Logical reasons the majority vote shouldn't decide the presidency...

[MessiahDecoy123]

Anyone?

 

[Matt]

Is this your new schtick? Creating threads that are little more than false equivalencies and wording questions in a way that anyone who takes the contrarian view is automatically on the losing side?

There are plenty of reasons that the Electoral College makes sense for a country as economically, ethnically, regionally, and socially diverse as our own. The system has become broken, but not beyond repair. It does require tweaking. But frankly, there is no reason to get into a discussion on the reasons that it makes sense or how we could about fixing it to better balance democratic ideals in this thread as the wording of your question and first post make very clear that you are simply making a statement, not asking a question or inviting discussion.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

False equivalency? How?

The majority don't decide who's president. It's a fact.

And I worded the question reasonably.

I want people to actually think about the nature of the popular vote being ignored before they give an answer.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Anyway I would've preferred you ignore the thread than claim there are many solid reasons then bailing.

 

[Matt]

False equivalency? How?

The false equivalency was a reference to your other thread. This one falls into the latter category.

The majority don't decide who's president. It's a fact.

And I worded the question reasonably.

I want people to actually think about the nature of the popular vote being ignored before they give an answer.

No, you worded the question in a way to get people to think about and answer the question with the answer that you wanted. There is nothing intellectually honest about that question, and it defeats the purpose of such a discussion thread when you contextualize the thread with an answer preordained by presenting the question in such a manner that makes anyone who takes the contrarian viewpoint seem unreasonable.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I dunno, Matt.


If someone asks "should second Amendment rights be respected", i know it's a loaded question but it's still pretty easy to give my stance on sensible gun laws regardless.

 

[Matt]

Again, that question is tilted to elicit a response. "Should Second Amendment Rights be respected" presupposes two underlying assumptions:

1) That there is a valid right to bear arms (it is a perfectly defensible standpoint to adopt the view that the Framers got it wrong or that the Second has been too broadly interpreted); and

2) There are people not respecting this presupposed right in one way or another.

A fairer question would simply be: "What are your thoughts on the Second Amendment?" or "Do you believe Americans have a right to bear arms and to what extent?"

Similarly, a fairer version of your question would be "What are your thoughts on the Electoral College" or "Is the Electoral College the optimal way to select the President?" instead of one that presupposes/heavily implies that our system is inherently undemocratic and followed up with "anyone?" as if to suggest that a viewpoint that endorses the EC is some fringe minority.

 

[Grommers]

Anyone?

I'll enlighten this.

The reason the majority shouldn't "decide" the vote because there is much more at stake than the "majority"

Ever heard of mob mentality? If you were take a circle, you have 15 people who are innocent by standers, and there are 20 who have now hit a mob mentality with irrational thinking.

Now, if you were to take a poll regarding if mobs should exist, you've already lost. There is no chance for you to do the right thing, which stops the anarchy of a mob. Now, with an electoral college, you could have 4 seperate groups as a "electoral college"

1st group - 5 - people that are normal, level headed, 4 people that are mob.
2nd group 5 people that are normal, level headed, and 3 people that are mob.
3rd group 5 people that are normal, level headed, and 4 more that are mob.

Than the 4th group is the final group and it is marked on the map as a central part of the mob, and so you have 9 mob in it.

With a majority rule, the mob defaults wins, with an electoral college you have a chance that the minority can win and order can be restored. the forefathers of america realized that the majority can become tyrannical, and it has happened throughout history, where the majority could be wrong.

Now - the understanding of the rebuttal of this - is well, who decides what the electoral college is in terms of landscape..

well, i'm canadian and i personally don't know, but I suggest you research that to find out, because I'm pretty sure it probably has a pretty interesting answer that isn't "black/white" but a battle of ideas.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I'll enlighten this.

The reason the majority shouldn't "decide" the vote because there is much more at stake than the "majority"

Ever heard of mob mentality? If you were take a circle, you have 15 people who are innocent by standers, and there are 20 who have now hit a mob mentality with irrational thinking.

Now, if you were to take a poll regarding if mobs should exist, you've already lost. There is no chance for you to do the right thing, which stops the anarchy of a mob. Now, with an electoral college, you could have 4 seperate groups as a "electoral college"

1st group - 5 - people that are normal, level headed, 4 people that are mob.
2nd group 5 people that are normal, level headed, and 3 people that are mob.
3rd group 5 people that are normal, level headed, and 4 more that are mob.

Than the 4th group is the final group and it is marked on the map as a central part of the mob, and so you have 9 mob in it.

With a majority rule, the mob defaults wins, with an electoral college you have a chance that the minority can win and order can be restored. the forefathers of america realized that the majority can become tyrannical, and it has happened throughout history, where the majority could be wrong.

Now - the understanding of the rebuttal of this - is well, who decides what the electoral college is in terms of landscape..

well, i'm canadian and i personally don't know, but I suggest you research that to find out, because I'm pretty sure it probably has a pretty interesting answer that isn't "black/white" but a battle of ideas.

But the members of the electoral college are a non-issue since they just about always vote according to who won the popular vote (mob rule as you'd call it) in their state.

But state by state, rural states are overrepresented by the point system. The electoral college favors rural areas for the most part (person for person they get more electoral points).

So why should rural areas not only have an advantage keeping legislative power (congress) but also executive and judicial power (president and supreme court) also?

Basically they have absolute power over cities which collectively have a bigger population (once you include liberal suburbs).

 

[Grommers]

But the members of the electoral college are a non-issue since they just about always vote according to who won the popular vote (mob rule as you'd call it) in their state.

But state by state, rural states are overrepresented by the point system. The electoral college favors rural areas for the most part (person for person they get more electoral points).

So why should rural areas not only have an advantage keeping legislative power (congress) but also executive and judicial power (president and supreme court) also?

Basically they have absolute power over cities which collectively have a bigger population (once you include liberal suburbs).

Thats the point..you can't condemn the rural areas just because "cities".

The problems of cities are different than the problems that happen in rural areas and its an opportunity to give a voice, whether they join with the majority or not at least they have a voice that can still make a difference and not feel that different ideas/opinions won't have an impact.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Thats the point..you can't condemn the rural areas just because "cities".

The problems of cities are different than the problems that happen in rural areas and its an opportunity to give a voice, whether they join with the majority or not at least they have a voice that can still make a difference and not feel that different ideas/opinions won't have an impact.

If you say a smaller population should control one branch of government to make things fair then sure, I'd agree.

But why should the smaller population control all three branches of government and have absolute power?

 

[Grommers]

If you say a smaller population should control one branch of government to make things fair then sure, I'd agree.

But why should the smaller population control all three branches of government and have absolute power?

Because the majority doesn't always equal correct.

If you look at american history in general, the flip flop-ness of republican to democratic rule is actually pretty amazing, with the average being in power for 8 years before switching, to me thats a spectacular feat and even if you lean left or right, I don't think the destroying of ideas but having civil discussion about them and why people switch etc, is quite phenomenal, and a huge positive mark on USA in general that both opinions get there chance to shine over "x" period of time, where as so many other countries do not even get that opportunity and often fall into a "1-way" rule.

I'm personally more right leaning (centralist as I can be.), but I still understand the importance of the left and the ideas behind them, and for growth in general the more people understand both the ideologies behind them, are much better off than the individuals who only go down one path of understanding. (which I find funny since George Lucas I felt understood this with "Jedi's don't deal in absolutes"

 

[AvengerPA]

I think that the Electoral College and the 22nd Amendment have rigged the election process to pass back and forth between the two parties. We had eight years of Truman, then eight years of Eisenhower. JFK and LBJ had eight years between them, and then Nixon and Ford had eight years. Jimmy Carter's presidency failed, and because of this Reagan and Bush were able to have twelve years between them. There was then eight years of Clinton, eight years of Bush, and eight years of Obama. If the Democrats can defeat Trump in 2020 and limit his time in office to four years, then they can hold the presidency for the next twelve years like Reagan and Bush did.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Because the majority doesn't always equal correct.

If you look at american history in general, the flip flop-ness of republican to democratic rule is actually pretty amazing, with the average being in power for 8 years before switching, to me thats a spectacular feat and even if you lean left or right, I don't think the destroying of ideas but having civil discussion about them and why people switch etc, is quite phenomenal, and a huge positive mark on USA in general that both opinions get there chance to shine over "x" period of time, where as so many other countries do not even get that opportunity and often fall into a "1-way" rule.

I'm personally more right leaning (centralist as I can be.), but I still understand the importance of the left and the ideas behind them, and for growth in general the more people understand both the ideologies behind them, are much better off than the individuals who only go down one path of understanding. (which I find funny since George Lucas I felt understood this with "Jedi's don't deal in absolutes"

Why does minority rule make more sense than majority rule?

You're not opposing mob rule. A mob still decides everything, it's just a mob with fewer people which doesn't make any sense.

Ideally, we have a democratic republic, not a direct democracy. That means the majority chooses an elite group to represent our interest in Washington DC. So there's no danger of mob rule but the majority should still determine our leaders, instead of a smaller group.

 

[Grommers]

Why does minority rule make more sense than majority rule?

You're not opposing mob rule. A mob still decides everything, it's just a mob with fewer people which doesn't make any sense.

Ideally, we have a democratic republic, not a direct democracy. That means the majority chooses an elite group to represent our interest in Washington DC. So there's no danger of mob rule but the majority should still determine our leaders, instead of a smaller group.

I think you are missing what a mob is.

"a large crowd of people, especially one that is disorderly and intent on causing trouble or violence."


If EVERYONE was acting disorderly, causing trouble or violence, we have a much bigger problem than the way democracy is being run.

A republic democracy still has its downfalls, like any "democratic system" has [I am in no way saying the electoral college is a perfect system], but truthfully there is never one cut clear system that will eradicate everything wrong in the world, so you can either embrace the system you have, and try to work up the political chain yourself to make the change that you feel is necessary to make it a better place for whoever you decide should live better lives.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I think you are missing what a mob is.

"a large crowd of people, especially one that is disorderly and intent on causing trouble or violence."


If EVERYONE was acting disorderly, causing trouble or violence, we have a much bigger problem than the way democracy is being run.

A republic democracy still has its downfalls, like any "democratic system" has [I am in no way saying the electoral college is a perfect system], but truthfully there is never one cut clear system that will eradicate everything wrong in the world, so you can either embrace the system you have, and try to work up the political chain yourself to make the change that you feel is necessary to make it a better place for whoever you decide should live better lives.

I'm not missing what a mob is.

You assume that a big group will be violent and stupid but a smaller group won't have those same flaws.

Ultimately the reason democracy is the best system is because the majority is happy and content.

Now compare that to any other system where the majority can be unhappy and dissatisfied and there's nothing they can do about it.

So if I had to choose between a happy majority oppressing a minority and a happy minority oppressing a majority, the former is the superior option.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Keep in mind I offered the compromise of the rural minority having a better chance at controlling the legislative branch and the city majority having a better chance at controlling the executive branch but that idea gets ignored by the "pro-electorate college crowd" for some weird reason.

 

[Grommers]

Keep in mind I offered the compromise of the rural minority having a better chance at controlling the legislative branch and the city majority having a better chance at controlling the executive branch but that idea gets ignored by the "pro-electorate college crowd" for some weird reason.

Most likely because the way state lines are drawn which were done however X amount of years ago, and you couldn't determine however many years ago which cities would be massive, and which towns would be rural.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

I think that the Electoral College and the 22nd Amendment have rigged the election process to pass back and forth between the two parties. We had eight years of Truman, then eight years of Eisenhower. JFK and LBJ had eight years between them, and then Nixon and Ford had eight years. Jimmy Carter's presidency failed, and because of this Reagan and Bush were able to have twelve years between them. There was then eight years of Clinton, eight years of Bush, and eight years of Obama. If the Democrats can defeat Trump in 2020 and limit his time in office to four years, then they can hold the presidency for the next twelve years like Reagan and Bush did.

Weren't almost all those war presidents(Cold War, War on Terror)?

Bush Sr., Clinton, and Carter are the only ones without major wars throughout their presidency and were decided on economic decisions.

 

[bell110]

Anyone?

Because then elections would be decided a couple of states. Hilary demonstrated this by her disastrous campaign strategy. Completely ignore the rural/rust belt/fly over states thinking that the large coastal states will carry her. Even going so far as thinking it was okay to call million of her fellow citizens, the people that she wishes to govern, deplorable.

She was right. She got those 3 million extra votes from places like California and New York, while they applauded her "calling out" how terrible Americans are. Yet she lost. That is why we go by electoral vote, so the minority voices actually get a say when they see themselves being marginalized.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Because then elections would be decided a couple of states. Hilary demonstrated this by her disastrous campaign strategy. Completely ignore the rural/rust belt/fly over states thinking that the large coastal states will carry her. Even going so far as thinking it was okay to call million of her fellow citizens, the people that she wishes to govern, deplorable.

She was right. She got those 3 million extra votes from places like California and New York, while they applauded her "calling out" how terrible Americans are. Yet she lost. That is why we go by electoral vote, so the minority voices actually get a say when they see themselves being marginalized.

Yeah, you're right.

We don't marginalize the minority.

We marginalize the majority.

How is that better?

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

"No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

 

[bell110]

Yeah, you're right.

We don't marginalize the minority.

We marginalize the majority.

How is that better?

We don't marginalize the majority. The majority can and has, more often than not, also won the electoral vote. The minority can not win with out the electoral vote, because 51 will always be more than 49.

Reverse your question; why should two or three states decide who becomes President, other than because those states just happen to be overwhelmingly left leaning?

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

We don't marginalize the majority. The majority can and has, more often than not, also won the electoral vote. The minority can not win with out the electoral vote, because 51 will always be more than 49.

Reverse your question; why should two or three states decide who becomes President, other than because those states just happen to be overwhelmingly left leaning?

1) No, a smaller group controls all three branches of government. The majority has none. There's zero justification for this.

2) A population being more dense geographically doesn't make them insidious or unjust. One person, one vote. That's democracy.

You want rural areas to have the advantage within the Legislative Branch? Fine.

But controlling all three branches when they lost the popular vote by 3 MILLION?

Zero justification.

New York and California have some of the biggest economies and centralized populations in the world. Why should their voting power be lessened when they agree with the majority of Americans?

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Also, why should swing states with much smaller economies decide the election? Especially when it comes at the expense of the majority?