Political Humor

Inspector_50

Active member
Joined
Oct 30, 2020
Messages
877
Reaction score
94
Points
28
Location
California
Do you not understand how the Electoral Works and why it was devised?
Yes, but if they didn't do Electoral. Republicans would never win, you might want to hold on to that one. I am sure the left would be very happy to do away with electoral.
 

johnlocke

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
9,905
Reaction score
1,971
Points
113
Age
48
Location
Salisbury, NH
Yes, but if they didn't do Electoral. Republicans would never win, you might want to hold on to that one. I am sure the left would be very happy to do away with electoral.

It was devised before there were any Republicans or Democrats and the reason it was created was to give a fair shake to the whole of the country not just the most populace centers. Hence, not majority rule. It was brilliant thinking.
 

Inspector_50

Active member
Joined
Oct 30, 2020
Messages
877
Reaction score
94
Points
28
Location
California
It was devised before there were any Republicans or Democrats and the reason it was created was to give a fair shake to the whole of the country not just the most populace centers. Hence, not majority rule. It was brilliant thinking.
Right, so I'm confused, are you for or against it? I mean its still majority rule, is it not?
 

Beaglebay

Houndsight is 20/20
Joined
Dec 16, 2010
Messages
26,295
Reaction score
9,614
Points
113
Location
Eastham, MA
Website
www.tanjantstudios.com

Inspector_50

Active member
Joined
Oct 30, 2020
Messages
877
Reaction score
94
Points
28
Location
California
I'm completely for it and it is in no way majority rule. It is not a democratic process. That's the point of it.
I got ya. Ok, so him saying the election is illegitimate makes no sense. Also, its funny that all other elections are popular vote, Senate, Hell even mayor. I am not sure I agree with it, but then again, it used to work better than it does now. Going back through elections, it was pretty uncommon that you lose the popular vote and win the election. Trying to say its about people's voices being heard seems a little odd if 2 mil more people vote for someone who loses.
 

johnlocke

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
9,905
Reaction score
1,971
Points
113
Age
48
Location
Salisbury, NH
I got ya. Ok, so him saying the election is illegitimate makes no sense. Also, its funny that all other elections are popular vote, Senate, Hell even mayor. I am not sure I agree with it, but then again, it used to work better than it does now. Going back through elections, it was pretty uncommon that you lose the popular vote and win the election. Trying to say its about people's voices being heard seems a little odd if 2 mil more people vote for someone who loses.

Not odd at all man. It was built by brilianitant design the kikes of which I don't think I would have even thought about but those were different times with people with enlightenment era educations. Like learning John Locke. :)

I can breakdown the EC for you and its purpose and means if you'd like.
 

foobahl

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 6, 2007
Messages
3,153
Reaction score
569
Points
113
Location
the only Henniker on earth
I got ya. Ok, so him saying the election is illegitimate makes no sense. Also, its funny that all other elections are popular vote, Senate, Hell even mayor. I am not sure I agree with it, but then again, it used to work better than it does now. Going back through elections, it was pretty uncommon that you lose the popular vote and win the election. Trying to say its about people's voices being heard seems a little odd if 2 mil more people vote for someone who loses.
If you look at the Senate and House they are not elected by national popular vote (what sense would that make anyway). When you see it that way each state is represented by what that state votes which would fall in line with the electoral college. If we are just going to do a national popular vote, why do we need the House and Senate anyway. Just vote for national Senate and House leaders and let them decide with the president. We pretty much do that now, with the exception of the freedom caucus. Every represntative for the most part just votes party lines. A perfect example is the Georgia runoff. The democrats are trying to get people to move to Georgia just to vote for the democratic senator candidates. Not one person since the election has spoken about one issue except keeping/turning the majority in the senate. For republicans it is late in the 3rd quarter, losing 3-28:).
 

Inspector_50

Active member
Joined
Oct 30, 2020
Messages
877
Reaction score
94
Points
28
Location
California
Not odd at all man. It was built by brilianitant design the kikes of which I don't think I would have even thought about but those were different times with people with enlightenment era educations. Like learning John Locke. :)

I can breakdown the EC for you and its purpose and means if you'd like.
Yeah, it was weird going through the years and looking at how results took place. I really believe presidential races used to be more about what people liked in the policies of each person, more than extreme right and left wing propaganda. You would literally see state shifts almost every election. Way more moderates. It seems anymore that each side wants to put the most extreme of each side up for president thus getting the the notion of "I cannot vote for that side because it is way
too extreme from what I believe" kinds of votes. It would be nice to actually choose based on hey this person has a better plan, I think I will vote for them, than what it is now, where you basically vote for a president because the other one is so far out from what you believe. For once I would like to have a president that had a bit of both. You can never be all for one side or the other, yet that is what we seem to get.
 

Inspector_50

Active member
Joined
Oct 30, 2020
Messages
877
Reaction score
94
Points
28
Location
California
If you look at the Senate and House they are not elected by national popular vote (what sense would that make anyway). When you see it that way each state is represented by what that state votes which would fall in line with the electoral college. If we are just going to do a national popular vote, why do we need the House and Senate anyway. Just vote for national Senate and House leaders and let them decide with the president. We pretty much do that now, with the exception of the freedom caucus. Every represntative for the most part just votes party lines. A perfect example is the Georgia runoff. The democrats are trying to get people to move to Georgia just to vote for the democratic senator candidates. Not one person since the election has spoken about one issue except keeping/turning the majority in the senate. For republicans it is late in the 3rd quarter, losing 3-28:).
Great post. I think both sides tend to want what will give them the best chance, so lately you end up with the left wanting the popular vote and the right wanting to keep it like it is. Like I said before, the way it is right now, without electoral a Republican would have a tough time winning an election. Not even because they are not the best president, but because its too divided with extremes, where some states could never vote the other way because its too opposite of what they believe.
 

O_P_T

Why Be Normal
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Messages
21,755
Reaction score
2,532
Points
113
Age
61
Location
Windsor, CT
If you look at the Senate and House they are not elected by national popular vote (what sense would that make anyway). When you see it that way each state is represented by what that state votes which would fall in line with the electoral college. If we are just going to do a national popular vote, why do we need the House and Senate anyway. Just vote for national Senate and House leaders and let them decide with the president. We pretty much do that now, with the exception of the freedom caucus. Every represntative for the most part just votes party lines. A perfect example is the Georgia runoff. The democrats are trying to get people to move to Georgia just to vote for the democratic senator candidates. Not one person since the election has spoken about one issue except keeping/turning the majority in the senate. For republicans it is late in the 3rd quarter, losing 3-28:).

And that's JL's whole point.

The US is not a Democracy.

A "pure" democracy wouldn't have a legislature at all. Any bill would be a national referendum that all eligible voters would vote on.

We don't have that. The eligible voters elect representatives to go to Congress to vote on these bills on their behalf.

Hence we have a representative Republic.

The idea was that these representatives wouldn't necessarily vote for their own naked self interests, as would likely happen with a "pure" democracy, but try and find the common good.

This is why the House has two year terms and the Senate six. The former are intended to be more responsive to the desires of their constituents, and the latter more distant and thus more likely to take a longer term view of things and vote for the hard choices that are bad in the short term, but best in the long term.

Now to be clear, this was the vision of the founders, I'm not going to debate how this has changed, in practice, as the Republic has aged.

Now that's the legislative part of the Federal government.

The Executive is also representative, in the sense that the Electoral College is who choses the President, not the popular vote. Similar idea to the representative legislature.

The total members of the Electoral College is equal to the total members of Congress: House and Senate. They are assigned to each State, based on how many seats they have in Congress.

The Constitution leaves it up to the States to determine how they allocate their Electors.

There's nothing to prevent any given State from saying their Electors would be awarded to the winner of the national popular vote.

Various States have enacted legislation to that effect, with one caveat. It would only o into effect once some number of other States voted similarly.

Now why is it you suppose, that these States had that caveat?

The answer is obvious.

If any given State says their votes go to the national popular vote winner, what leverage do they have in the Presidential election?

Any given candidate could ignore them and focus on winning the popular vote in other States.

In other words, they would loose "representation" in the Presidential election.

No longer would any given candidate have to be concerned with issues that applied to that State, if they didn't not also apply to other States with a large population.

That's why the Electoral College is a good thing.
 

johnlocke

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
9,905
Reaction score
1,971
Points
113
Age
48
Location
Salisbury, NH
And that's JL's whole point.

The US is not a Democracy.

A "pure" democracy wouldn't have a legislature at all. Any bill would be a national referendum that all eligible voters would vote on.

We don't have that. The eligible voters elect representatives to go to Congress to vote on these bills on their behalf.

Hence we have a representative Republic.

The idea was that these representatives wouldn't necessarily vote for their own naked self interests, as would likely happen with a "pure" democracy, but try and find the common good.

This is why the House has two year terms and the Senate six. The former are intended to be more responsive to the desires of their constituents, and the latter more distant and thus more likely to take a longer term view of things and vote for the hard choices that are bad in the short term, but best in the long term.

Now to be clear, this was the vision of the founders, I'm not going to debate how this has changed, in practice, as the Republic has aged.

Now that's the legislative part of the Federal government.

The Executive is also representative, in the sense that the Electoral College is who choses the President, not the popular vote. Similar idea to the representative legislature.

The total members of the Electoral College is equal to the total members of Congress: House and Senate. They are assigned to each State, based on how many seats they have in Congress.

The Constitution leaves it up to the States to determine how they allocate their Electors.

There's nothing to prevent any given State from saying their Electors would be awarded to the winner of the national popular vote.

Various States have enacted legislation to that effect, with one caveat. It would only o into effect once some number of other States voted similarly.

Now why is it you suppose, that these States had that caveat?

The answer is obvious.

If any given State says their votes go to the national popular vote winner, what leverage do they have in the Presidential election?

Any given candidate could ignore them and focus on winning the popular vote in other States.

In other words, they would loose "representation" in the Presidential election.

No longer would any given candidate have to be concerned with issues that applied to that State, if they didn't not also apply to other States with a large population.

That's why the Electoral College is a good thing.

Brilliant post, man.
 

foobahl

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 6, 2007
Messages
3,153
Reaction score
569
Points
113
Location
the only Henniker on earth

Inspector_50

Active member
Joined
Oct 30, 2020
Messages
877
Reaction score
94
Points
28
Location
California
That didnt take long internet
 

Attachments

  • 125813400_10224382203201449_4813077867921682951_n.jpg
    125813400_10224382203201449_4813077867921682951_n.jpg
    57.3 KB · Views: 4
Top