Senate Democrats introduce a constitutional amendment to abolish the

  • Thread starter Thread starter robertmidwest
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Peeps said:
I suggest reading through the U.S. Constitution, where you will find an extensive explanation of why the Electoral College was created.
Click to expand...
Ummm, no you won’t. You’ll find a brief description of how it works but not an extensive explanation of that or anything. The whole Constitution is quite brief and could easily fit on two sides of a sheet of legal sized paper.

For an explanation you may want to read something like The Federalist Papers No. 68 or the Anti-Federalist Papers No. 72.
 
Last edited:
John24 said:
40.png
JonNC:
The EC is remarkably fair, and effective for a federal system.
Click to expand...
It’s the laughingstock of the world.
Click to expand...
Oh, the world of democracy like Maduro and Putin
When the world has the level of individual rights as are protected in our constitution I’ll care what they think.
 
Last edited:
Peeps said:
Also, many rural folks visit the Big Cities for business or sometimes pleasure.
Click to expand...
I didn’t realize this until I met this nice Nebraska couple on a plane flying to Chicago on their honeymoon. They were very excited to see the lake of all places and visit the museums. Rural people are all right in my book. 🙂
 
Earth-shattering KA-BOOM!

If it’s Marvin, anyway.
 
Last edited:
Theo520 said:
A republic better protects minority rights.
Click to expand...
Especially the rights of the smallest minority… the individual.

Seems the Dems want for the rural constituents taxation without representation. If that’s the case, it worked out great the last time it was done.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
The world’s oldest democracy? Not by a long shot. I don’t think you can call it a democracy when half of the population is prohibited from voting by law. That was the case in the US until 1920. But Canada passed women’s suffrage in 1917. Britain, Germany, and Poland in 1918. Austria and the Netherlands in 1919. But Finland was even earlier in 1906.
Click to expand...
You seem to be misrepresenting Women’s suffrage in the US. It was far more complex than that single year since it had to be ratified in all the states. It started in 1869, in WY of all states. There was much activity well in advance of the final State giving agreement in 1920.

But you live in Australia, right? Aussie’s didn’t provide full suffrage until 1962.
Far worse than the Pot calling the Kettle black me thinks.

 
Last edited:
My husband would be thrilled. For years, he had a giant Marvin the Martian figure in his office.

I would prefer Michigan J. Frog. He never talks–he just sings. That would make a much happier country.

 
Last edited:
Theo520 said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
The world’s oldest democracy? Not by a long shot. I don’t think you can call it a democracy when half of the population is prohibited from voting by law. That was the case in the US until 1920. But Canada passed women’s suffrage in 1917. Britain, Germany, and Poland in 1918. Austria and the Netherlands in 1919. But Finland was even earlier in 1906.
Click to expand...
You seem to be misrepresenting Women’s suffrage in the US. It was far more complex than that single year since it had to be ratified in all the states. It started in 1869, in WY of all states. There was much activity well in advance of the final State giving agreement in 1920.

But you live in Australia, right? Aussie’s didn’t provide full suffrage until 1962.
Far worse than the Pot calling the Kettle black me thinks.

Women's Suffrage Timeline State by State
Click to expand...
Whether it was slow and gradual or all at once, we can’t really call the US a democracy before 1920.

(By the way, I live in Minneapolis, MN, not Australia.)
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
Whether it was slow and gradual or all at once, we can’t really call the US a democracy before 1920.
Click to expand...
I disagree, the concept of democracy evolved to add the inclusion of women and one does not need to wait till 1920 before recognizing the concept was in place.
LeafByNiggle said:
(By the way, I live in Minneapolis, MN, not Australia.)
Click to expand...
Sorry, I thought I read you refer to Australia as your location in a recent climate discussion. Thanks for clarifying.
 
Theo520 said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Whether it was slow and gradual or all at once, we can’t really call the US a democracy before 1920.
Click to expand...
I disagree, the concept of democracy evolved to add the inclusion of women and one does not need to wait till 1920 before recognizing the concept was in place.
Click to expand...
Of course all of this is irrelevant, as the claim about this being the “oldest democracy” was introduced to give the credit to the electoral college as having brought this about. There is no reason not to think that the US would still be the oldest democracy if the President were directly elected instead of through the electoral college. It is really an infinitesimal part in the US success story, if indeed it plays any part at all.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Of course all of this is irrelevant, as the claim about this being the “oldest democracy” was introduced to give the credit to the electoral college as having brought this about. There is no reason not to think that the US would still be the oldest democracy if the President were directly elected instead of through the electoral college. It is really an infinitesimal part in the US success story, if indeed it plays any part at all.
Click to expand...
You are being petty to manufacture a difference.

The Greeks have a good claim to be the first democracy, but they didn’t survive.
It’s completely valid in context of history (not Gender & Women’s Studies) to put the USA in running for the oldest surviving democracy.

Iceland, the Faroe Islands and the Isle of Man all have local parliaments founded in the ninth and 10th centuries, but they were more like territories under foreign rule, not countries.
 
Last edited:
Theo520 said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Of course all of this is irrelevant, as the claim about this being the “oldest democracy” was introduced to give the credit to the electoral college as having brought this about. There is no reason not to think that the US would still be the oldest democracy if the President were directly elected instead of through the electoral college. It is really an infinitesimal part in the US success story, if indeed it plays any part at all.
Click to expand...
You are being petty to manufacture a difference.

The Greeks have a good claim to be the first democracy, but they didn’t survive.
It’s completely valid in context of history (not Gender & Women’s Studies) to put the USA in running for the oldest surviving democracy.

Iceland, the Faroe Islands and the Isle of Man all have local parliaments founded in the ninth and 10th centuries, but they were more like territories under foreign rule, not countries.
Click to expand...
What difference does it make if the US is the world’s oldest democracy? For purposes of this thread, I concede it fully, entirely, and without reservation. But this thread is about the electoral college. And like I said, the fact of the US being the world’s oldest democracy does not bear on the discussion of the desirability of the electoral college.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
What difference does it make if the US is the world’s oldest democracy? For purposes of this thread, I concede it fully, entirely, and without reservation. But this thread is about the electoral college. And like I said, the fact of the US being the world’s oldest democracy does not bear on the discussion of the desirability of the electoral college.
Click to expand...
The question is really on you for some reflection.

When someone made the anecdotal comment on age of US democracy, why did you feel compelled to argue it wasn’t a valid assertion?

I think it was an act of deflection, though maybe it’s subconscious for you.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
40.png
JonNC:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
I did not assume that as a premise. I proved it from principles we both agree with.
Click to expand...
There is absolutely no circumstance under which I agree on a national plebiscite.
Click to expand...
That is not the principle that meant. I meant the principle of one person one vote. Do you agree with that principle or not?
Click to expand...
What I find puzzling is that Trump is the one being accused of being the populist president, and yet here you are advocating precisely the surest form of populism.

The Founding Fathers understood the danger in a pure democracy in a way that the current crop of leftists, hungry for power, simply do not.

At least be honest and admit that doing away with the electoral college is a convenient ploy by the Democrats to achieve power by changing the rules when it suits them.

As is the open borders strategy, lowering the voting age to 16, permitting undocumented aliens to vote, striking down voter ID laws, etc., etc. If the Democrat hold on power was threatened by any of these they would be the first to be fighting against every one of them.

It just demonstrates how unprincipled and power hungry the Democrats are.
 
HarryStotle said:
What I find puzzling is that Trump is the one being accused of being the populist president, and yet here you are advocating precisely the surest form of populism.
Click to expand...
I share your confusion over the word “populist.” I never did understand how that applied to Trump. What do you take the word to mean, and do you think it applies to Trump?
The Founding Fathers understood the danger in a pure democracy in a way that the current crop of leftists, hungry for power, simply do not.
Click to expand...
They understood even more vividly the dangers of a monarchy, having just fought a war to break free from England. I don’t know how they could have had any special insight into the dangers of democracy, having had absolutely no recent experience with it. To them democracy was a theoretical concept that was used only briefly in ancient Greece. If there are special dangers to democracy, I would think that people today would have much more knowledge of those dangers than the founding fathers.
At least be honest and admit that doing away with the electoral college is a convenient ploy by the Democrats to achieve power by changing the rules when it suits them.
Click to expand...
That is probably true, just as opposition to the measure is mounted by the Republicans who perceive this as a way for them to lose power.
As is the open borders strategy, lowering the voting age to 16, permitting undocumented aliens to vote, striking down voter ID laws, etc., etc. If the Democrat hold on power was threatened by any of these they would be the first to be fighting against every one of them.
Click to expand...
Groundless speculation, more suitable for a Trump rally speech.
It just demonstrates how unprincipled and power hungry the Democrats are.
Click to expand...
I wonder why you would say this, even if you believe it? You realize that roughly half the nation is supportive of the Democrats - probably many of them that you deal with every day. If you are going to adopt that antagonistic attitude toward your neighbors, you are going to have a very frustrating life. Unless you have a plan to either rid the nation of Democrats (by means I cannot imagine), or win Democrats over to your way of thinking (in which case calling them “unprincipled” is a very ineffective way to do it.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top