If Hillary had won would electoral college but questioned still?

MoreCoffee said:

It's intention is not good. It is also outdated. It ought to be removed just like a steam engine ought not be under your car's "hood". Both the steam engine and the electoral college work but they work very poorly and do much less good than their absence would. Let the popular vote be the means by which a president is chosen. That is what a democracy is intended to be - election by the most (hopefully the majority) of votes - but the electoral college puts a body of unrepresentative people in the middle and allows them to decide how they will vote for the candidates in the presidential election. It is only by convention that they vote according to the instructions given by their respective states.

Just become a democracy; it will not hurt, honest.

Click to expand...

Except the country isn't a democracy and was never intended to be a democracy. Having a dozen huge cities dictate to the rest of the country has got to be the ultimate example of the tyrrany of the majority. It has been said that democracy is like two wolves and a sheep voting on who is for lunch. A governent that allows this sort of thing is the worst kind of government. The prie purpose of government must be the protection of the sheep, not the implementation of the desire of the wolves.

Frankly the more polarised society gets the more I want government to be as small as possible, specifically to give each side less power to dictate to the other each time the wind changes.

MoreCoffee said:

The electoral college has not served the nation well for a very long time. It's time to get rid of it. Try being a democracy instead.

Click to expand...

On the contrary, the electoral college does what it was intended to do and has served the nation well. It's not time to get rid of it. People don't want to be dictated to by a handful of enormous cities that don't represent them.

Lämmchen said:

I vote for 3. The extremists can each have their own and the rest of us who lie in the middle can be happiest.

Click to expand...

It's interesting to see how history is often self-regulating. While the idea of America separating into two nations is not likely to become fact, the coastal areas--especially the Left (West) Coast--is already becoming so unlivable that people are moving away. So there won't be two different nations, but there may well be a significant readjustment of who's who and what's what governmentally as people vote with their feet.

Unfortunately, the people--Liberals--who created the problem are moving along with everyone else and bringing their dangerous ideas with them, the same ones that created the problems that they are now fleeing from. Ironic, isn't it?

psalms 91 said:

Perhaps it has reached the point where maybe we need two countries? Just wondering

Click to expand...

Truth be told if you look at a county-level map of how the country voted it's hard to see how it could sensibly be split. Even California, well known for some of its silly-level liberalism, is a sea of red when mapped at county level. Unless you want to split southern California off as a separate country and do the same for urban centers in the northwest and northeast, it's hard to see how it will work.

Hence my vote is for smaller and less powerful government. We all drive on the same roads but have such differing desires as to what government should do, so it makes sense to say that neither of us gets to dictate how the other should live.

Because illegal immigrants favor California for obvious reasons, it is possible that it will in time become a de facto separate country or special jurisdiction like some European or Asian nations have had in the past. Kosovo, Palestine, Cyprus, come to mind.

psalms 91 said:

Yet the majority legislators do and in many cases they are Republican so majority rules doesnt seem to be the case hence my doispleasure with the electoral college, I thought that majority was supposed to rule. When laws are passed it does so why not elections? It does except for President does it not?

Click to expand...

As has been explained already, the Founding Fathers did not want a Democracy, i.e. a Mobocracy in which the minority would always be powerless and probably trampled upon, so it devised a system of checks and balances. Most people would think that is a good idea. In addition, the president (and VP) are elected by all the states jointly; we do not have a totally centralized system like other countries. We have a "federal" system. Each state has its rights and plays its part. The Electoral College (as well as Congress) is a compromise that accounts for the will of the people generally but also the rights and will of the constituent parts, the states.

psalms 91 said:

Yet the majority legislators do and in many cases they are Republican so majority rules doesnt seem to be the case hence my doispleasure with the electoral college, I thought that majority was supposed to rule. When laws are passed it does so why not elections? It does except for President does it not?

Click to expand...

The trouble with "majority rule" is that unless the minority is also represented it ends up oppressed. Majority rule ends up as little more than two wolves and a sheep voting on who is for dinner. Majority rule ends up with minority groups being barred and banished because the majority finds them distasteful.

Doesn't it make a lot more sense to figure out what the majority needs but not seek to ban or restrict anything unless there's a case far more compelling than "the majority wants it banned"? It makes no sense at all for people who live in cities to impose their lifestyles on those who live in the country, and neither does it make any sense for people who live in the country to impse their lifestyles on people who live in the city.

Ultimately if you seek rule by the majority with no protection for anyone who disagrees with more than 50% of the population you will be seeking the very social structure that will ban our faith completely. Demographics alone indicate that it's only a matter of time before the majority are either atheists or Muslims, both of whom are generally hostile to the Christian faith.

psalms 91 said:

No but we do vote for those who represent us although lets face it they sure dont represent the people let alone do what is good for the country and that is both parties not just one or the other

Click to expand...

It's not often I agree with you on political topics but I can't argue that politicians on both sides often appear more interested in feathering their own nests than in looking after the people they allegedly represent.

Just another reason to take a lot of their power away.

This issue comes up every time someone wins the electoral college and loses the popular vote.

The electoral college assumes that we elect wise people, who are in a better position to choose the president than the voters. But it never really had that effect. At this point we don't even know who the electors are. They're just surrogates for the candidates. We don't get whatever benefits the founding fathers expected.

Then why don't the opponents simply push for the EC votes to be tabulated automatically, ending the need for any humans to be elected to the EC and required literally to cast a formal vote for someone?

IN PRACTICE, the concept of the Electoral College as the voters has evolved.... now, with perhaps 1 or 2 exceptions each election cycle, the Electoral College simply votes as their state mandates: In some cases, the winner gets all the votes (California is one of those), in some cases, there's an attempt to reflect the actual percentages that each candidate won (varies by state) but still, the EC is voting in conformity with the STATE they represent - not the popular vote of the entire country.

Yeah, this may seem a bit undemocratic but remember: the US is a collection of STATES. This idea has been in decline since FDR but it's still the case. It's why we have an Upper House with 2 Senators from EACH STATE.... and it's the reason for the Electorial College. We are 50 states... and each needs to have a voice. We are not simply 12 big cities that together happen to have 50% of the US population so that Vermont doens't matter, Alabama doesn't matter. The US Senate is to insure that the whole nation is represented, not just 50% of the citizens.

In reality, this has only impacted things 4 times in nearly 250 years (although it came very close a few other times, as in 1960 where it was VERY close that Nixon won the popular vote but greatly lost the electoral vote). But the idea, again, is to insure that we are ONE nation, that all states are counting and have a voice, we are not ruled by 12 cities, most of whom are on the coasts and represent people who are not like many other Americans.

I'm not sure the EC is relevant today.... and if we get to a position where NO party is gaining by it (and that may never happen), it may make sense to end it. But it should be appreciated as to WHY our nation (of many states) has this admitted oddity (same reason we have the Senate) and it needs to be admitted the ONLY reason the libs want it ended is because those cities that would become all important are Democrat strongholds - we would become a one party nation, and the Dems would be it. Purely political.

tango said:

Except the country isn't a democracy and was never intended to be a democracy. Having a dozen huge cities dictate to the rest of the country has got to be the ultimate example of the tyrrany of the majority. It has been said that democracy is like two wolves and a sheep voting on who is for lunch. A governent that allows this sort of thing is the worst kind of government. The prie purpose of government must be the protection of the sheep, not the implementation of the desire of the wolves.

Frankly the more polarised society gets the more I want government to be as small as possible, specifically to give each side less power to dictate to the other each time the wind changes.

Click to expand...

The USA has an undemocratic senate to "protect the small states" so stop whining

Having an undemocratic electoral college just makes the system stupid.

Might as well make elections unnecessary and just have the state governors pick a person as president

MoreCoffee said:

The USA has an undemocratic senate to "protect the small states" so stop whining

Having an undemocratic electoral college just makes the system stupid.

Might as well make elections unnecessary and just have the state governors pick a person as president

Click to expand...

There are those who'd like to destroy the United States of America, and just be The State of America. But that's not what we are. And I think those who want to destroy the nation and rebuild it around an entirely different model are quite in the minority here. And what people think in Iceland is frankly irrelevant, they aren't citizens here, let them deal with their own problems.

The libs want to do away with the Electorial College for only one reason: At least RIGHT NOW, it would create a one-party state controlled by a hand full of big cities where liberalism tends to thrieve right now. And of course, they'd soon need to follow that by eliminating the Senate and all 50 states. But I don't think they are serious or that short sighted. It's just playing to their base, just part of the Trump bashing... it will all go away, as it always has before.

I am with you up to the last part. They, being statists and Marxists, would do all of that if the opportunity developed.