re: Eliminating the Electoral College Has Pros/Cons Depending on Where You Stand

So, why don't you just admit that you're advocating the abolition of the states? Do you even know what the word "state" actually means? Do you understand that a state is a sovereign political entity and not merely a subservient province of a central government?

No, you don't, because you never studied the history of our nation beyond what was presented to you in public schools who had become addicted to federal funding and therefore ceased teaching what states actually are in civics classes. You have taken no responsibility tor you own education, but have rather taken the easy way that allows you ease and leisure as long as you allow others to dictate what you do and do not believe and how you are much better off by giving up liberties in exchange for "safety" because self responsibility is too hard.

If you had studied things beyond your government-approved text books you would have some understanding of States and the electoral college, as well as why electors are generally awarded as "winner take all." But it's so much easier to be spoon-fed your ideology than to study and make an informed, rational decision.

Five times out of how many elections and we need to change to popular vote

Frick off

quote:

---

It also never uses the phrase “constitutional republic

---

Dumbass, it is the 'constitution' and it certainly mentions the 'republic'.

Mmmkay?

First off article 4 section 4 specifically mentions a republican form of government

quote:

---

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion

---

Secondly Hamilton belived in a large powerful central government. Hence his continual arguments with Jefferson and the like.

Add in federalist paper #39 and you realize even then the idea of a president being directly elected, or senators for that matter was considered idiocy, but that the people would indirectly decide on the president or senators and only the house to be directly elected

quote:

---

The House of Representatives, like that of one branch at least of all the State legislatures, is elected immediately by the great body of the people. The Senate, like the present Congress, and the Senate of Maryland, derives its appointment indirectly from the people. The President is indirectly derived from the choice of the people

---

Once again the states elect the president. NOT the people. It has just become accepted that each state shall have an election to determine who the state would send electors for.

We are not and never have been a democracy. We are a representative republic, which has been perverted. We should not elect senators, that is to represent the states themselves, the house is for the people. That is why each state regardless of size gets 2 senators, because they are not there, or not supposed to be, there to represent you, but the state itself. The 17th just destroyed the strongest check and guarantee of state sovereignty and rights.

But sure tell me about how we are a democracy and the founders never used the word republic again.

quote:

---

Again, I don't have to explain anything to you. You have your interpretation and I have mine. I never said democracy and a republic are opposites. We have elements of both. Nice use of Google BTW. What does this have to do with the electoral college? The electoral college exists to make sure we never turn into a true democracy. Oh, and why are you fighting with a mental midget like me who uses a Van Halen album title as his handle? I really don't understand what the argument is here besides you being a contrarian.

---

You began with a vague insult about my reading comprehension, then challenged me to find the word “democracy” in the Constitution. It is not there. Neither is “constitutional republic.”

What is there is “We the People,” which states the democratic principle in its most literal form: political authority originates with the people. The Constitution then creates a republic through which that authority is exercised by elected representatives under constitutional limits.

So yes, it contains both. The absence of the label “democracy” does not erase the democratic structure any more than the absence of the phrase “constitutional republic” erases the republican one.

And yes, “nice use of Google.” Thanks. Why wouldn’t I use the largest research tool ever placed at our fingertips? That's a bad thing?Are you operating entirely on high school, shite guys at work say, and politard 'facts?'

quote:

---

That is categorically false. A republic is not a form of a democracy. A republic is a government where the authority of government is held in the law. A democracy is a form of government where the authority of government is held with the majority of the people.

Demos = People, Kratos = Power

Res = Thing, Publica = the People’s

“Republic” is Latin for “the People’s thing”, which is the law. It’s a shared code that applies to all citizens.

“Democracy” comes from the Greeks which means “Rule of the People”

So, no, a Republic is not some subcategory of Democracy. It is an independent system of government.

Hence why at the founding, the American people had only one federal vote - for their representative. The rest of the Legislative branch, and the entirety of the Executive and Judicial branches were not determined by a mass vote.

---

You got the Greek roots of democracy right. Almost everything you built on them is wrong.

Demos means the people and kratos means power or rule. But democracy is not limited to direct democracy. It also includes representative democracy, where citizens elect officials to govern on their behalf. You just defined one subtype and pretended the others don't exist.

But they do.

Your definition of a republic as government where “authority is held in the law” is invented. Rule of law can exist in republics, democracies, and constitutional monarchies. It is not the definition of a republic.

Likewise, res publica means the public thing, public affair, commonwealth, or state. It does not mean “the law” or “a shared code that applies to all citizens.” You added that yourself.

Madison defined a republic as a government deriving its powers “directly or indirectly from the great body of the people.” The Supreme Court likewise described republican government as the people choosing officials who exercise power through representative bodies. Those descriptions are 100% in line with the definition of democracy. Fortunately, books still exist and we can look this shite up.

“Republic” and “democracy” are not opposites. The United States is both a constitutional republic and a representative democracy. The founders used that definition to describe the system they built.

So your argument rests on a fabricated Latin translation, an incorrect definition of republic, and a refusal to recognize representative democracy as democracy.

Again, no one has to take my word for it. Read Madison, Hamilton, and Jefferson directly, then compare their words with the Constitution and the historical record.

quote:

---

It would reduce the relative influence of less-populous states, potentially causing candidates to focus almost exclusively on large urban population centers.

---

So mitigating the "tyranny of the majority" that the Founders sought to avoid is a con in your low-IQ world?

quote:

---

Eliminating the Electoral College would make the U.S. president elected solely by the national popular vote rather than by a majority of state-based electors.

Pro: It would guarantee that the candidate who receives the most individual votes nationwide becomes president, more closely reflecting the direct preference of the overall electorate.

Con: It would reduce the relative influence of less-populous states, potentially causing candidates to focus almost exclusively on large urban population centers.

---

there are no pros

in fact we should expand the EC to make it where it is on the County/Parish level and you get percentage of a EC vote. Because even on the state level, 1 city can cancel the whole rest of the state out....see new york and cali.

quote:

---

Eliminating the Electoral College would make the U.S. president elected solely by the national popular vote rather than by a majority of state-based electors.

---

By the states of California, New York and city of Chicago.