over throwing the constitutional electoral college

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

Donnyboy

Lettin' the high times carry the low....
A/V Subscriber
Oct 31, 2005
21,787
21,168
1,743
All of them could vote and it still wouldn't matter. But all you're doing is pointing out the problems with voting and elections in the first place. There are winners and losers. Sucks to be a loser, right Hillary? But the electoral college ensures that rural areas and less populated states (like Oklahoma) still have a say in electing the president.

The assumptions of those wanting to change the system are: 1) that their candidate would have won, and 2) that the changes would always favor them. Neither are necessarily true. Trump certainly would have run a different campaign if popular vote and not electoral votes would have been the objective. I don't know if HRC would have or not, it is very difficult for me to see her overcoming her basic misanthropy. What if the system is changed and then in 2020 Trump wins the popular vote and HRC or whoever would have won the electoral vote? Think it can't happen? I thought Trump would never win the primaries, and then thought he would lose in the general election, didn't you?

Why would any state agree to basically turning over the presidential election to New York and California? Why the freak would Oklahomans agree to that?

We jack around with the system at our own peril.
You are saying all the conservatives could vote and it wouldn’t matter because of the current system. One man one vote doesn’t care where you live. And I’m not wanting to change the system to help any candidate past or present I want to change it because it is terribly flawed and contributes to our current sad state of affairs
 

Donnyboy

Lettin' the high times carry the low....
A/V Subscriber
Oct 31, 2005
21,787
21,168
1,743
Your graph shows a dramatic change in people’s ability to go and vote. Less than 5% change from 1932 to 2012 go 80 years the other way it’s great than 20%. And it’s far easier now than in 1932. Think of how many families didn’t have an automobile yet......now how many single vehicle families do you know.....early voting.....etc.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
15,559
23,370
1,743
Tulsa, OK
So a better reflection of the populous..... how many more conservatives in New York and California would vote if they thought it mattered. You also realize in all these states that are going to be victimized the urban center of those states decides the election. Take a state like GA.....the Atlanta metro is 5.8 of GA 10 million. More than half of OKs pop is in Oklahoma and Tulsa counties.

A third of the country voted in the last election.... in the most divisive election in the majority of voters lives about half of those who could actually vote did and the majority of those people’s votes went to the loser. That is a broken system. Put your politics aside and look at that in a vacuum. And we haven’t even brought up that the electors don’t have to vote what the numbers say and have actually voted contrary to pledge.

All those in favor here are Trump and Bush votes. I was Bush vote and would be again after the fact. I didn’t vote in the last election because they are both horrible and I live in Texas so it doesn’t matter. I’m certain that if Gore or Clinton would have had the electoral college and Bush or Trump had the actual votes those singing the praises of this archaic system would be singing a different tune.
I'd like to think that I'd still be against changing the system even if the 2000 and 2016 elections had been exactly opposite of what happened. Oh I realize that in such a case, there would be plenty of sheep on the right who would be wanting to change the system and plenty of sheep on the left defending it.....many of the same who are arguing the exact opposite right now...possibly even you and I arguing the exact opposite.

When the argument to change or keep something seems to be mostly driven by political bias, I say it's best to leave it as the framers intended. We've surrendered far too much of the so called "archaic" system that they set up and most of time, it has been to our detriment.
 

naffigator

I am SuperKing!
A/V Subscriber
Apr 2, 2008
16,016
13,672
1,743
In a burnin' ring of fire.
The original post and the issue at hand is not whether the EC needs to be kept or scrapped but whether the states that are requiring their electors to vote with the popular vote are violating the Constitution or at the least violating the rights of the electors themselves?
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
24,699
31,025
1,743
oklahoma city
Every rule and regulation imposed on businesses and individuals is a loss of your freedom.
Like requiring a pregnant woman to view an ultrasound?
Like preventing a person from smoking a plant?
Like stopping a person from drinking an alcoholic drink on Sunday?

If "freedom" is defined that broadly then the choice is not between removing freedoms and not removing freedoms. The choice is simply between which freedoms you think are better for the government to remove.
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
51,758
17,959
1,743
Perhaps we should also change a rule in basketball allowing a 7 foot center to park under the basket and block shots by going up and through the rim of the basket.
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
51,758
17,959
1,743
Your graph shows a dramatic change in people’s ability to go and vote. Less than 5% change from 1932 to 2012 go 80 years the other way it’s great than 20%. And it’s far easier now than in 1932. Think of how many families didn’t have an automobile yet......now how many single vehicle families do you know.....early voting.....etc.
True, but in rural Oklahoma for example there was a farm family on every 160 acres and communtiy voting locations which no longer exist. Just as there were more schools closer to where people lived.
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
51,758
17,959
1,743
Like requiring a pregnant woman to view an ultrasound?
Like preventing a person from smoking a plant?
Like stopping a person from drinking an alcoholic drink on Sunday?

If "freedom" is defined that broadly then the choice is not between removing freedoms and not removing freedoms. The choice is simply between which freedoms you think are better for the government to remove.
Are you assuming I agree with those rules?

I've never said we should do away with all rules just as I've never said we need a lot more rules. There is a fine balance of going to far either direction. Just as there is a balance of rules when it comes to raising children.
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
51,758
17,959
1,743
Your graph shows a dramatic change in people’s ability to go and vote. Less than 5% change from 1932 to 2012 go 80 years the other way it’s great than 20%. And it’s far easier now than in 1932. Think of how many families didn’t have an automobile yet......now how many single vehicle families do you know.....early voting.....etc.
The differences are actually more about who was allowed to vote than their ability to get theirselves to a voting booth.
 

Donnyboy

Lettin' the high times carry the low....
A/V Subscriber
Oct 31, 2005
21,787
21,168
1,743
True, but in rural Oklahoma for example there was a farm family on every 160 acres and communtiy voting locations which no longer exist. Just as there were more schools closer to where people lived.
It’s infinitely easier to get places now. People are more mobile and connected now than ever. My paw paw was born in 25 in rural Oklahoma....his first trip to town was in a wagon at 12 years old. So the essentially the same percentage of people are voting now as then when voting was much more difficult to accomplish. It tripled as people become mobile and then goes stagnant for 80 years. The polling places you referenced don’t exist cause there aren’t people there anymore and the few that remain could vote 80 miles from home easier than hooking up and wagon and going a few miles.

And yes adding a gender changed things
 
Last edited:

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
24,699
31,025
1,743
oklahoma city
Are you assuming I agree with those rules?

I've never said we should do away with all rules just as I've never said we need a lot more rules. There is a fine balance of going to far either direction. Just as there is a balance of rules when it comes to raising children.
No, doesn't really matter what you think of those rules personally.

The point remains that your claim of "all the freedoms we would have lost" is countered by all the freedoms that we did lose (or not gain back) based on what the side that was elected did. Neither side is really a voice of freedom, one does pretend that they are at times.

Claiming a correct balance of loss of freedoms being appropriate is completely different than your original post which implied that we did not lose freedoms because of the election results. We did lose them, just different ones.
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
51,758
17,959
1,743
No, doesn't really matter what you think of those rules personally.

The point remains that your claim of "all the freedoms we would have lost" is countered by all the freedoms that we did lose (or not gain back) based on what the side that was elected did. Neither side is really a voice of freedom, one does pretend that they are at times.

Claiming a correct balance of loss of freedoms being appropriate is completely different than your original post which implied that we did not lose freedoms because of the election results. We did lose them, just different ones.
Which freedoms did we lose after the last election?
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
14,413
2,200
1,743
So Cal
It’s infinitely easier to get places now. People are more mobile and connected now than ever. My paw paw was born in 25 in rural Oklahoma....his first trip to town was in a wagon at 12 years old. So the essentially the same percentage of people are voting now as then when voting was much more difficult to accomplish. It tripled as people become mobile and then goes stagnant for 80 years. The polling places you referenced don’t exist cause there aren’t people there anymore and the few that remain could vote 80 miles from home easier than hooking up and wagon and going a few miles.
voting went up when women were allowed to vote. (and others). Voting has gone up fairly steadily except a few times when who was allowed to vote changed.

We have absentee voting now, so none of those arguments really matter - it's still not changing much, and it has nothing to do with your position that we should dump the Republic and become a Failed Democracy.

It has never been one man, one vote, and never will be - we are a REPUBLIC. What "the people" think only matters IN THEIR STATE - we are a REPUBLIC.

Until and unless the organization of our nation is changed, and separation of powers is eliminated - we should not have popular vote for President.

Popular vote is not conducive or supportive of State sovereignty, and was intentionally removed from our form of government. NOTHING HAS CHANGED since our founding, to now change our goverment from a Republic to a Democracy.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
24,699
31,025
1,743
oklahoma city
Free trade is not a freedom granted to us as individuals - trade has always been the jurisdiction of the Federal Government, I believe.
Individuals are not allowed to trade? Lots of things are the jurisdiction of the Federal government. When the federal government restricts them it is still taking away a freedom.