Utopia Talk / Politics / The electoral college/ Senate are unfair

habebe Member	Mon Nov 23 14:54:50 Is a common modern left-wing mantra.And its a selfish one. 1. The rural/urban divide is more of a newer issue. Atleast being so contrast. 2.If the EC/Senate are unfair to Dems than the House is unfair to Reps. who dont have the support of large cities. But its not unfair to either. Most people don't want absolute democracy, we want some barriers to protect us from the whims of the mob. The House is very democratic in nature.With current leans toward liberal regions like CA getting between 2-6 seats for illegal immigrants. The Senate currently leans Republican because the Republicans have the support of more communities although less densely populated ones. Its selfish to think that 51% should have complete control over 49% instead of sharing power.
Hrothgar Member	Mon Nov 23 15:01:18 Seems to me the EC is the unfair thing for those who live in the big states. Their individual votes are worth less in determining the leadership of the nation. In addition, locked up small states are utterly ignored by the candidates because they need to spend all of their time on the swing states. Without the EC getting a vote of a citizen of Wyoming would be just as important to Dems as getting a vote of a citizen in Michigan. And getting a vote in Massachusetts would be just as important to a Republican as getting one in Idaho. So while perhaps the 'city votes' are a consideration, it would at least be nationwide city votes instead of just 50/50 voter states.
Rugian Member	Mon Nov 23 15:31:41 The real problem is that too much power has been centralized at the federal level. Decentralizing the Union and restoring powers to the states renders the question of the EC and Senate moot. Fair or not, the allocation won't matter much if Congress and Potus aren't playing any major role in the lives of the American people.
habebe Member	Mon Nov 23 15:39:37 "Without the EC getting a vote of a citizen of Wyoming would be just as important to Dems as getting a vote of a citizen in Michigan. " I think that's flawed logic because you would go for the biggest bang for your buck/time. The EC/Senate do favor smaller state voters. Its supposed to. The larger states already get more say with the House. The Senate throws a bone to the smaller atates so they atleast have a seat at the table. Its also much wider spread so instead of a hand full of communities dominating representation its a wide diverse group of communities.
hood Member	Mon Nov 23 15:41:58 "The EC ... do favor smaller state voters. Its supposed to." No. The electoral college was never intended to favor smaller states. That was only the senate.
Rugian Member	Mon Nov 23 16:31:09 "No. The electoral college was never intended to favor smaller states. That was only the senate." And the Senate in turn ensures that 100 of the 538 EC votes are divided evenly among the states, with smaller states reaping the greatest relative benefit.
Habebe Member	Mon Nov 23 17:13:27 Rugian, Exactly, it lets them get a seat at the table.Every state gets atleast 3 EV's. A state like SC can have 5 million people compared to Wyoming that has 600k? SC has 9 EV's WY has 3 even though SC has way more than 3x the population. So they still get a seat at the table, albeit a snall one.
hood Member	Mon Nov 23 17:20:36 "And the Senate in turn ensures that 100 of the 538 EC votes are divided evenly among the states" Except there's nothing about the creation of the EC that limited it to 538 votes. That is relatively new, and entirely responsible for why smaller states have a higher rep in the EC. Or, you are wrong. The EC was never meant to address big vs. small states. That was the Senate.
Forwyn Member	Mon Nov 23 18:59:05 The left-wing only whines about the EC and representation because, for now, they get the short end of the stick. Give it a couple decades. Only ~100k parasitic Californians each are needed to flip states like WY and MT. Then it will be the most glorious creation of slavers in history, a cornerstone of our democracy.
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Nov 24 04:32:22 [hood]: "The EC was never meant to address big vs. small states." Not according to the debates surrounding the U.S. Constitution. When states were debating whether or not they could or should adopt the Constitution (a debate between small state plans and big state plans), this was said by Gunning Bedford Jr. of Delaware on June 30th, 1787: "I do not, gentlemen, trust you. If you possess the power, the abuse of it could not be checked; and what then would prevent you from exercising it to our destruction? You gravely allege that there is no danger of combination, and triumphantly ask, “How could combinations be effected? The large states,” you say, “all differ in productions and commerce; and experience shows that, instead of combinations, they would be rivals, and counteract the views of one another.” This, I repeat, is language calculated only to amuse us. Yes, sir, the larger states will be rivals, but not against each other — they will be rivals against the rest of the states. But it is urged that such a government would suit the people, and that its principles are equitable and just. How often has this argument been refuted, when applied to a federal government! The small states never can agree to the Virginia plan; and why, then, is it still urged? But it is said that it is not expected that the state governments will approve the proposed system, and that this house must directly carry it to the people for their approbation! Is it come to this, then, that the sword must decide this controversy, and that the horrors of war must be added to the rest of our misfortunes? But what have the people already said? “We find the Confederation defective. Go, and give additional powers to the Confederation — give to it the imposts, regulation of trade, power to collect the taxes, and the means to discharge our foreign and domestic debts ... Will you crush the smaller states, or must they be left unmolested? Sooner than be ruined, there are foreign powers who will take us by the hand ... Although my state is small, I know and respect its rights as much, at least, as those who have the honor to represent any of the larger states.” .. In other words, Bedford pointed out that large states (populated states) would be able to tyrannize smaller states. These large states would form groupthink combinations against the smaller states — agreeing to support a shared candidate in order to defeat smaller states. With this kind of asymmetric power, the large states would be assured that their candidate would always win in a popular vote. This would mean that smaller states would be crushed by, for example, the trade agreements of the larger states; larger states could pass measures making their methods of trade more favorable than those of the smaller states. The smaller states would then be bled out — their economies would be invalidated by the federal measures passed by the larger states. Bedford ends with a kind of warning: a popular vote plan that favors the large states in this way would mean that small states would have no incentive to join or remain in the union. Small states would be forced into civil war to defend their freedoms against a tyrannizing large state coalition. Because the small states would have been weakened by the large states, this would mean domestic annihilation of the smaller states (small states would not be able to defeat the large states in battle), so the smaller states would have to turn to foreign powers for their salvation. Similarly, large states could be misled from their duties to the small states, accepting foreign corruption. Alexander Hamilton agreed with this in a March 14, 1788 address, saying that foreign powers could infiltrate elections with their own candidate if they only had to secure the large states: "Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils ... The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means. Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty ... Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States." The idea was that if the voice of the people were spread out over multiple states with an electoral buffer, foreign powers would have more difficulty corrupting democracy. Combinations (e.g., an agreed upon candidate intended to run roughshod over competing states) would not be strong enough to overcome the will of the union at large. Such candidates would fail — the electors would have the ability to vote against these candidates, keeping any corrupt influences at bay. Following these debates (including debates that similarly saw that southern states would be disenfranchised), the elector system was suggested and adopted as a buffer — a plan upon which both large and small states could and did agree. The whole idea was to preserve a *union*, not some divided competition between large and small states. Every time you hear someone refer to small states as "flyover states" or some other disparaging remark, you sort of see the impulse of tyranny that the founders were keeping in check.
Dakyron Member	Tue Nov 24 10:42:39 Hey look, habebe says something stupid and factually incorrect. How unusual.
Average Ameriacn Member	Tue Nov 24 11:07:01 http://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/266038556504494082 The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.
chuck Member	Tue Nov 24 11:13:41 > Give it a couple decades. Only ~100k parasitic Californians each are needed to flip states like WY and MT. It is the Manifest Destiny of this great nation that its savage and uncivilized interior be colonized by intrepid souls.
chuck Member	Tue Nov 24 11:20:24 Greater freedom to work remotely will enable this. It's not all terrible though. A lot of places end up politically red and economically dead because economic opportunities drew their ambitious strivers to high comp coastal hubs. It'll be more of a homecoming than anything. Harder to hate your neighbor who mostly agrees with you on 90% of issues but disagrees on 10% of issues than it is to hate Nancy Pelosi and Californians in the abstract.
Habebe Member	Tue Nov 24 12:21:27 Hey look Dakyrkon makes a lost while clearly not reading the thread and making no contribution.
obaminated Member	Tue Nov 24 12:32:27 Dak lives a sad life, he needs to insult someone to make himself feel better. Just let him do it and don't take it personally.
Dukhat Member	Tue Nov 24 22:05:18 Obaminated showing his complete lack of introspection and self-awareness yet again
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: