What do these anti-Trump protesters want?

[skepticalbip]

It does exactly fulfill the purpose it was designed to do.

How so?

The Democrats just now disagree with the original purpose.

The original purpose was to keep people from electing someone that would have been counter to America's best interests in any sort of way. Trump is the closest we've come to someone that shouldn't be a President. The EC isn't going to act, mainly because the EC is partisan. If not Trump, who does the EC step in front of?

No the purpose was to give some voice to the more rural, less populated states. The US is a federation of States - which Democrats today are loathe to accept.

(ETA: except when the states pass laws they like that are counter the federal dictates such as the liberalized pot laws passed this year in several states, then they love the idea of a federation)

A possible compromise would be to increase the size of the House.

The House isn't the problem. The Senate isn't the problem. It is combining the two numbers for the electoral college that is.

Increasing the House would make the EC votes for these more representative of national popular vote. The two EC votes because of the Senate is to give some voice to the rural States. Again the US is a federation of States.

However, typical of partisan political arguments, there is no room for compromise such as increasing the House.

 

[blastula]

It was designed to have the elites choose the president instead of the ignorant masses who could choose an unqualified tyrant. It would be nice this year if the EC went back to that purpose.

 

[blastula]

Increasing the House would make the EC votes for these more representative of national popular vote. The two EC votes because of the Senate is to give some voice to the rural States. Again the US is a federation of States.

It would still only represent the popular vote by accident.

 

[bilby]

It was designed to have the elites choose the president instead of the ignorant masses who could choose an unqualified tyrant. It would be nice this year if the EC went back to that purpose.

It would be nice every year.

The EC itself isn't broken; The problem is that all 50 states have allowed democracy to replace meritocracy as their means for picking electors. Now we see the inevitable result of that error. It's surprising that it took so long; but it was inevitable, once popularity was elevated above ability.

 

[fromderinside]

Is it not more likely that merit will change or be abused than only corrupt persons being selected from a popular population? Just askin'

 

[laughing dog]

How so?

The Democrats just now disagree with the original purpose.

The original purpose was to keep people from electing someone that would have been counter to America's best interests in any sort of way. Trump is the closest we've come to someone that shouldn't be a President. The EC isn't going to act, mainly because the EC is partisan. If not Trump, who does the EC step in front of?

No the purpose was to give some voice to the more rural, less populated states. The US is a federation of States - which Democrats today are loathe to accept.

(ETA: except when the states pass laws they like that are counter the federal dictates such as the pot laws passed this year in several states, then they love the idea of a federation)

A possible compromise would be to increase the size of the House.

The House isn't the problem. The Senate isn't the problem. It is combining the two numbers for the electoral college that is.

Increasing the House would make the EC votes for these more representative of national popular vote. The two EC votes because of the Senate is to give some voice to the rural States. Again the US is a federation of States.

However, typical of partisan political arguments, there is no room for compromise such as increasing the House.

I am sure the irony of your argument is lost on you. If you think that the election to a national office ought to be based on the national vote, then the expansion of a protocol that was and is deliberately designed to limit the effects of a pure national vote is not a compromise but a capitulation.

Frankly, I like the EC because it does modify the swamping effect of populous states in a national election and see no compelling reason to change it.

 

[bilby]

Is it not more likely that merit will change or be abused than only corrupt persons being selected from a popular population? Just askin'

Not really, no. Just sayin'

 

[skepticalbip]

How so?

The Democrats just now disagree with the original purpose.

The original purpose was to keep people from electing someone that would have been counter to America's best interests in any sort of way. Trump is the closest we've come to someone that shouldn't be a President. The EC isn't going to act, mainly because the EC is partisan. If not Trump, who does the EC step in front of?

No the purpose was to give some voice to the more rural, less populated states. The US is a federation of States - which Democrats today are loathe to accept.

(ETA: except when the states pass laws they like that are counter the federal dictates such as the pot laws passed this year in several states, then they love the idea of a federation)

A possible compromise would be to increase the size of the House.

The House isn't the problem. The Senate isn't the problem. It is combining the two numbers for the electoral college that is.

Increasing the House would make the EC votes for these more representative of national popular vote. The two EC votes because of the Senate is to give some voice to the rural States. Again the US is a federation of States.

However, typical of partisan political arguments, there is no room for compromise such as increasing the House.

I am sure the irony of your argument is lost on you. If you think that the election to a national office ought to be based on the national vote, then the expansion of a protocol that was and is deliberately designed to limit the effects of a pure national vote is not a compromise but a capitulation.

Frankly, I like the EC because it does modify the swamping effect of populous states in a national election and see no compelling reason to change it.

I like the EC too. Deciding on national popular vote is stupid. But I was talking about possible compromises. I would prefer to return to the original where there was no popular vote for either the President or Senators. These were selected by the State legislators to represent the States. The people voted for the State legislators and the US House representatives to represent the people.

ETA:
Maybe since the Democrats starting demand is for pure democratic election of the President the Republicans' starting point for the compromise should be repeal of the 12th and 17th amendments.

 

[blastula]

I am sure the irony of your argument is lost on you. If you think that the election to a national office ought to be based on the national vote, then the expansion of a protocol that was and is deliberately designed to limit the effects of a pure national vote is not a compromise but a capitulation.

Frankly, I like the EC because it does modify the swamping effect of populous states in a national election and see no compelling reason to change it.

Removing it would mean everyone's vote would count equally. It would also mean candidates would have to campaign to the entire country not just swing states. And "safe" state voters would have more motivation to turn out.

 

[blastula]

I like the EC too. Deciding on national popular vote is stupid. But I was talking about possible compromises. I would prefer to return to the original where there was no popular vote for either the President or Senators. These were selected by the State legislators to represent the States. The people voted for the State legislators and the US House representatives to represent the people.

ETA:
Maybe since the Democrats starting demand is for pure democratic election of the President the Republicans' starting point for the compromise should be repeal of the 12th and 17th amendments.

Legislatures never selected the president. And they originally also wanted the EC to function without influence of political parties. Good luck with that now with either EC or legislature.

 

[RavenSky]

You are wanting to post-facto change the law to favor your chosen candidate. This is like having your sport team lose then after the game changing the rules to the team wearing the blue jerseys get an additional 12 points.

blah blah blah... unless you have become a mind-reader, you have no fucking idea what I want. I loathe this type of crap, so end of discussion. bye bye

- - - Updated - - -

I wonder how the right wing would react to the election of Clinton as President by a slim electoral college win, and a popular vote loss, after campaigning to ban hand guns and confiscate all existing ones; along with declaring that she would demand homosexual rights even within private organizations/churches. Yeah, I’m sure they would remain calm…with no worries as she should be taken seriously, but not literally.

They threatened an armed rebellion without even all of the extra caveats

 

[skepticalbip]

blah blah blah... unless you have become a mind-reader, you have no fucking idea what I want. I loathe this type of crap, so end of discussion. bye bye

My error. That should have been that the petition that your post seemed to support wanted to post-facto change the law to favor their chosen candidate.

but bu-bye anyway.

 

[blastula]

There's no change of law required by the petition. It would be a change of tradition, which would also be a big step though.