Post: #1

I was discussing today how the electoral college system works to a group of people confused that Hillary getting the popular vote meant that she should be president.

"Not quite," I said.

What is the electoral college system, why was it made, and why is it the reason we have a giant country of diverse states versus a collection of several countries?

The electoral college system is a group of non electable delegates chosen by each state. The constitution grants each state a set amount of delegates that matches how many representatives they have in the house.

Back in the 18th century when those 13 original colonies were framing up the constitution. One of the biggest concerns the smallest states had was being railroaded by the larger more populous states' interests. This is why we have a bicameral legislature (congress and house of reps). Basic high school civics.

Initially, the president was to be decided by congress (similar to how parliament chose it's prime minister). A few framers of the constitution didn't like this and proceeded to debate until several compromises were made.

Hence the electoral college system was born. It's a clever way to basically level out the popular vote of large and populous states against the concerns of smaller less populous states.

Post: #2

Part 2:

It's why Hillary got the popular vote but not the electoral college votes. Those "extra" votes either fraudulently or otherwise most likely came from NYC, California, or some other blue state. But it doesn't matter because the electoral college representatives already cast their votes meaning that any extra "popular" vote won't change the outcome unless it came from another state where a swap in votes would change an electoral college's vote from one party to another.

Is it fair? Probably not, but the US was never designed to be a 100% direct democracy. The framers wanted to even out the votes of large cities and the countryside so all of their concerns were weighted evenly.

It's why we're seeing refugees in red states and pushes to make living in the countryside difficult and expensive. It's the only way to flip the electoral college system in the liberals favor instead of doing a constitutional amendmend (which almost happened under Nixon).

So the next time you hear an uneducated fool say the electoral college system should be removed, remind them that the US was never meant to be a direct democracy. In fact, if we did away with it we would probably see the states succede and the US collapse within 2 or 3 election cycles as liberals attempt to defang the patriots living in BFE.

People don't understand the carefully thought out system our founding fathers crafted nor is it explained correctly. I hope this civics lesson has enlightened a few folks here who think the system should be abolished.

Post: #3

Excellent point. Without this system you'd have civil war.

It's terrible how few people understand this.

Post: #4

Nothing unfair about it. Those leftist fucks can pack up and live anywhere they want.

Post: #5

(11-10-2016 03:51 AM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  Excellent point. Without this system you'd have civil war.

It's terrible how few people understand this.

It's terrible how little American citizens know about how their countries politics work.

I'm not American but i'm glad California and New York don't dictate what the rest of the country does. We'd have seen the degeneracy come sooner.

Post: #6

For rapidly-advancing civilisations like the West it's pretty impressive how well Parliamentary or quasi-Parliamentary systems have withstood the test of time. The basic model of bicameral legislature was more or less copied off the English model of House of Commons + House of Lords (and in turn the US system went on to influence many other former-British colonies, Australia being one of them) but the electoral college system could have gone so wrong in so many ways. As it is America survived a civil war and reintegrated more or less pretty seamlessly. That in itself is a damn impressive achievement given what usually happens in civil wars the world over.

The military has never reached junta or powerbroker status as such; for all the talk anyone every said about the armed forces revolting if Clinton got in I really doubt that would have actually happened - it's just not the "American" thing anyone expects.

The basic model of separation of powers is also inherited from the British Empire, but it's proven to be a fairly stable tripod all things considered: judiciary + executive + legislature. True enough that a couple of bad appointments can really fuck over your country for a few decades, but even FDR remorselessly stacking the Supreme Court didn't ensure the country's destruction.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #7

The electoral system is a must have. Without it, all power and wealth in a democracy would flow to the cities. Everyone would be living in a rat pen like they do in Manhattan. 4K a month for rent. No thanks.

Post: #8

A bunch of states are trying to effectively destroy the electoral college, unfortunately.

https://infogalactic.com/info/National_P...te_Compact

Post: #9

Big difference between a democracy and constitutional republic.

Quote:“A democracy is three wolves and two sheep voting on dinner. A simple republic is three wolves and two sheep electing a committee to plan dinner. A contitutional republic is a system of limited government in which no one has authority to plan dinner for others and in which the sheep are armed.”

.

Post: #10

(11-10-2016 03:40 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  It's why we're seeing refugees in red states and pushes to make living in the countryside difficult and expensive. It's the only way to flip the electoral college system in the liberals favor instead of doing a constitutional amendmend (which almost happened under Nixon).

As someone interested in rural living, I'd like to hear you expand on this. What has been making living 'off the grid' more expensive? Higher taxes on property, farming, lower tax breaks?

Post: #11

The electoral college is one of the greatest inventions ever conceived in government. It was designed to quell regional passions, prevent one group from mob rule over another, and lessen the possibility or influence of one or a few states bringing forward a fraudulent result. It is designed NOT to allow a direct democracy. If you want to see what a direct democracy looks like I invite you go to or move to Venezuela, where the majority has voted to steal and consume everything, including the zoo animals as food.

The founding fathers just saved the Republic, once again. Tell your friends who want to sign up to eliminate the electoral college that they are unthinking pawns for Marxists and that you soundly reject their thoughtless repetition of destructive ideas.

Post: #12

Is the enthusiasm for the electoral college because it tends to favor rural states (and we like that outcome)? If so, let's just say that. It's more true than ever that we're a nation of people, not of states. The idea of one man = one vote is easy to understand and appeals to our sense of fairness. As it stands now, some votes count more than others; and some votes don't count at all. That delegitimizes the process. Not everyone against the electoral college fails to understand how it works or what the rationale behind it.

As has been mentioned in the DT thread, Trump would have taken a different campaign strategy had there been no electoral college. You have to play the game that there is. I think he surely would have won the popular vote had that been his primary goal.

For strategic reasons, it might be unwise to ditch the electoral college while we're still importing immigrants right and left, allowing birthright citizenship and so on.

Post: #13

This is not and was never meant to be a popular democracy. This is a representative republic. Checks and balances were built throughout the system. The electoral college is part of that. Just as the three branches of the federal government are supposed to check each other, the federal government, state governments, and the people are supposed to do the same.

Individual rights have obviously been heavily abridged, and state rights/powers have been mostly neutered by popular election of US senators (17th Amendment). Switch to a popular election of the president and we might as well abolish state boundaries and governments entirely. Since that would rapidly result in the Californication of the entire country, I am not at all in favor of such a scenario.

Popular democracy is a mad form of government, that certainly is not better than all the rest. Another name for popular democracy is "mob rule".

For those who think popular elections are a good thing at all levels, consider that the 17th Amendment was ratified right before the leviathan of federal government truly began to swell. Without the 17th Amendment, the liberal policies that have brought us to the brink of destruction never would have flourished, because the states would have said "fuck that shit" and held back the beast.


Edit - I am aware that the states had to ratify the 17th Amendment. Doing so was equivalent to the state governments committing mass suicide.

Post: #14

(11-11-2016 08:56 PM)weambulance Wrote:  Edit - I am aware that the states had to ratify the 17th Amendment. Doing so was equivalent to the state governments committing mass suicide.

It was actually the people of the states who killed their power. Not sure why but they did.

Also check out Trump's tweet from 2012:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/stat...6504494082

He was against the electoral vote system back then. I wonder if he feels the same way now? Especially after traveling the country and seeing all of the destroyed communities in the rust belt, perhaps he sees the wisdom in protecting a rural heartland? I would assume so, especially after they gave him power.

Post: #15

This is a good synopsis The Beast1.

An addendum: Democratic power is focused on urban areas. There are very few blue counties that are rural. California even has areas where Trump got to 70% but you cant counterbalance that with the cucks in Silicon Valley or LA. Areas that have larger and stronger rural areas outweigh the urban. NY and Illinois can be just as red as Kentucky except for Chicago and NYC.

Post: #16

Democracies have always failed into tyrannies. The reason for a republic started in Rome after the Greek democracy spiraled into a horrible tyranny. Republics don't last forever either, but when you compare them to democracies, they last a lot longer. I think Rome was a republic for about 400 years before it turned into an "empire" which more closely resembled a tyranny.

If we were exclusively a democracy, NY and CA would run the entire country and there would be nothing any of us could do. Basically, two state could terrorize everyone else.

Post: #17

Keeps the US Together and avoid handful big cities from deciding the entire election.





Edit
New York State is almost entirely for Trump, upstate, but because big populate areas downstate like Manhattan, Queens, Westchester , Bronx went for Hillary he loses.

Post: #18

the media still don't get it.

Post: #19

^^^^

This sort of hypocrisy is the most effective tool against MSM credibility. It needs to be encouraged. Keep exposing the MSM as the Janus it is. Never forgive. Never forget.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #20

(11-11-2016 10:49 PM)Samseau Wrote:  It was actually the people of the states who killed their power. Not sure why but they did.

This is true, they actually campaigned for it. Apparently it was just stupidity that did it. Pre-17th people used to vote for state legislators based on which senators they would choose (i.e. along federally-minded party lines). So state legislators wanted to decouple this so people would vote for them for state-minded reasons. I.e. they thought it would give more local autonomy and power . Very shortsighted.

That wouldn't have been a problem if they'd just done it by state constitutional amendments -- since the state itself can always repeal that. I'm guessing the 17th just came from over-zealous stupidity.

Now the only mechanism remaining to restore the powers to the states is the Article 5 convention.

Post: #21

(11-15-2016 04:27 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 10:49 PM)Samseau Wrote:  It was actually the people of the states who killed their power. Not sure why but they did.

This is true, they actually campaigned for it. Apparently it was just stupidity that did it. Pre-17th people used to vote for state legislators based on which senators they would choose (i.e. along federally-minded party lines). So state legislators wanted to decouple this so people would vote for them for state-minded reasons. I.e. they thought it would give more local autonomy and power . Very shortsighted.

That wouldn't have been a problem if they'd just done it by state constitutional amendments -- since the state itself can always repeal that. I'm guessing the 17th just came from over-zealous stupidity.

Now the only mechanism remaining to restore the powers to the states is the Article 5 convention.

Not the only mechanism. Amendments can be repealed with further amendments.

Post: #22

(11-11-2016 10:49 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 08:56 PM)weambulance Wrote:  Edit - I am aware that the states had to ratify the 17th Amendment. Doing so was equivalent to the state governments committing mass suicide.

It was actually the people of the states who killed their power. Not sure why but they did.

Also check out Trump's tweet from 2012:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/stat...6504494082

He was against the electoral vote system back then. I wonder if he feels the same way now? Especially after traveling the country and seeing all of the destroyed communities in the rust belt, perhaps he sees the wisdom in protecting a rural heartland? I would assume so, especially after they gave him power.

...and my assumptions turned out to be right!

Post: #23

California, New York, Texas, and maybe a couple of others should do what Maine and Nebraska do and split their electoral votes.

Post: #24

From Paul Joseph Watson:




More electoral college shenanigans -- one more reason to support reform. I remain unconvinced by the "framers were geniuses" argument.

Post: #25

(11-13-2016 07:48 AM)Latinopan Wrote:  Keeps the US Together and avoid handful big cities from deciding the entire election.





Edit
New York State is almost entirely for Trump, upstate, but because big populate areas downstate like Manhattan, Queens, Westchester , Bronx went for Hillary he loses.

The results from the electoral college in the recent election show how the democratic party is now a regional party. They are a party that is relegated to the geographic regions of the east and west coast. Mostly just the pockets of dense population on the coasts at that. They are not mainstream.

Trump has made the Republican party mainstream as evidenced by red being represented by the vast majority of the counties, hence geographic area, in the country.