PDA

View Full Version : The Two Americas of 2016



Chris
11-16-2016, 06:50 PM
The Two Americas of 2016 (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/16/us/politics/the-two-americas-of-2016.html)


...

https://i.snag.gy/ScOldB.jpg

Geographically, Donald J. Trump won most of the land area of the United States. A country consisting of areas he won retains more than 80 percent of the nationís counties.

While Trump country is vast, its edges have been eroded by coastal Democrats, and it is riddled with large inland lakes of Clinton voters who were generally concentrated in dense urban areas.

https://snag.gy/GVJ4y2.jpg

Hillary Clinton overwhelmingly won the cities, like Los Angeles, Chicago and New York City, but Mr. Trump won many of the suburbs, isolating the cities in a sea of Republican voters.

Mrs. Clintonís island nation has large atolls and small island chains with liberal cores, like college towns, Native American reservations and areas with black and Hispanic majorities. While the land area is small, the residents here voted for Mrs. Clinton in large enough numbers to make her the winner of the overall popular vote.

...

Peter1469
11-16-2016, 07:12 PM
That is why our Founders created the electrical college (not a new concept when they did it, BTW)

del
11-16-2016, 07:14 PM
the founders created the electoral college to soothe the fevered brows of the slave states.

Peter1469
11-16-2016, 07:15 PM
incorrect

del
11-16-2016, 07:19 PM
incorrect
you usually are- happy to straighten you out about the *electrical* college

it's watts up currently

Ransom
11-16-2016, 07:28 PM
The gerrymandered districts drawn by the House. 25 Democrat Senate seats wide open in 2018. The Supreme Court, he'll have at least 1 Judge seated, perhaps 2. The Democrats despite what you see on tv....are the party in disarray. Thanks Obama!

Chris
11-16-2016, 07:40 PM
That is why our Founders created the electrical college (not a new concept when they did it, BTW)


Those who wrote the Constitution were definitely against democracy. They also conceded to the anti-Federalists some semblance of state's rights.

Chris
11-16-2016, 07:46 PM
the founders created the electoral college to soothe the fevered brows of the slave states.

How so? At the time most states were slave states:

https://i.snag.gy/gKtJBr.jpg

The 3/5s compromise is maybe what you're thinking?

Newpublius
11-16-2016, 08:04 PM
How so? At the time most states were slave states:

https://i.snag.gy/gKtJBr.jpg

The 3/5s compromise is maybe what you're thinking?

Big state/small state also includes a very healthy discussion on slavery. It existed, we know it existed and part of the anti-majoritarian points of the original Constitution were sops to the fact tht slave states knew they'd lose.

A slave state would have 2 senators, just like any other, and it would have the number of representatives boosted by the 3/5ths clause which would flow through to the election for President.

Nevertheless, while all this was true, let's not forget that when the Liberty Amendments were passed: 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, the slave issue evaporates and the EC remained a big state/small state issue at a time when the Radical Republicans had every incentive coupled with population sufficient to prevail in elections.....and they didn't change it.

Still the overall consetvative vote exceeded liberal count

Newpublius
11-16-2016, 08:11 PM
CA is 62-33. In a democracy with China don't be surprised if the stop signs are in Chinese.

Newpublius
11-16-2016, 08:20 PM
Those who wrote the Constitution were definitely against democracy. They also conceded to the anti-Federalists some semblance of state's rights.

For starters the fact that the government formed was the federal government, not the national government. We are a federal republic.

Bethere
11-16-2016, 08:23 PM
The Two Americas of 2016 (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/16/us/politics/the-two-americas-of-2016.html)
A clear majority of Americans voted Clinton for president and Democrats for Congress.

It's a fact.

And by your own admission, you didn't vote at all.

Chris
11-16-2016, 08:25 PM
For starters the fact that the government formed was the federal government, not the national government. We are a federal republic.

Indeed but the anti-federalists needed placating to get their buy in.

Peter1469
11-16-2016, 08:25 PM
A clear majority of Americans voted Clinton for president and Democrats for Congress.

It's a fact.


Not true (once voter fraud is considered), and not relevant.

Chris
11-16-2016, 08:27 PM
A clear majority of Americans voted Clinton for president and Democrats for Congress.

It's a fact.

And by your own admission, you didn't vote at all.


The price of regular down the street is $1.89/gal,and just as irrelevant.

resister
11-16-2016, 08:29 PM
A clear majority of Americans voted Clinton for president and Democrats for Congress.

It's a fact.

And by your own admission, you didn't vote at all.Sadly, for you little bear, not nearly enough....not nearly enough.Accept reality already...your far past the stage where you should have emerged from denial.Maybe you can go to a university and play with legos and puppies

Bethere
11-16-2016, 08:29 PM
Not true (once voter fraud is considered), and not relevant.

Your masquerade as an independent voter is the best example of voter fraud of which I know.

Peter1469
11-16-2016, 08:30 PM
Your masquerade as an independent voter is the best example of voter fraud of which I know.

Shows what you know.

Bethere
11-16-2016, 08:31 PM
Sadly, for you little bear, not nearly enough....not nearly enough.Accept reality already...your far past the stage where you should have emerged from denial.Maybe you can go to a university and play with legos and puppies
You can draw funny looking maps all day and it will never mean that Republicans got the majority of congressional votes or that trump got more votes than Hillary Clinton.

Bethere
11-16-2016, 08:33 PM
Shows what you know.

It does.

Captain Obvious
11-16-2016, 08:35 PM
You can draw funny looking maps all day and it will never mean that Republicans got the majority of congressional votes or that trump got more votes than Hillary Clinton.

That's nice, cupcake.

See ya on January 20th

Captain Obvious
11-16-2016, 08:36 PM
The price of regular down the street is $1.89/gal,and just as irrelevant.

It'll double by the end of Spring.

Bethere
11-16-2016, 08:37 PM
That's nice, cupcake.

See ya on January 20th

Cupcake didn't hide the month of October.

You did.

del
11-16-2016, 08:40 PM
That's nice, cupcake.

See ya on January 20th


Cupcake didn't hide the month of October.

You did.


:biglaugh:

Captain Obvious
11-16-2016, 08:40 PM
Cupcake didn't hide the month of October.

You did.

Tissue?

del
11-16-2016, 08:41 PM
Tissue?
are you sure you're done?

Docthehun
11-16-2016, 08:42 PM
It'll double by the end of Spring.

You of course read about the gigantic oil field just discovered in Texas?

Captain Obvious
11-16-2016, 08:44 PM
are you sure you're done?

Nope

del
11-16-2016, 08:46 PM
Nope

then you'd best hold onto your tissues for the next time you go into witness protection, sparky

del
11-16-2016, 08:46 PM
You of course read about the gigantic oil field jus discovered in Texas?
cap knows everything

just ask him

hanger4
11-16-2016, 08:46 PM
You can draw funny looking maps all day and it will never mean that Republicans got the majority of congressional votes or that trump got more votes than Hillary Clinton.

And still irrelevant.

Dr. Who
11-16-2016, 08:48 PM
There is a very good chance that the electoral college was created to ensure that the uneducated rabble could not cast direct votes for President. Instead, their educated betters in the EC, holding intervenor status, were empowered to maintain the status quo for the wealthier members of each state, despite the will of the people.

Captain Obvious
11-16-2016, 08:48 PM
then you'd best hold onto your tissues for the next time you go into witness protection, sparky

Thanks for the tip, Emilio.

I'll play my Aquarius album backwards now in your honor.

resister
11-16-2016, 08:49 PM
Sadly, for you little bear, not nearly enough....not nearly enough.Accept reality already...your far past the stage where you should have emerged from denial.Maybe you can go to a university and play with legos and puppies
Quote the right person , I'm not the OP

Chris
11-16-2016, 08:49 PM
There is a very good chance that the electoral college was created to ensure that the uneducated rabble could not cast direct votes for President. Instead, their educated betters in the EC, holding intervenor status, were empowered to maintain the status quo for the wealthier members of each state, despite the will of the people.

The wealthy and the powerful.

del
11-16-2016, 08:49 PM
Thanks for the tip, Emilio.

I'll play my Aquarius album backwards now in your honor.

that's nice, honey


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUWKrzsFh2c


:rofl:

Captain Obvious
11-16-2016, 08:49 PM
cap knows everything

just ask him

Not everything, but more than most.

It's not easy either, trust me on that.

Bethere
11-16-2016, 08:49 PM
You of course read about the gigantic oil field jus discovered in Texas?
I thought it was pretty clever how Obama played iran against Saudi Arabia and drove a stake into opec's heart.

That iran deal is very underrated.

Captain Obvious
11-16-2016, 08:50 PM
that's nice, honey

You should just number your canned responses, for ease of delivery.

You won't need to go into double digits either.

del
11-16-2016, 08:51 PM
You should just number your canned responses, for ease of delivery.

You won't need to go into double digits either.
the effort is in direct proportion to my respect for the poster

do the math

Captain Obvious
11-16-2016, 08:52 PM
I thought it was pretty clever how Obama played iran against Saudi Arabia and drove a stake into opec's heart.

That iran deal is very underrated.

And Herman Munster didn't even use lube when inking that piece of work.

Now that's stamina.

Bethere
11-16-2016, 08:53 PM
the effort is in direct proportion to my respect for the poster

do the math

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubIt94oLaBI

Chris
11-16-2016, 08:55 PM
You of course read about the gigantic oil field just discovered in Texas?

Soon as prices rise to make shale oil worth extracting the oil fields will light the night sky again.

ripmeister
11-16-2016, 09:33 PM
That is why our Founders created the electrical college (not a new concept when they did it, BTW)
Not quite that simple.

ripmeister
11-16-2016, 09:34 PM
incorrect
Really? What about that 3/5ths thing then?

Chris
11-16-2016, 09:45 PM
Really? What about that 3/5ths thing then?

That was, but see map above, at that time most states were slave states.

del
11-16-2016, 10:01 PM
That was, but see map above, at that time most states were slave states.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-k7RYJbWgXbk/TWTwx2zagII/AAAAAAAAAKE/gBZNm_1L3p8/s1600/Red%252BHerring.gif

Bethere
11-16-2016, 10:05 PM
That was, but see map above, at that time most states were slave states.

Which, of course, reinforces the notion that the electoral college was designed to empower the slave states.

Thanks for your help.

Ladies and gentlemen, let's hear it for Chris!

Chris
11-16-2016, 10:29 PM
Really? What about that 3/5ths thing then?


That was, but see map above, at that time most states were slave states.


Which, of course, reinforces the notion that the electoral college was designed to empower the slave states.

Thanks for your help.

Ladies and gentlemen, let's hear it for Chris!

Context: the 3/5ths thing.

ripmeister
11-16-2016, 10:30 PM
That was, but see map above, at that time most states were slave states.

It's not so much slave state vs non slave state as it was populations of those states.

Chris
11-16-2016, 10:33 PM
It's not so much slave state vs non slave state as it was populations of those states.

Indeed, the 3/5ths compromise gave states otherwise low in rich, powerful population more representation.

Bethere
11-16-2016, 10:36 PM
That is why our Founders created the electrical college (not a new concept when they did it, BTW)


the founders created the electoral college to soothe the fevered brows of the slave states.


incorrect

The true context.

Watching Chris obfuscate is awesome.

Newpublius
11-16-2016, 10:40 PM
There is a very good chance that the electoral college was created to ensure that the uneducated rabble could not cast direct votes for President. Instead, their educated betters in the EC, holding intervenor status, were empowered to maintain the status quo for the wealthier members of each state, despite the will of the people.

Well the founders/framers had their warts, but the motive behind putting the vote in the Electoral College wasn't really motivated by that at all.

Remember, its the early 19th century and you don't have facebook or tPF to turn to, why SHOULDN'T you vote for Aaron Burr? How do you get a sense for the man? You can't really....

Originally that choice was going to go to Congress and they feared 'intrigue' so they made a completely separate deliberative body....

But this is kind've how they did things, it wasn't exclusively the Electoral College. Look at the Constitution.....Philadelphia Convention meets, makes a proposal and they send the proposed Constitution to the states, but not to the state legislatures, but rather to special ratifying conventions where the people's delegates attended.

The result can be seen in the Elliot's Debates which really puts modern political discourse to shame, but while you can surely point to many elitist things that they stood for.....the Electoral College itself is very, very consistent with how the government of that era 'did business'

ripmeister
11-16-2016, 10:49 PM
Indeed, the 3/5ths compromise gave states otherwise low in rich, powerful population more representation.
Yes. Hence giving those states a disproportionate amount of political power relative to their voting power. Some would argue that exists today with the EC and is outdated because it's Genesis was from another time that is no longer relevant.

ripmeister
11-16-2016, 10:51 PM
Well the founders/framers had their warts, but the motive behind putting the vote in the Electoral College wasn't really motivated by that at all.

Remember, its the early 19th century and you don't have facebook or tPF to turn to, why SHOULDN'T you vote for Aaron Burr? How do you get a sense for the man? You can't really....

Originally that choice was going to go to Congress and they feared 'intrigue' so they made a completely separate deliberative body....

But this is kind've how they did things, it wasn't exclusively the Electoral College. Look at the Constitution.....Philadelphia Convention meets, makes a proposal and they send the proposed Constitution to the states, but not to the state legislatures, but rather to special ratifying conventions where the people's delegates attended.

The result can be seen in the Elliot's Debates which really puts modern political discourse to shame, but while you can surely point to many elitist things that they stood for.....the Electoral College itself is very, very consistent with how the government of that era 'did business'

Per the last sentence then raises the question is that proper for today. I'm sure the originalists would say yes, but the paradigm of today is vastly different.

del
11-16-2016, 10:51 PM
The true context.

Watching Chris obfuscate is awesome.


it would be if he was any good at it

Dr. Who
11-16-2016, 10:55 PM
Well the founders/framers had their warts, but the motive behind putting the vote in the Electoral College wasn't really motivated by that at all.

Remember, its the early 19th century and you don't have facebook or tPF to turn to, why SHOULDN'T you vote for Aaron Burr? How do you get a sense for the man? You can't really....

Originally that choice was going to go to Congress and they feared 'intrigue' so they made a completely separate deliberative body....

But this is kind've how they did things, it wasn't exclusively the Electoral College. Look at the Constitution.....Philadelphia Convention meets, makes a proposal and they send the proposed Constitution to the states, but not to the state legislatures, but rather to special ratifying conventions where the people's delegates attended.

The result can be seen in the Elliot's Debates which really puts modern political discourse to shame, but while you can surely point to many elitist things that they stood for.....the Electoral College itself is very, very consistent with how the government of that era 'did business'
Surely then you are making a case for the abolition of the Electoral College, since people have immediate access to the opinions and political platforms of any and all candidates for the office of President. Whose interests do the members of the EC represent? Are they elected? No. They are chosen by completely partisan political parties. I'm not sure how that works in states with odd numbers of EC reps, however conflict of interest seems to be built-in to the process.

ripmeister
11-16-2016, 10:57 PM
Something I've been to lazy to research is what actual population numbers are for the various states relative to their electoral power, an electoral votes per person so to speak

Newpublius
11-16-2016, 11:00 PM
Surely then you are making a case for the abolition of the Electoral College, since people have immediate access to the opinions and political platforms of any and all candidates for the office of President. Whose interests do the members of the EC represent? Are they elected? No. They are chosen by completely partisan political parties. I'm not sure how that works in states with odd numbers of EC reps, however conflict of interest seems to be built-in to the process.

No, the deliberative aspect of the EC is a vestigial organ. The assignment of points, the antimajoritarian skew is a different impact

Dr. Who
11-16-2016, 11:04 PM
No, the deliberative aspect of the EC is a vestigial organ. The assignment of points, the antimajoritarian skew is a different impact

It doesn't change the fact that the EC can overrule the majority vote for partisan reasons in some states. Other states have addressed the issue.

Captain Obvious
11-16-2016, 11:07 PM
It doesn't change the fact that the EC can overrule the majority vote for partisan reasons in some states. Other states have addressed the issue.

Or vice versa.

If it happened and had a direct impact on an election, it would be news.

Newpublius
11-16-2016, 11:09 PM
It doesn't change the fact that the EC can overrule the majority vote for partisan reasons in some states. Other states have addressed the issue.

They could, the opportunity clearly exists for faithless electors to vote as they wish. Initially that is the purpose, they were supposed to exercise judgment because they'd get the sense Aaron Birr was a 'scoundrel' (a terrible slur for the era).....that function ceased, deliberations no longer exist, the act of casting the vote, at this juncture, is truly vestigial.

Dr. Who
11-16-2016, 11:14 PM
Something I've been to lazy to research is what actual population numbers are for the various states relative to their electoral power, an electoral votes per person so to speak

This piece comments on that issue: http://observer.com/2016/11/the-built-in-bias-of-the-electoral-college/

Dr. Who
11-16-2016, 11:19 PM
They could, the opportunity clearly exists for faithless electors to vote as they wish. Initially that is the purpose, they were supposed to exercise judgment because they'd get the sense Aaron Birr was a 'scoundrel' (a terrible slur for the era).....that function ceased, deliberations no longer exist, the act of casting the vote, at this juncture, is truly vestigial.

Nonetheless, it has happened at least once in our lifetimes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_where _winner_lost_popular_vote

Safety
11-16-2016, 11:23 PM
Quote the right person , I'm not the OP

Did you just quote yourself and reply?

resister
11-16-2016, 11:27 PM
Did you just quote yourself and reply?Yep, multiple personality disorders is fun.I'm never lonely in here!!:grin:

Safety
11-16-2016, 11:29 PM
It's not so much slave state vs non slave state as it was populations of those states.

Exactly, states like Wyoming and the Dakotas have problably 3 people per 100 miles, yet because the county was red, it get's represented bigger than NY.

AZ Jim
11-16-2016, 11:30 PM
I propose we make all Representatives in the house "at large" within their states, meaning like the two senators they all work for all citizens of their respective states. Why? It would make gerrymandering less attractive for state legislators. At the same time scrap the electoral college as it is or force all states to award their votes proportionately. The net result would be Presidents elected by direct vote of the people.

Captain Obvious
11-16-2016, 11:30 PM
Exactly, states like Wyoming and the Dakotas have problably 3 people per 100 miles, yet because the county was red, it get's represented bigger than NY.

The popular vote would disagree with you.

Just ask Bethere

Captain Obvious
11-16-2016, 11:32 PM
I propose we make all Representatives in the house "at large" within their states, meaning like the two senators they all work for all citizens of their respective states. Why? It would make gerrymandering less attractive for state legislators. At the same time scrap the electoral college. The net result would be Presidents elected by direct vote of the people.

No, but thanks.

Voters individually are drooling idiots for the most part. "Democracy" is a demonstrated failure, there needs to be filters to sift out the idiocy.

Safety
11-16-2016, 11:34 PM
The popular vote would disagree with you.

Just ask Bethere

Actually, the popular vote strengthens my argument. The simple fact that Clinton won the popular vote but lost the electoral college, means that the system works to give a fair shot to areas that don't have the population density like the urban areas.


I'm not advocating for a change from the electoral college.

Captain Obvious
11-16-2016, 11:37 PM
Actually, the popular vote strengthens my argument. The simple fact that Clinton won the popular vote but lost the electoral college, means that the system works to give a fair shot to areas that don't have the population density like the urban areas.


I'm not advocating for a change from the electoral college.

ok sorry, misunderstood you

AZ Jim
11-16-2016, 11:40 PM
Actually, the popular vote strengthens my argument. The simple fact that Clinton won the popular vote but lost the electoral college, means that the system works to give a fair shot to areas that don't have the population density like the urban areas.


I'm not advocating for a change from the electoral college.But it leaves the voter with no input if he voted within a red state for a blue candidate effectively denying him the right to his vote franchise. Also make all states proportionate in awarding electoral votes instead of winner take all.

Captain Obvious
11-16-2016, 11:42 PM
But it leaves the voter with no input if he voted within a red state for a blue candidate effectively denying him the right to his vote franchise. Also make all states proportionate in awarding electoral votes instead of winner take all.

Collectives think smarter than individuals

del
11-16-2016, 11:43 PM
Collectives think smarter than individuals

da, komrad

Safety
11-16-2016, 11:50 PM
But it leaves the voter with no input if he voted within a red state for a blue candidate effectively denying him the right to his vote franchise. Also make all states proportionate in awarding electoral votes instead of winner take all.

I understand that, but that is why we aren't a true democracy. We elect representatives to congress that make decisions for us. We use the electoral college to prevent mob rule.

Think of the flip side of your argument, what about the conservative that is living in a liberal bastion like New York or California, their vote is essentially null and void.

AZ Jim
11-16-2016, 11:55 PM
I understand that, but that is why we aren't a true democracy. We elect representatives to congress that make decisions for us. We use the electoral college to prevent mob rule.

Think of the flip side of your argument, what about the conservative that is living in a liberal bastion like New York or California, their vote is essentially null and void.Sure they are. That is my point. No matter your party you should be able to have input into the final vote, not collective but individual. As to the mob rule theory I see no ultimate reason for it under my proposal.

Dr. Who
11-17-2016, 12:06 AM
No, but thanks.

Voters individually are drooling idiots for the most part. "Democracy" is a demonstrated failure, there needs to be filters to sift out the idiocy.
Isn't that a bit of an elitist statement? Might it not come down in those unregulated states to which set of "drooling idiots" that the state establishment wants to promote? Is that democracy?

AZ Jim
11-17-2016, 12:11 AM
Isn't that a bit of an elitist statement? Might it not come down in those unregulated states to which set of "drooling idiots" that the state establishment wants to promote? Is that democracy?You actually expect an honest, intelligent answer from him?

Dr. Who
11-17-2016, 12:14 AM
Actually, the popular vote strengthens my argument. The simple fact that Clinton won the popular vote but lost the electoral college, means that the system works to give a fair shot to areas that don't have the population density like the urban areas.


I'm not advocating for a change from the electoral college.

OK, but what would happen if those underpopulated states generally decided to support something like a war with Russia, knowing that they would not be the targets of the offensive, but all of the people in the densely populated cities would be? I have a hard time reconcilng the fact that a person's vote is diminished by a rather large factor, because they don't live in the middle of nowhere.

Hal Jordan
11-17-2016, 12:15 AM
That is why our Founders created the electrical college (not a new concept when they did it, BTW)

While it's a popular "after the fact" explanation, it's really not. Whether the electoral college is right for modern times or not, that was not the reason it was enacted, so we shouldn't pretend that it was.

Bethere
11-17-2016, 12:24 AM
Something I've been to lazy to research is what actual population numbers are for the various states relative to their electoral power, an electoral votes per person so to speak

The Dayton/Springfield SMSA has twice as many people than has Wyoming.

Wyoming? They get 3 electoral votes.

AZ Jim
11-17-2016, 12:39 AM
It makes a rancher in North Dakota have the power of hundreds in California.

hanger4
11-17-2016, 04:33 AM
It makes a rancher in North Dakota have the power of hundreds in California.

No it doesn't, states have the same number of electors as they do Representatives and Senators.

Peter1469
11-17-2016, 05:43 AM
There is a very good chance that the electoral college was created to ensure that the uneducated rabble could not cast direct votes for President. Instead, their educated betters in the EC, holding intervenor status, were empowered to maintain the status quo for the wealthier members of each state, despite the will of the people.
The Founders were clear that they disliked democracy. Some thought it was the worst form of government.

That is why they gave us a republic.

Safety
11-17-2016, 06:49 AM
OK, but what would happen if those underpopulated states generally decided to support something like a war with Russia, knowing that they would not be the targets of the offensive, but all of the people in the densely populated cities would be? I have a hard time reconcilng the fact that a person's vote is diminished by a rather large factor, because they don't live in the middle of nowhere.

That's why there are other factors in play to prevent something like that from happening. We are just talking about the election of the President, the individual states still have representatives in Congress, whom has to give authority to go to war (at least on paper). For what the EC was set up for, and how it works today, has shown that in the case that the President is supposed to represent the entire country, this system is the most fair metric to use to ensure all states have that chance to make their voice heard.

Without it, NY and California would be the only states electing presidents every four years.

Chris
11-17-2016, 08:37 AM
It makes a rancher in North Dakota have the power of hundreds in California.

Not exactly but sort of, yes. I think that's the point besides the states rights aspect.

patrickt
11-17-2016, 10:32 AM
the founders created the electoral college to soothe the fevered brows of the slave states.
Is that a silly opinion or simply a lie? They declared a slave 3/5ths of a person to soothe the fevered brow of the Yankees, though. At the time of the founding of the country, the liberals hadn't discovered racism but Yankees didn't want blacks, north or south, to count in forming the House of Representatives.

ripmeister
11-17-2016, 12:22 PM
No, but thanks.

Voters individually are drooling idiots for the most part. "Democracy" is a demonstrated failure, there needs to be filters to sift out the idiocy.

You sound like you would be open to the ideas of the alt-right and some of their monarchist views.

ripmeister
11-17-2016, 12:25 PM
Collectives think smarter than individuals
Wow. Are you arguing for collectives? Never thought I'd see that. :wink: Couldn't resist.

Cigar
11-17-2016, 12:33 PM
Collectives think smarter than individuals

Partially True; Collaboration tends to provide a greater opportunity to get things right.

But eventually someone has to Sh!t or Get off the Pot :grin:

Ethereal
11-17-2016, 12:37 PM
If you're against the electoral college because it's too elitist, then you should oppose the US Constitution for the same reason. The actual debates were conducted in secret, attended by few, and arguably fraudulent, as the original intent was to merely improve the articles of confederation, not to replace them entirely. Or are we operating under the impression that the US Constitution was the product of a populist uprising?

Chris
11-17-2016, 12:55 PM
Collectives think smarter than individuals

Think, with what?

nic34
11-17-2016, 01:03 PM
How so? At the time most states were slave states:

https://i.snag.gy/gKtJBr.jpg

The 3/5s compromise is maybe what you're thinking?


Article II of the Constitution and the Twelfth Amendment solely refer to “electors.” The phrase “Electoral College” did not appear in federal law until 1845.