I just don't understand why it should be so hard.

Should people be responsible...sure...but the world still turns just as hard on Election Day.

Now let's throw in a civic duty that is out of the way and will take a disproportionate amount of time and when it comes down to it if your state is red or blue and you're the opposite your vote doesn't matter.

 

It's pretty easy to understand the apathy in +50% of the electorate.

 

Do we want people to participate or not?

 

Participate yes, but what is wrong with people making an effort? I have maybe heard one person say they did not have time to vote. Maybe voting should be a little difficult, so only those who are committed and know how their vote will affect the nation. Too many have little knowledge of the issues other than someone telling them which candidate will give them more than the other. See my previous post of how easy it is to vote.

I just don't understand why it should be so hard.

Should people be responsible...sure...but the world still turns just as hard on Election Day.

Now let's throw in a civic duty that is out of the way and will take a disproportionate amount of time and when it comes down to it if your state is red or blue and you're the opposite your vote doesn't matter.

 

It's pretty easy to understand the apathy in +50% of the electorate.

 

Do we want people to participate or not?

 

I perceive this as a vote for a monarchy/dictatorship-type situation.

I never made that statement. No vote ever cast was as important as the service that our military has given to this country.

 

Let's stay focused and away from the hyperbole. Voting is not a pledge to those who contributed to this great nation. It is each citizen's ( dead or alive :lol2:) right to voice opinion on the direction of the country.

 

I still say stand in line 1-4 hours and see how many times you vote. I wouldn't once, and I ain't ashamed to admit that. That has nothing to do with patriotism and more to do with I have responsibilities in my life, and I can't sacrifice that time.

 

WOW and WOW......for 1 day every four years, you're too busy and have too many responsibilities in your life to vote.

WOW and WOW......for 1 day every four years, you're too busy and have too many responsibilities in your life to vote.

 

Sometimes that first Tuesday in November just sneaks up on you.

I just don't understand why it should be so hard.

Should people be responsible...sure...but the world still turns just as hard on Election Day.

Now let's throw in a civic duty that is out of the way and will take a disproportionate amount of time and when it comes down to it if your state is red or blue and you're the opposite your vote doesn't matter.

 

It's pretty easy to understand the apathy in +50% of the electorate.

 

Do we want people to participate or not?

That sounded a bit whiny. :cry:

 

Hahahaha. Ain't nothin wrong maaaannnn.

I know @Habib has been the strongest voice for abolishing the electoral college and I have consistently defended it. Many of you were not as vocal as you are in this thread prior to the election when this has been discussed. I will give Habib credit he has been consistent. I just completley disagree with the logic or the concept of abolishing the electoral college.

 

I take a break for a couple months and we are back to where we started.

 

We are the United States of America , a Democratic Republic and not a democracy. Every elected federal position is decided by the states and not a nationwide popular vote. We are a nation of states and the electoral college makes sure one region or one group of people can not have a dominate influence on the outcome.

 

Under the electoral college you cannot win by extending margins in select areas. It requires a plurality of support across states. A system set in place like all our systems to not allow mob rule or to much power in one region.

 

Sure you can pull quotes of select founding fathers and try and prove bad intentions. The fact is our system of government has been a beacon of freedom and consistent it how it provides its outcome.

I know @Habib has been the strongest voice for abolishing the electoral college and I have consistently defended it. Many of you were not as vocal as you are in this thread prior to the election when this has been discussed. I will give Habib credit he has been consistent. I just completley disagree with the logic or the concept of abolishing the electoral college.

 

I take a break for a couple months and we are back to where we started.

 

We are the United States of America , a Democratic Republic and not a democracy. Every elected federal position is decided by the states and not a nationwide popular vote. We are a nation of states and the electoral college makes sure one region or one group of people can not have a dominate influence on the outcome.

 

Under the electoral college you cannot win by extending margins in select areas. It requires a plurality of support across states. A system set in place like all our systems to not allow mob rule or to much power in one region.

 

Sure you can pull quotes of select founding fathers and try and prove bad intentions. The fact is our system of government has been a beacon of freedom and consistent it how it provides its outcome.

 

Well said!

Sure you can pull quotes of select founding fathers and try and prove bad intentions. The fact is our system of government has been a beacon of freedom and consistent it how it provides its outcome.

 

I appreciate your acknowledgement that this isn't a newfound issue for me. :lol2: Welcome back.

 

But, you know I can't help but continue to disagree. When so many people mistakenly claim it was meant to dilute the influence of cities (which makes little sense because the system is weighted based on population) or otherwise had some grand intentionality behind it, then we ought to look at what people like Madison had to say.

 

And Madison thought it was a flaw in the constitution, something cobbled together in the last days of the convention as a way to mollify the Southern states over their representation (slaves couldn't vote, but they counted as 3/5s of a person for measuring population, so a population-based system gave the Southerners more clout). This is not in dispute.

 

Not only that, but the whole thing worked differently then too. As originally devised, the public wouldn't vote at all. Electors would be appointed by state legislatures or governors to go and vote on their own. If there was an intentionality to it, it was to have the elites of society decide the presidency instead of the common folks. This is why Jefferson thought it was so repugnant. As he said "The contrivance in the Constitution for marking the votes works badly, because it does not enounce precisely the true expression of the public will.” I will continue to quote him because I can't say it better.

 

Many people express affection for this system or cite what it was "intended" to do, and they are mistaken about it.

 

A final thought before I go. Madison wrote a considerable amount on his fears of "mob rule" (he was clearly influenced by Plato and Aristotle) and the need for a republic instead of a "pure democracy." He explains the issue at length in Federalist 10. The distinction between the two is that in a republic the citizens elect representatives to govern on their behalf and in a direct democracy the citizens govern as a collective body (which could only really work in a small city). So, the Electoral College plays no role in distinguishing the country from a "pure democracy" or a republic. We still elect our representatives with or without this "contrivance." And to reiterate, the "Founder" who was most philosophical about the issue of democracy thought the EC was "faulty."

I appreciate your acknowledgement that this isn't a newfound issue for me. :lol2: Welcome back.

 

But, you know I can't help but continue to disagree. When so many people mistakenly claim it was meant to dilute the influence of cities (which makes little sense because the system is weighted based on population) or otherwise had some grand intentionality behind it, then we ought to look at what people like Madison had to say.

 

And Madison thought it was a flaw in the constitution, something cobbled together in the last days of the convention as a way to mollify the Southern states over their representation (slaves couldn't vote, but they counted as 3/5s of a person for measuring population, so a population-based system gave the Southerners more clout). This is not in dispute.

 

Not only that, but the whole thing worked differently then too. As originally devised, the public wouldn't vote at all. Electors would be appointed by state legislatures or governors to go and vote on their own. If there was an intentionality to it, it was to have the elites of society decide the presidency instead of the common folks. This is why Jefferson thought it was so repugnant. As he said "The contrivance in the Constitution for marking the votes works badly, because it does not enounce precisely the true expression of the public will.” I will continue to quote him because I can't say it better.

 

Many people express affection for this system or cite what it was "intended" to do, and they are mistaken about it.

 

A final thought before I go. Madison wrote a considerable amount on his fears of "mob rule" (he was clearly influenced by Plato and Aristotle) and the need for a republic instead of a "pure democracy." He explains the issue at length in Federalist 10. The distinction between the two is that in a republic the citizens elect representatives to govern on their behalf and in a direct democracy the citizens govern as a collective body (which could only really work in a small city). So, the Electoral College plays no role in distinguishing the country from a "pure democracy" or a republic. We still elect our representatives with or without this "contrivance." And to reiterate, the "Founder" who was most philosophical about the issue of democracy thought the EC was "faulty."

 

While I respect the use of quotes of our founding father we will just continue to disagree. There is a reason the system has worked and been the best example of freedom in the worlds history. We have checks and balances across all spectrums. We are a nation of states this is indisputable and like both houses the executive branch has always been decided by state votes.

 

We will never agree on this topic and the electoral college will never change in any of our lifetimes if ever.

 

It allows for a decisive winner . It is much easier to get a majority of electoral college than it is the popular vote. There have been more examples of candidates not being able to reach a 50% popular vote than there has been of election where a candidate won the electoral college and lost the popular vote. So does that mean you are in favor of run-off elections ?

 

We both know where we stand and we both know it isn't changing.

So does that mean you are in favor of run-off elections ?

 

Yes, I would much prefer that.

 

Frankly, I thought the only advantage of the Electoral College over a run-off election was that it seemed countries with run-offs saw populist demagogues, like Marine Le Pen, have more success. But with the election of our very own version, the EC has failed us there too.

 

A final thought before I go. Madison wrote a considerable amount on his fears of "mob rule" (he was clearly influenced by Plato and Aristotle) and the need for a republic instead of a "pure democracy." He explains the issue at length in Federalist 10. The distinction between the two is that in a republic the citizens elect representatives to govern on their behalf and in a direct democracy the citizens govern as a collective body (which could only really work in a small city). So, the Electoral College plays no role in distinguishing the country from a "pure democracy" or a republic. We still elect our representatives with or without this "contrivance." And to reiterate, the "Founder" who was most philosophical about the issue of democracy thought the EC was "faulty."

 

On this point specifically obviously the electoral college itself isn't the distinction of a republic. But it needs to be noted we are not a democracy to those who repeat that notion in this thread and the ones that preceded it.

 

But not only are we a Democratic Republic but we are also a nation of states. The electoral college comes into play when we realize this very notion of what a state is and why our system is so unique. We allow each state individually decide how they want to cast their vote for President. We allow different ideas and value systems to get a voice. I know many have lost respect for state rights in the modern era and truly forget the importance of why this system of states has been the backbone of the strength of this country. But if we continue to dilute the power of states why even have them?

 

Is the electoral college faulty ? Sure I don't believe anything is perfect. But I do believe it is the best system any country has used to date . I believe it is far less faulty than a pure popular vote across state lines in a country so large and so vest. With different political identities , philosphies and values spread out in different pockets. I repeat the electoral college requires a candidate to win over different ideologies and values across a plurality of states. It doesn't allow a candidate to increase Margins in specific populations and regions , it requires you to appeal to a much larger spectrum.

 

This isn't directed toward you but another talking point that bugs me is the "My vote didn'te count" mindset. It's complete hogwash. Everyones vote counts toward the race on how your state will decide to cast your state votes for the President. Just because the candidate you voted for lost your state doesn't mean your vote didn't count. It means your candidate didn't when your state.

 

We are the United States of America and to be President you should have to win a Pluarilty of states not cities.

On this point specifically obviously the electoral college itself isn't the distinction of a republic. But it needs to be noted we are not a democracy to those who repeat that notion in this thread and the ones that preceded it.

 

But not only are we a Democratic Republic but we are also a nation of states. The electoral college comes into play when we realize this very notion of what a state is and why our system is so unique. We allow each state individually decide how they want to cast their vote for President. We allow different ideas and value systems to get a voice. I know many have lost respect for state rights in the modern era and truly forget the importance of why this system of states has been the backbone of the strength of this country. But if we continue to dilute the power of states why even have them?

 

Is the electoral college faulty ? Sure I don't believe anything is perfect. But I do believe it is the best system any country has used to date . I believe it is far less faulty than a pure popular vote across state lines in a country so large and so vest. With different political identities , philosphies and values spread out in different pockets. I repeat the electoral college requires a candidate to win over different ideologies and values across a plurality of states. It doesn't allow a candidate to increase Margins in specific populations and regions , it requires you to appeal to a much larger spectrum.

 

This isn't directed toward you but another talking point that bugs me is the "My vote didn'te count" mindset. It's complete hogwash. Everyones vote counts toward the race on how your state will decide to cast your state votes for the President. Just because the candidate you voted for lost your state doesn't mean your vote didn't count. It means your candidate didn't when your state.

 

We are the United States of America and to be President you should have to win a Pluarilty of states not cities.

 

Absolutely the EC is about states rights not cities inhabited by 8 million people. They can carry their state but not the nation.

WOW and WOW......for 1 day every four years, you're too busy and have too many responsibilities in your life to vote.

 

To stand in line for an hour or four. Yup. Especially in a deep red state where my vote means nothing. I wonder how many Californians said the same.

 

That sounded a bit whiny. :cry:

 

:lol2:

Squeaky wheel gets the grease.

 

I'd like to see more of this nation participate. About 24% of eligible voters elected Donald Trump. An even smaller number of Republicans nominated him.

 

It goes the other way too if HRC would have won. About 25% of eligible voters voted for her with a smaller percentage of democrats nominating her.

To stand in line for an hour or four. Yup. Especially in a deep red state where my vote means nothing. I wonder how many Californians said the same.

 

 

 

:lol2:

Squeaky wheel gets the grease.

 

I'd like to see more of this nation participate. About 24% of eligible voters elected Donald Trump. An even smaller number of Republicans nominated him.

 

It goes the other way too if HRC would have won. About 25% of eligible voters voted for her with a smaller percentage of democrats nominating her.

The phantom complications of voting is not the reason for poor turnout.