Popular vote. One person one vote. It isn't hard, people. The electoral college is an answer to a problem that no longer exists
"But I want them city people to only count as 3/5 of a person"
Problem never existed in the first place. Remember that the US was the first modern democracy, and it had to figure a bunch of stuff out. Its critics were mostly people who supported landed gentry to some degree or another. Some of them were leaning into more liberal ideas than others, but they thought full democracy was too far. Their argument was that letting the rabble vote for their government representatives would lead to a bunch of clowns in charge who could stir up popular support, but have no idea how to govern.
Which is why you get this in the Federalist Paper number 68:
The process of election affords a moral certainty, 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. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue.
Which sure sounds like it could be talking about keeping Trump out. Wind back the clock to late 2016; if Originalists need an Originalist reason for having the electoral college break for Hillary over the rules as written, here it is.
And it's not just 2016. The electoral college has split with the popular vote four times:
- Donald Trump in 2016
- George W. Bush in 2000
- Benjamin Harrison in 1888
- Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876
Bush and Trump are easily the best arguments against it; their Administrations were disastrous. Hell, the GOP doesn't even want to claim Bush for themselves anymore, pretending that it was all Hillary's fault. Plenty of the GOP also knows exactly how terrible Trump is, but are too cowardly to do anything about it. Don't want to end up like Liz Cheney.
Harrison and Hayes are more debatable, but Hayes, in particular, was the first one to order federal troops to break up a union strike. So that's nice.
We're working with limited datapoints, here, but we have four splits in the decision over the course of 235 years since the modern US Constitution was in place. At least two of them seem to be exactly the people the electoral college should have stopped. These splits don't happen often, and it's far from guaranteed that it does any good when they do.
It's a problem for a current answer for sure
Alright, well, I'm probably going to show my midwest US public school slacker ignorance here, but it was my understanding that the electoral college was implemented because the country was already large and communication was by horse or rail. Hypothetically if one of the candidates murdered someone right before the election people far away might not hear about it for months, so a delegate was granted the power to say "You know what? In light of recent events, I feel confident that most people in my state would prefer the other guy"
Conservatism is the party of cowardice and hypocrisy. So expect nothing less from any of them.
This is great. The other day some magat kept trying to tell me that Trump and all Republican leaders engineering a way to stop a valid election had an equivalent for Democrats because some nobody professor in Pennsylvania said that Hillary appeared to have been cheated out of her win in 2016
And that nobody professor probably has more evidence. If nothing else, the electoral college split from the popular vote.
Hah, true enough. If he spent 4 minutes digging into what happened that's more than the entire republican Senate and Congress combined
Thanks. You taught me something. Unrelated: how do block quotations work?
Is it just markdown?
It is just markdown. Thank you all for your patience.
The dems are not left wing, not even a little bit.
It's the best we've got. I mean, what, do you want us to refer to them as the mild right and the super right?
Edit: meant to ask this to the person that responded to you, but it works here as well I suppose.
Yeah saying "the left" in regard to Democrats is the cringiest shit. "Left" would be people like Bernie Sanders or AOC (even though most "leftist" US politicians like them aren't actually left on the world stage, in most of the developed world they'd just be center or center-right)
I was once asked to point out a moderate republican so they could vote for them, as if Biden wasn’t already on the ballot
Left vs Right is always a relative term... Etymologically it refers to the physical left-right split of parliamentary seats an hemicycle, from progressive to conservative in most (all?) of Western parliamentary tradition.
If members of a group/party always sit on the left side of the hemicycle, that party is, by definition, left wing. Sure, the same party in Belgium might sit on the other side, but that's hardly relevant in a local context, because that party doesn't vote in Belgian elections now does it? (And thank god for that, we've got our own insanity to deal with).
Now of course this linear classification has very obvious limitations and cannot possibly describe the entire nuance of each party (or even person)'s politics. But saying "literally everybody except maybe ten people I agree with are on on the other side of the center" robs the left/right distinction of all meaning it still holds. Placing the center "just right of my personal politics" will not make the conservatives magically go away, it just makes political analysis less meaningful because everybody's got their own idea of the center now rather than using the median congressperson as a handy reference point.
Don't both sides do this 😂
oh boo fucking hoo. keep pointing fingers at the 'other guy'. neither side takes responsibility for the shit shows they produce. stop voting for the big two.
Everything Democrats accuse Republicans of is true.
Everything Republicans accuse Democrats of is true.
Biden is bad.
Trump was bad.
Obama was bad.
Bush was bad.
Clinton was bad.
"At least he did X" is not the right thing to focus on.
"But Y was/would have been worse" is not the right thing to focus on.
This isn't as satirical as it was intended to be... Dems are actually a much more unified and cohesive entity in general, and "republican" is a ridiculously broad term at the moment that basically describes a bag of cats...
You need look no further than the chaotic impasse in the house to see this very clearly. The repubs can't even put up a viable candidate for speaker because their "party" has become a bunch of individual cliques. You got xenophobics, you got "the old school", you got people that want nothing at all except to poke liberals in the eye with a proverbial stick... they aren't really a group, they're several.
Post is ironically paying "the left" a compliment here IMHO.
Damned shame about the stupid ass "first pass/binary/ legacy/gerrymandered (partial list, too long to try and include everything)" system that's allowing all the various factions to pool their votes.
They may hate each other, but they hate everyone else even more, so most of the time they manage to work together as a single group just fine. The substance of their policy disputes amounts to little more than arguing over which out-group they want to focus on fucking over that day.
What's separating those GOP groups right now isn't ideology. They're all basically on the same page when it comes to fixing global warming (don't), fixing health care (don't), funding infrastructure (don't), killing schools (do), making sure "those people" know their place (do), funding the military industrial complex (do), and giving tax credits to rich people (do).
What separates them is how much they're willing to support a single person--Donald Trump--and how much they're willing to work in a bipartisan way. Some of them are willing to go to war with their own party over these.
I might be slow to follow politics. Is "killing schools" about defunding them, or about openly supplying children with guns to literally kill their occupants? Or, does it even matter...
