Electoral College

[HedgeWizard]

So many of us are thinking about the election and something I always had a fishy feeling about, the Electoral College, this time around struck a bell in me that led to some surprises in how it actually works.

 

 

CGP Grey gives a video about how it works and follows up with the recent video. CGP Grey talks about an anti-republic measure that while yet unused in the US could in fact alter election's outcomes in December.

 

Given the outrage riots in the left, succession threats in the west coast, the (laughable) declarations of "revolutionaries" among celebrities, and most importantly the ongoing resistance to anti-globalism that still encumbers votes such as the Brexit the ability for the electors of the electoral college to disregard the primary election and vote as they choose in December is something I do not underestimate.

 

tell me what you think, certainly there is a need to review the election system for an abundance of reasons

[taraelizabeth21]

So, it seems that the main argument of this video rests on the fact that winning the biggest states could guarantee a win, and that there's no protection against that--so, it doesn't "really" protect the rights of the smaller states which become irrelevant if you can win the largest ones. Which, if we lived in a political vacuum where voting priorities and divisions weren't easily determined across state lines and populations, would be a valid argument.

 

But, the fact of the matter is that Democrats outnumber Republicans in urban centers (and I think in the population at large?). Democrats have done a fair amount to ensure this by encouraging immigration (illegal & legal) and offering out welfare to attract more people to come here. As has been noted before, this creates a dependent/permanent underclass which will always reliably vote Democrat. The result of this: the country eventually decays and crumbles as cultural cohesion, financial stability, and the safety of the populace evaporates into a distant dream.

 

So a "pure" Athenian-style democracy would pretty much unilaterally result in democrat victories across the board. Gore would have won in 2000 (not that I necessarily think he would have been much different from Bush...) and Clinton would have won this time around if the popular vote count is to be believed. I've heard talk of proven cases of non-citizens voting, so, who knows what those actual numbers are. 

 

This video focuses on the theory behind the Electoral College, and that it doesn't "guarantee" theoretically that the states' voices will be protected. Well, going by the popular vote would absolutely destroy states voices. So, if the concern is preserving the ability of states to participate in the election then clearly out of those two choices the Electoral College system is superior. If you take this last election as an example, because of the makeup of the country and the actual distribution of democrats/republicans across state lines, the Electoral College is functioning exactly as it is supposed to. To prevent mob rule and to ensure that a few major cities don't get to decide the fate of the entire country.

 

The United States is a gigantic country, and the individual preferences of people in democratic strongholds should not be the deciding factor which tips every election. If they manage to abolish the Electoral College before Trump's administration can affect change and ensure that illegal immigration is reduced, it's Democrats all the way down.

 

And, yes, I guess technically, theoretically, if you can manage to win all of the big states then the others don't really matter. So by that logic it doesn't protect all the states. But that is not the reality of the situation! There's no President, if current populations and values hold, that can win California AND Texas. He's emphasizing theory at the expense of reality, and also it seems attempting to discredit this Presidential win as an example of the Electoral College functioning properly, fairly, and within the bounds of what was intended by the Founding Fathers. 

 

I feel that this election finally gives weight and meaning to the distinction: Democrats vs. Republicans. Democrats at this point want mob rule and pure "democracy" because they've been taking measures for decades among the populace: mainly media collusion/propaganda and manipulation of the voter base, which would ensure that they would always, always win. Republicans want to preserve the Republic because it's the only way at this point that Conservative values will have any voice in society or ability to affect change. Maybe we can revisit the conversation at a later point in history when there's been some type of balancing out of Liberal values and principles from the population, but until then, the Founding Fathers put this system in place for a reason and I don't claim to know more than they did about how to organize government.

[D-Light]

Wouldn't the best solution (outside of the obvious voluntaryism/anarchy) to the problem of democracy with such a split demographic be to push the power back down to the local level?  Make the National Government more Federalist in nature and practice, and do the same with the states, so the local counties, boroughs handle the vast majority of government functions?

[dsayers]

Wouldn't the best solution (outside of the obvious voluntaryism/anarchy)

If you accept that rape is immoral, what is the point in trying to figure out the best way to rape? This isn't aimed at you so much as it is at the idea of concerning ourselves with minutia/symptoms when we could instead be addressing the problem.

[D-Light]

If you accept that rape is immoral, what is the point in trying to figure out the best way to rape? This isn't aimed at you so much as it is at the idea of concerning ourselves with minutia/symptoms when we could instead be addressing the problem.

While I agree that arguing over the "kindest way" to treat the slaves does not address the issue of the immorality of slavery; until a practical and workable non-violent solution to the problem of societal slavery is put forth, that seems to be the most humane course of action. On the other hand, perhaps doing so would forestall the inevitable decay (as the election of Trump may have just forestalled), thus forestalling the inevitable revolution leading to the potential for an anarcho libertarian society.

[shirgall]

Fundamentally, the state does not have to use force, so only voting for people who want to use force via the state is immoral. Voting in and of itself is not akin to rape, voting for rapists is.

[dsayers]

until a practical and workable non-violent solution to the problem of societal slavery is put forth, that seems to be the most humane course of action. On the other hand, perhaps doing so would forestall the inevitable decay (as the election of Trump may have just forestalled), thus forestalling the inevitable revolution leading to the potential for an anarcho libertarian society.

Yeah, the other hand here is along the better path for sure. With regards to the first part, if you're waiting for that change, you will perpetually be disappointed. BE the change. In the context of this conversation, that would include not wasting your time or outwardly dignifying institutionalized violence by trying to figure out the best way to implement it.

 

Fundamentally, the state does not have to use force, so only voting for people who want to use force via the state is immoral. Voting in and of itself is not akin to rape, voting for rapists is.

This only serves to conceal the violence. Is that deliberate? What do you mean by "have to use force"? If you're referring to things like the ways in which people file their taxes, this is done under credible threat of violence. Failure to pay your taxes in the way they've commanded they think you should will result in further theft. Which pays their salaries, and so on. There is no such thing as a violence-free politician. Because if people were free to decline, they wouldn't have the perceived power their position lends them and if they have the perceived power their position lends them, people are not free to decline under credible threat of violence.

[shirgall]

This only serves to conceal the violence. Is that deliberate? What do you mean by "have to use force"? If you're referring to things like the ways in which people file their taxes, this is done under credible threat of violence. Failure to pay your taxes in the way they've commanded they think you should will result in further theft. Which pays their salaries, and so on. There is no such thing as a violence-free politician. Because if people were free to decline, they wouldn't have the perceived power their position lends them and if they have the perceived power their position lends them, people are not free to decline under credible threat of violence.

 

Voting for someone that will diminish or reduce the use of force is a good thing, not an evil one. I am not so much of a perfectionist that I insist the entire system be overthrown on day one, I will be encouraged if the use of force is diminished. I'm already under the threat of force. I'm not going to storm the barricades and die trying.

 

We've been down this road before. Was voting for me immoral when I ran for office? Was voting me to become Membership Director of a state-wide political party? How about appointing me parliamentarian so as to ensure the party followed its own bylaws that were passed by majority vote? I have a hard time accepting that any of those things were immoral.

[dsayers]

Voting for someone that will diminish or reduce the use of force is a good thing, not an evil one.

Isn't this moving the goalposts? Before, you were talking about the State not having to use force. Here, you are talking about softer force. No, softer rape is NOT a good thing. It IS evil.

 

I am not so much of a perfectionist that I insist the entire system be overthrown on day one

This is poisoning the well twice. Nobody overthrew cassette tapes. They replaced it with something being obsolete. It started with people being free in their own mind enough to entertain the possibility that they could listen to music without cassettes. Saying "I will not rape, nor condone rape" is not a revolutionary act.

 

Was voting for me immoral when I ran for office? Was voting me to become Membership Director of a state-wide political party? How about appointing me parliamentarian so as to ensure the party followed its own bylaws that were passed by majority vote? I have a hard time accepting that any of those things were immoral.

I don't know enough about the specifics to be able to answer that question. Bylaw is usually a word used internally, in a group with voluntary membership. If that's the case, they you're comparing apples to oranges.

 

I do know this: Morality isn't determined by whether or not something is easy to accept. It is determined by (lack of) consent.