If Trump Wins

  • Thread starter Thread starter theel4life
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 151
  • Views: 4K
  • Politics 
superrific said:
No, that's not why the electoral college exists. It's not at all why the electoral college exists. Here's how you know that: when the EC was created, no state used any EC-type structure in their own politics. None went to an EC structure after ratification. There was every bit as much danger of the uninformed masses electing dangerous people in state government, and state government was a much bigger % of government at the time.

The EC was just a negotiation between states who were scared of each other, over several issues including but not limited to slavery. And the motivating factor was distrust between states, which is why they all wanted a seat at the table. There were 13 states back then. If we could go back in time and show the Framers our presidential elections today, where a couple of states decide election after election, and those states' votes are determined largely by uninformed or low info voters, they would not have designed the EC the way they did. And no jokes please about the time travel paradox because that's just boring.
Click to expand...
At the time of the Philadelphia convention, no other country in the world directly elected its chief executive, so the delegates were wading into uncharted territory. Further complicating the task was a deep-rooted distrust of executive power. After all, the fledgling nation had just fought its way out from under a tyrannical king and overreaching colonial governors. They didn’t want another despot on their hands.

One group of delegates felt strongly that Congress shouldn’t have anything to do with picking the president. Too much opportunity for chummy corruption between the executive and legislative branches.

Another camp was dead set against letting the people elect the president by a straight popular vote. First, they thought 18th-century voters lacked the resources to be fully informed about the candidates, especially in rural outposts. Second, they feared a headstrong “democratic mob” steering the country astray. And third, a populist president appealing directly to the people could command dangerous amounts of power.

Out of those drawn-out debates came a compromise based on the idea of electoral intermediaries. These intermediaries wouldn’t be picked by Congress or elected by the people. Instead, the states would each appoint independent “electors” who would cast the actual ballots for the presidency.

HISTORY

The HISTORY Channel - Geschichte erleben! The HISTORY Channel ist der deutschsprachige Pay-TV-Sender für spannende Dokumentationen und macht die Faszination von Menschen und Ereignissen täglich greifbar!
www.history.com www.history.com
 
BlooVooDoo said:
That’s a primitive way of looking at it. All of the governed have skin in the game, even those who aren’t afforded the right to vote.
Click to expand...
I agree that everyone has skin in the game and certainly decisions should be made by more than white, land-owning men, but it also may not be the best solution to have EVERY person over 18 permitted to vote. Just like you wouldn't want only white land owners determining the direction at a country/state/local level, you wouldn't want only the unemployed/retired determining the direction of the country.
 
ZenMode said:
I agree that everyone has skin in the game and certainly decisions should be made by more than white, land-owning men, but it also may not be the best solution to have EVERY person over 18 permitted to vote. Just like you wouldn't want only white land owners determining the direction at a country/state/local level, you wouldn't want only the unemployed/retired determining the direction of the country.
Click to expand...
Is anyone advocating for "only the unemployed/retired determining the direction of the country"?

I agree that in theory it would be beneficial to have only those citizens who are informed and engaged vote in elections. But in practice trying to craft a practical or moral way to draw that line is impossible. So, everybody it is.
 
ZenMode said:
I agree that everyone has skin in the game and certainly decisions should be made by more than white, land-owning men, but it also may not be the best solution to have EVERY person over 18 permitted to vote. Just like you wouldn't want only white land owners determining the direction at a country/state/local level, you wouldn't want only the unemployed/retired determining the direction of the country.
Click to expand...
If EVERY person is permitted to vote, how could there be a situation in which only the _____ demographic determines anything? Inclusion is the remedy for exclusion.
 
ZenMode said:
At the time of the Philadelphia convention, no other country in the world directly elected its chief executive, so the delegates were wading into uncharted territory. Further complicating the task was a deep-rooted distrust of executive power. After all, the fledgling nation had just fought its way out from under a tyrannical king and overreaching colonial governors. They didn’t want another despot on their hands.

One group of delegates felt strongly that Congress shouldn’t have anything to do with picking the president. Too much opportunity for chummy corruption between the executive and legislative branches.

Another camp was dead set against letting the people elect the president by a straight popular vote. First, they thought 18th-century voters lacked the resources to be fully informed about the candidates, especially in rural outposts. Second, they feared a headstrong “democratic mob” steering the country astray. And third, a populist president appealing directly to the people could command dangerous amounts of power.

Out of those drawn-out debates came a compromise based on the idea of electoral intermediaries. These intermediaries wouldn’t be picked by Congress or elected by the people. Instead, the states would each appoint independent “electors” who would cast the actual ballots for the presidency.

HISTORY

The HISTORY Channel - Geschichte erleben! The HISTORY Channel ist der deutschsprachige Pay-TV-Sender für spannende Dokumentationen und macht die Faszination von Menschen und Ereignissen täglich greifbar!
www.history.com www.history.com
Click to expand...
1. History.com is not a reputable source, any more than quantummechanics.com would be a go-to source for understanding beta decay.

2. Note that none of what you posted is responsive to the main critique of the Electoral College. Intermediaries could still be apportioned in direct proportion to population. It doesn't have to be winner take all (it still doesn't but almost always is).

The electoral college always was, and remains today, a way of allocating voter power between states, and a silly way of counting votes where margins within states don't matter. That's all.
 
rodoheel said:
I'm skeptical whether Republicans would ever truly get to a point where they support limiting presidential immunity unless the party composition drastically changes. They have been steadily pushing for more executive authority and less executive accountability for decades.
Click to expand...
Well, I didn't see too many people anywhere in the legal community arguing in favor of Trump's immunity. Everyone assumed that the Court would deny it, because the underlying position was so radical and nonsensical.

But you're not wholly wrong. And maybe not even a little bit wrong.
 
superrific said:
1. History.com is not a reputable source, any more than quantummechanics.com would be a go-to source for understanding beta decay.

2. Note that none of what you posted is responsive to the main critique of the Electoral College. Intermediaries could still be apportioned in direct proportion to population. It doesn't have to be winner take all (it still doesn't but almost always is).

The electoral college always was, and remains today, a way of allocating voter power between states, and a silly way of counting votes where margins within states don't matter. That's all.
Click to expand...
History.com is just the website for the History channel. Is there a specific reason that you view their site as unreliable?

BTW, I'm not saying concerns about information availability in rural areas was the only reason for the electoral college.
 
Last edited:
At best, the History Channel is to history what Cliff Notes are to literature but less faithful to the source.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top