Trump Administration

[Adam White]

My point is that all votes matter and if you do away with the electoral college those blue urban areas trump (lol) the will of the majority of the country in terms of geography.  Further, the DNC has to move beyond those urban centers and the demogrpahics from the last election or they risk losing significance as a national party.

It may look red on that map but the majority of the country is undeveloped and the majority of the population does reside in urban and suburban areas. It's always been that way and will never change. I don't have a dog in this particular party debate or the presidential race results but I am a minority who believes the EC was established in an effort to deal with issues involving slavery. It's debatable to claim that the EC represents the will of the country in the 21st century. If anything, it's an 18th century relic still hanging on because of our natural tendency to embrace tradition and fight change until pulled kicking and screaming.

Took me a second.

It's an inauspicious beginning, but the EC does still serve a purpose in keeping states that are small even when all people are actually counted from getting railroaded. Al Gore, who's been on the wrong end of the EC stick more than anyone besides Clinton, said we need to acknowledge that both systems have their own problems; rather than seeing the popular vote as a "solution" we need to look at it as a balancing act of what's more fair. It's hard to argue that a system is more fair when it's as out of step with the election results as this one has been.

You get no argument from me.

[thelakelander]

I'd argue that things would go on just fine if the EC was finally taken out back and shot.  However, I'm not passionate enough about the issue to spend much effort into debating it.  There's more pressing issues to deal with in this country to me.

[MusicMan]

Let's see, Clinton has registered 64,654,483 total votes, compared to 62,418,820 for Trump, according to a Cook Political Report analysis Monday (11/28 16).  That represents a margin of 2,235,663 (more than Trump) in the popular vote.

Which makes this statement : "The DNC has some soul searching to do as to whether or not they are a national party or a fringe party"

at the top of the list for Dumbest Post of 2016.

[RattlerGator]

Hillary had Hollywood, the music industry, fashion industry, daytime & late night talk shows, basically every news/newspaper outlet, blogs, paid social media brigades, faux protests full of provocateurs, etc & still lost. That tells us most everyday people don't give two shits of the opinions of these people. Or are we supposed to care what Jay Z or some Hollywood snob thinks about politics (as if their opinion is more valid than anyone else's)? It makes me think of this Dave Chappelle piece: https://youtu.be/H7b5hJ0G_9c

I always said they would get better results had any of these people or organizations not dialed it up to 11 & kept their mouths shut, but we know that'll never happen.

Exactly right.

However, they get far, far too much out of virtue signaling to ever STFU and quit with the crazy caricaturizations of their political opponents. They seem to be so addicted to it they can't even see how ridiculous they are being. Not even after watching that incredibly dismissive video after the fact. That should have been a clincher but . . . nope, nope, nope. Everybody else is just stupid and racist and xenophobic and misogynistic. So, let us go re-elect aging got-rich-off-of-politics Nancy Pelosi as leader in the House of Representatives.

Incredible.

[RattlerGator]

It may look red on that map but the majority of the country is undeveloped and the majority of the population does reside in urban and suburban areas. It's always been that way and will never change. I don't have a dog in this particular party debate or the presidential race results but I am a minority who believes the EC was established in an effort to deal with issues involving slavery. It's debatable to claim that the EC represents the will of the country in the 21st century. If anything, it's an 18th century relic still hanging on because of our natural tendency to embrace tradition and fight change until pulled kicking and screaming.

Ennis, this is patently absurd. It has most definitely not always been that. Where the heck did you learn your history? Additionally, and more importantly, there would be no United States of America without the electoral college. That isn't open for debate. That's a fact and to casually dismiss it seriously diminishes your point. It was essential to the formation of this country and most definitely wasn't some relice then and clearly isn't some relic today.

Far from it.

It's also never going to be changed, and this election (along with the crazy responses in this thread) only make that point more certain. Republicans can only hope people like Stephen keep driving the train with Democrats. They keep ignoring illegals voting, or President Obama on the sly actually ENCOURAGING illegals to break the law and vote, or California having two democrats running for the Senate and thereby depressing Republican turnout in our most populous state to the tune of about 2 million Republican voters.

As a constitutional federal republic (something apparently beyond the comprehension of Adam), there are two sovereigns that serve the people -- not two sovereigns that lord over the people. And guess what, cities aren't political entities that factor into those two sovereigns that serve the people. That's only the federal government and the state government.

There is no city sovereign. Think about it.

As Trump has clearly said, if the contest was to win the popular vote his very effective strategy would have been modified and likely just as effective. That's the cold, hard truth. But if you're dismissive of a candidate winning 3,084 out of 3,151 counties in this nation you have a very warped understanding of this country.

So yeah, Stephen & Adam & finehoe, etc., keep hanging your hat on the popular vote "win" -- it would earn you a grade of F in any objective grading scheme.

[thelakelander]

^Ok. I'm more than happy to take the position that even when the country was founded, the majority of the population (assuming we're not counting slaves, since they were considered property), lived in cities, as opposed to rural homesteads. I'm also still of the belief that the EC came about as a method of dealing with issues with slavery and its political/economic impact. US history doesn't change because RattlerGator doesn't like the story told a certain way. Feel free to counter with some statistical data suggesting otherwise.

[Adam White]

It may look red on that map but the majority of the country is undeveloped and the majority of the population does reside in urban and suburban areas. It's always been that way and will never change. I don't have a dog in this particular party debate or the presidential race results but I am a minority who believes the EC was established in an effort to deal with issues involving slavery. It's debatable to claim that the EC represents the will of the country in the 21st century. If anything, it's an 18th century relic still hanging on because of our natural tendency to embrace tradition and fight change until pulled kicking and screaming.

Ennis, this is patently absurd. It has most definitely not always been that. Where the heck did you learn your history? Additionally, and more importantly, there would be no United States of America without the electoral college. That isn't open for debate. That's a fact and to casually dismiss it seriously diminishes your point. It was essential to the formation of this country and most definitely wasn't some relice then and clearly isn't some relic today.

Far from it.

It's also never going to be changed, and this election (along with the crazy responses in this thread) only make that point more certain. Republicans can only hope people like Stephen keep driving the train with Democrats. They keep ignoring illegals voting, or President Obama on the sly actually ENCOURAGING illegals to break the law and vote, or California having two democrats running for the Senate and thereby depressing Republican turnout in our most populous state to the tune of about 2 million Republican voters.

As a constitutional federal republic (something apparently beyond the comprehension of Adam), there are two sovereigns that serve the people -- not two sovereigns that lord over the people. And guess what, cities aren't political entities that factor into those two sovereigns that serve the people. That's only the federal government and the state government.

There is no city sovereign. Think about it.

As Trump has clearly said, if the contest was to win the popular vote his very effective strategy would have been modified and likely just as effective. That's the cold, hard truth. But if you're dismissive of a candidate winning 3,084 out of 3,151 counties in this nation you have a very warped understanding of this country.

So yeah, Stephen & Adam & finehoe, etc., keep hanging your hat on the popular vote "win" -- it would earn you a grade of F in any objective grading scheme.

A) I have not said the EC should be eliminated - I've agreed it has its benefits. My issue is one with the states.
B) The USA is a democracy and a republic. The two terms are not mutually-exclusive. I don't suppose you were a poly-sci major, were you? If you were, I'd start investigating UF or FAMU's refunds policy.
C) I have never disputed the election outcome. And my comment about the popular vote was in response to PSU's post - his post makes no sense when you consider that Clinton received more votes than Trump.

Sometimes your comments read like a case study of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

[Adam White]

I've posted this elsewhere. Apparently I'm not the only person who can't comprehend the nature of the USA's system of government. Eminent legal scholar (and conservative) Eugene Volokh is equally ignorant, it seems:

The United States is not a direct democracy, in the sense of a country in which laws (and other government decisions) are made predominantly by majority vote. Some lawmaking is done this way, on the state and local levels, but it's only a tiny fraction of all lawmaking. But we are a representative democracy, which is a form of democracy.

And indeed the American form of government has been called a "democracy" by leading American statesmen and legal commentators from the Framing on. It's true that some Framing-era commentators made arguments that distinguished "democracy" and "republic"; see, for instance, The Federalist (No. 10), though even that first draws the distinction between "pure democracy" and a "republic," only later just saying "democracy." But even in that era, "representative democracy" was understood as a form of democracy, alongside "pure democracy": John Adams used the term "representative democracy" in 1794; so did Noah Webster in 1785; so did St. George Tucker in his 1803 edition of Blackstone; so did Thomas Jefferson in 1815. Tucker's Blackstone likewise uses "democracy" to describe a representative democracy, even when the qualifier "representative" is omitted.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/13/is-the-united-states-of-america-a-republic-or-a-democracy/?utm_term=.f39ae5b87bb2

[strider]

I've posted this elsewhere. Apparently I'm not the only person who can't comprehend the nature of the USA's system of government. Eminent legal scholar (and conservative) Eugene Volokh is equally ignorant, it seems:

The United States is not a direct democracy, in the sense of a country in which laws (and other government decisions) are made predominantly by majority vote. Some lawmaking is done this way, on the state and local levels, but it's only a tiny fraction of all lawmaking. But we are a representative democracy, which is a form of democracy.

And indeed the American form of government has been called a "democracy" by leading American statesmen and legal commentators from the Framing on. It's true that some Framing-era commentators made arguments that distinguished "democracy" and "republic"; see, for instance, The Federalist (No. 10), though even that first draws the distinction between "pure democracy" and a "republic," only later just saying "democracy." But even in that era, "representative democracy" was understood as a form of democracy, alongside "pure democracy": John Adams used the term "representative democracy" in 1794; so did Noah Webster in 1785; so did St. George Tucker in his 1803 edition of Blackstone; so did Thomas Jefferson in 1815. Tucker's Blackstone likewise uses "democracy" to describe a representative democracy, even when the qualifier "representative" is omitted.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/13/is-the-united-states-of-america-a-republic-or-a-democracy/?utm_term=.f39ae5b87bb2

In addition, somewhere in the early papers it talks about using the electoral college to correct the vote if the people basically screwed up and elected someone who was not qualified to be President.  So, I'm guessing that the EC also was not to protect the voice of those "fly over" rural folk but to potentially protect the republic from them.

[MusicMan]

Stop with the facts, Adam.

[Adam White]

I've posted this elsewhere. Apparently I'm not the only person who can't comprehend the nature of the USA's system of government. Eminent legal scholar (and conservative) Eugene Volokh is equally ignorant, it seems:

The United States is not a direct democracy, in the sense of a country in which laws (and other government decisions) are made predominantly by majority vote. Some lawmaking is done this way, on the state and local levels, but it's only a tiny fraction of all lawmaking. But we are a representative democracy, which is a form of democracy.

And indeed the American form of government has been called a "democracy" by leading American statesmen and legal commentators from the Framing on. It's true that some Framing-era commentators made arguments that distinguished "democracy" and "republic"; see, for instance, The Federalist (No. 10), though even that first draws the distinction between "pure democracy" and a "republic," only later just saying "democracy." But even in that era, "representative democracy" was understood as a form of democracy, alongside "pure democracy": John Adams used the term "representative democracy" in 1794; so did Noah Webster in 1785; so did St. George Tucker in his 1803 edition of Blackstone; so did Thomas Jefferson in 1815. Tucker's Blackstone likewise uses "democracy" to describe a representative democracy, even when the qualifier "representative" is omitted.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/13/is-the-united-states-of-america-a-republic-or-a-democracy/?utm_term=.f39ae5b87bb2

In addition, somewhere in the early papers it talks about using the electoral college to correct the vote if the people basically screwed up and elected someone who was not qualified to be President.  So, I'm guessing that the EC also was not to protect the voice of those "fly over" rural folk but to potentially protect the republic from them.

You'd think we'd all be able to agree that more democracy is usually a good thing - and that a system that has permitted (unintentionally) the loser of the popular vote to be elected President five times (including twice in the last 16 years) might benefit from reform*.

*note: I did not say "abolition," did I?

[finehoe]

In addition, somewhere in the early papers it talks about using the electoral college to correct the vote if the people basically screwed up and elected someone who was not qualified to be President.  So, I'm guessing that the EC also was not to protect the voice of those "fly over" rural folk but to potentially protect the republic from them.

Exactly.  Alexander Hamilton wrote in "The Federalist Papers," the Constitution is designed to ensure "that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications." The point of the Electoral College is to preserve "the sense of the people," while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen "by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice."

It has nothing to do with giving affirmative action-type help to voters who happen to live in less-populous states.

https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers#TheFederalistPapers-68

[Adam White]

In addition, somewhere in the early papers it talks about using the electoral college to correct the vote if the people basically screwed up and elected someone who was not qualified to be President.  So, I'm guessing that the EC also was not to protect the voice of those "fly over" rural folk but to potentially protect the republic from them.

Exactly.  Alexander Hamilton wrote in "The Federalist Papers," the Constitution is designed to ensure "that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications." The point of the Electoral College is to preserve "the sense of the people," while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen "by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice."

It has nothing to do with giving affirmative action-type help to voters who happen to live in less-populous states.

https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers#TheFederalistPapers-68

Yes - our wise "founding fathers" were actually elitists. But whatever - doesn't fit the narrative for some.

[finehoe]

Do people on this forum really not understand the purpose of the electoral college?

Apparently not.

[blizz01]

"The Packers should be the NFC North leaders right now because they have scored 274 total points this season whereas the Lions have only scored 244.  The fact that the Lions are 7 and 4 and the Packers are 5 and 6 should be irrelevant. I like the Packers.  The NFL needs to change their rules because I prefer the Packers..."