Is the electoral college a threat to democracy?

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
Staff member
PREMO Member
Well, #1, we're not a democracy - we're a representative republic. What that means is that we don't do the "majority rules" thing hard and fast; all Americans are (supposed to be) represented in our government.

What, in my opinion, is a threat to that representation is the "winner take all" manner in which electoral votes are awarded, and states shouldn't be allowed to do that. (Yes, I am saying that there should be a federal law forcing states to acknowledge their minority population and allow their vote to be counted.)

All this babble about how it's "unfair" that Montana has the same number of Senators as California, even though they have a fraction of the population - that is a failure in our education system, and a failure on the part of our media that so many Americans don't understand the purpose of Senators vs. Representatives. Senators represent the states as a whole; Representatives represent the people in that state. It's really very simple, and brilliant of our Founders to come up with it. United States.

What's unfair is wanting to have two or three states call the shots for the whole 50 Nifty. It's also unfair that a large urban area calls the shots for a whole state, with those in the larger rural areas having no say.

We scowl at an AOC or a Maxine Waters or an Eric Swallwell, but they are an important part of our republic as they represent the people of their district. Yes, even drug gangs and Socialists get a say in their government, and that is how it's supposed to work. How it's NOT supposed to work is having large highly populated states ruling over the smaller less populated ones.

So is the electoral college a "threat to democracy"? Yes. It's supposed to be; it was designed to be a threat to democracy. But is it a true mechanism for our representative republic? No, it's not.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
The 17th amendment removed the Senators as representatives of the states, but overall I agree with all you posted.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
Staff member
PREMO Member
The 17th amendment removed the Senators as representatives of the states
Where?

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
 

Bird Dog

Bird Dog
PREMO Member
no......from Wiki

The tyranny of the majority (or tyranny of the masses) is an inherent weakness of majority rule in which the majority of an electorate can and does place its own interests above, and at the expense of those in the minority. This results in oppression of minority groups comparable to that of a tyrant or despot, argued John Stuart Mill in his 1859 book On Liberty.[1]
American founding father Alexander Hamilton, writing to Thomas Jefferson from the Constitutional Convention, argued the same fears regarding the use of pure direct democracy by the majority to elect a demagogue who, rather than work for the benefit of all citizens, set out to either harm those in the minority or work only for those of the upper echelon or population centers. The Electoral College mechanism present in the indirect United States presidential election system is a safeguard due to concerns of faithless electors, and was deliberately created as a safety measure not only to prevent such a scenario, but also to prevent the use of democracy to overthrow democracy for an authoritarian, dictatorial or other system of oppressive government.[2] As articulated by Hamilton, one reason the Electoral College was created was so "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".[3]
The scenarios in which tyranny perception occurs are very specific, involving a sort of distortion of democracy preconditions:
In both cases, in a context of a nation, constitutional limits on the powers of a legislative body, and the introduction of a Bill of Rights have been used to counter the problem.[6] A separation of powers (for example a legislative and executive majority actions subject to review by the judiciary) may also be implemented to prevent the problem from happening internally in a government.[6]
 

transporter

Active Member
All this babble about how it's "unfair" that Montana has the same number of Senators as California, even though they have a fraction of the population - that is a failure in our education system, and a failure on the part of our media that so many Americans don't understand the purpose of Senators vs. Representatives. Senators represent the states as a whole; Representatives represent the people in that state. It's really very simple, and brilliant of our Founders to come up with it. United States.
Just to point out the stunningly obvious to the massively oblivious pre-programmed Fox bot...

Representatives represent the people of their district....not the entire state.

So you can get down off your high horse dumbass.

OH! And just to point out the further stupidity of your point; here is a list with a map of the campaign stops your beloved hero made after his nomination in 2016: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rallies_for_the_2016_Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign

You will note from the picture, since the text will likely be indecipherable to you, that Trump never once visited Montana...or any of the states that border it. In fact he spent almost all of his time east of the Mississippi. So the argument that candidates will have no incentive to visit small value states in any system other than an electoral college system is...well...it is horsesh!t.

Trump spent no time in the states that you are so vehemently defending. The Electoral College does not, in any way whatsoever, incentivize candidates to visit small states.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
The threat to our country is that if not for the electoral college the Democrats who are in charge of these large cities filled with criminals and gun deaths would be undefeatable.

They know it and that is why they want to do away with it.
 
Reactions: BOP

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Where?

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
By virtue of being directly ELECTED by the people.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Okay, that took me a minute but I get what you're saying. I think.
Yeah, Senators were appointed by state legislatures. Things like “unfounded mandates” essentially never existed because state legislatures would have never approved. The federal government was held in check.

Now it’s not.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Yeah, Senators were appointed by state legislatures. Things like “unfunded mandates” essentially never existed because state legislatures would have never approved. The federal government was held in check.

Now it’s not.
FIFY
 

truby20

Fighting like a girl
Well, #1, we're not a democracy - we're a representative republic. What that means is that we don't do the "majority rules" thing hard and fast; all Americans are (supposed to be) represented in our government.

What, in my opinion, is a threat to that representation is the "winner take all" manner in which electoral votes are awarded, and states shouldn't be allowed to do that. (Yes, I am saying that there should be a federal law forcing states to acknowledge their minority population and allow their vote to be counted.)

All this babble about how it's "unfair" that Montana has the same number of Senators as California, even though they have a fraction of the population - that is a failure in our education system, and a failure on the part of our media that so many Americans don't understand the purpose of Senators vs. Representatives. Senators represent the states as a whole; Representatives represent the people in that state. It's really very simple, and brilliant of our Founders to come up with it. United States.

What's unfair is wanting to have two or three states call the shots for the whole 50 Nifty. It's also unfair that a large urban area calls the shots for a whole state, with those in the larger rural areas having no say.

We scowl at an AOC or a Maxine Waters or an Eric Swallwell, but they are an important part of our republic as they represent the people of their district. Yes, even drug gangs and Socialists get a say in their government, and that is how it's supposed to work. How it's NOT supposed to work is having large highly populated states ruling over the smaller less populated ones.

So is the electoral college a "threat to democracy"? Yes. It's supposed to be; it was designed to be a threat to democracy. But is it a true mechanism for our representative republic? No, it's not.

Your favorite president W won 18 years ago without the popular vote, and whoever is in office now did too

This “thread” is just for advertising traffic...gross
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Your favorite president W won 18 years ago without the popular vote, and whoever is in office now did too

This “thread” is just for advertising traffic...gross
Has it been mentioned on here that Bill Clinton got elected twice without a majority of the votes?
 
Top