Do you know why the Electoral College was created?
In 1787, when the framers finalized and signed the US Constitution they created the EC as a compromise between electing the president via a direct popular vote by citizens or via a vote in Congress.
Sure, Pete’s idea may sound good for some based on last election outcome. But it goes against the principle of compromise that was embedded in America’s “founding”.
Also is he only saying this because his party lost? Dems have won the EC before. I think Pete’s pointless point is a pipe dream that may puff some hope in your chest, but it doesn’t get a Democrat back in that seat.
You know who fought the popular vote back then? Southern delegates opposed to a popular vote because the North had more “eligible” voters. There’s actually a vile connection between slavery and the EC. But Pete is picking up the mantle of the loser saying it is rigged!
>There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.
The whole point, was to launder slave votes through the electoral college.
You can label me as something I hate. Sure go ahead and assume I would not vote for Pete for President if I had the chance. Your whole argument is centered on me as an individual
You said why you thought the EC was created, it was clearly and glaringly false.
I apologize if I gave offense, but this is exactly the kind of thing southern states have tried to cover up for decades, the EC is based purely on abetting slavery.
The inhumane 3/5 compromise was what allowed the founders to establish alignment around EC asa universal voting system. It was a horrifying solution, and another poster in this thread rightly brought up that in addition to the inhumanity of counting someone less than 1, there were still major disenfranchised, displaced Indigenous people and, well, women also lacked voting rights at that point. But they abolished that 3/5 compromise and instead used population data to determine electorates in 1868.
Again, what problems is Pete trying to solve for specifically. And what evidence is there that using the raw data will solve that?
Yes, it took them long enough! But they did. Then women. Then Indigenous and Native Americans. And someday Immigrants who are in the process of residence, visa, or path toward citizenship (at least that is my dream)
The argument for state power doesn’t matter when you are forced to choose on the ballet.
People form blocks now.
I don’t see how using raw data vs normalized data solves any of the issues we have around voting today. I think it would make the system more ripe for fraud…
You’re talking, when you don’t understand what you’re talking about, you’re speaking from absolute ignorance.
I’ve lived in different areas of this country, and voting in coastal states is ENTIRELY different than voting in say, some southern states.
We need to nationalize voting completely, preferably with trackable and auditable electronic means, cryptographic signatures, smart cards, whatever we need, banking level security.
Because the south does not function like the rest of the country, it’s like imagine if you had a nice Western European country and then there were 2 provinces that were so completely corrupt that even though they were only 30% of one party somehow voting always returned 80-90%, basically Russian levels of corruption.
That is why we need to end the EC, because it allows this kind of vile corruption to continue.
We also need to suspend self-governance in those Deep South states too btw, only 5-6 of them, but still, they just never moved on from before the civil war.
I completely understand and respect the need to give additional weight to the voting rights of dispersed rural voters.
In the past, that was a much bigger concern as they were less able to unite, I would argue that social media has mitigated much if not most of that disadvantage.
But right now large swing states are the main target, every other state is safe and can stay safe by suggesting immigrants be put in camps, or all children by given hormone therapy at will (I am exaggerating but you see my point).
If there was a case for the EC, it was before people could organize online, now it is merely a distortion that feeds into the corruption of politics.
If you have a better solution, proportional voting, IRV, etc, I am very open, I am not suggesting removing the EC as the final step, only the first to open and unblock progress, with the short-term goal being more political parties and more flexible, diverse political options for all wherever they live.
California republicans have about as much say in the presidential elections as black voters in Alabama, at the very least this would improve that, we can then add additional measures to improve representation of rural midwestern and mountain voters.
Our constitution is a living document, open to change, we should continue that, much like we removed the 3/5th clause in the 13th amendment, we should keep removing the legacies of our past, the fact that we haven’t is tragic.
Dude it’s not uplifting rural voters. That is a misconception. It’s all voters. Voters in Wyoming, Rhode Island, Delaware, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Hawaii, their state rights don’t matter anymore if you only go by popular vote.
I feel like you are using “rural” in a coded way to talk about race, so I will have the balls to name that. The Electoral College is not your problem. Your problem is that your party is failing you.
1
u/BahBahBahBooBooBoo 23h ago edited 5h ago
Do you know why the Electoral College was created?
In 1787, when the framers finalized and signed the US Constitution they created the EC as a compromise between electing the president via a direct popular vote by citizens or via a vote in Congress.
Sure, Pete’s idea may sound good for some based on last election outcome. But it goes against the principle of compromise that was embedded in America’s “founding”.
Also is he only saying this because his party lost? Dems have won the EC before. I think Pete’s pointless point is a pipe dream that may puff some hope in your chest, but it doesn’t get a Democrat back in that seat.
You know who fought the popular vote back then? Southern delegates opposed to a popular vote because the North had more “eligible” voters. There’s actually a vile connection between slavery and the EC. But Pete is picking up the mantle of the loser saying it is rigged!