers prepared for a day when congress couldn't be trusted anymore and the state legislatures are the key tickets ... 

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."

The root of all evil is not government, the root of all evil is central government. If you don't like a state you can move to a new one that fits your agenda or best of all if states had more power over their land they wouldn't have to worry about the opposing federal government ... 

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.

You don't have to worry about states being socially regressive anymore when the trend is socially progressive for every state including from the south ... 

It's funny to see liberals accuse conservatives as being warhawks when they'll so readily be confrontational with Russia so I guess liberals do share ideas with nutcase necons like Lindsey Graham and John McCain after all ... 

I guess the conservatives dodged a bullet with Trump by picking a paleocon ...