Jump to content


Photo

The Electoral College and the Constitution


  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

#1 Learz

Learz

    High Government

  • Advisor
  • 3459 posts
  • Ruler Name:Learz
  • Nation Name:Eridani Empire
  • IRC Nick:Learz
  • Nation Link





Posted 12 November 2016 - 02:35 AM

It's late, I'm tired, and I felt a sudden urge to type something without being mentally coherent. So I'm going to pontificate for a bit, and probably piss half of you off. But whatever, I'm eating cheese, so there. 

 

First off, if you're not American, you probably don't know jack shit about this, other than what you skimmed on wikipedia this week. Second, if you're American, you still probably don't know jack shit about this, because it only comes up once every 4 years and you can't be bothered to remember it.

 

The Constitution of the United States of America, located here for your convenience. Most people have never read this. Like, legitimately read it from start to finish.

 

The Constitution is a thing of beauty. It was, and still is, one of the greatest documents in the world. I'm being serious. When you actually understand this, I mean actually understand this, nothing else can really compare to it. It's amazing.

 

Since we're on the topic of the Electoral College, that's under Article 2. Article 1 is about the legislature (Congress), Article 2 is about the executive (President), and Article 3 is about the judiciary (Supreme Court). Article 4 is the States, and 5 through 7 fill in some details. These articles are arranged by importance, and generally act as a ladder of power - 1 being the most important, 2 being slightly less, and so on (this has changed a bit over the centuries and various amendments). So from how it's arranged, you can see that Congress is designed to be the most important, and is the ultimate power. The first 3 compose the Federal Government, and since they come before the States, you can see that the Fed's trump the States.

 

(Not to confuse matters, but this is the original Constitution, and was the base framework for everything. There was a disagreement during the drafting, which I won't get into, but ultimately the Bill of Rights was immediately passed after the Constitution took effect. The Bill of Rights is the first 10 Amendments. So in other words, they created the Constitution, signed it into effect, then used the power of the Constitution to change it 10 times. Also various other Amendments were passed through history. End of tangent).

 

But yes, back to the Electoral College. What's all that about? To summarize a whole lotta history, the Founding Fathers realized something very important: power corrupts. So they specifically designed the worst possible government in existence. The most inefficient. The most uneconomical. The most fucked up thing they could imagine. Aka, democracy :P Ok, I'm exaggerating (but only a little). But the end result is, they took a look at the "government", figured out what was needed, and then cut it into many, many chunks. This is known as the "checks and balances" in the government. Another way of thinking about it is, they split the government into multiple little factions, then designed them to continuously fight each other. It's a machine that's poorly designed, and keeps smacking itself in the face with a frying pan.

 

By having the government fight itself all the time and squabble over power, it prevents any one person or group from seizing too much power. Because it someone gains too much power, the other parts of the government furiously attack it and seize power back. No one part of government can get too powerful without becoming a threat to other parts of the government, which then take action to protect themselves. And of course, try to boost their power, which triggers the cycle over again.

 

Massive inefficiency. But a surprisingly stable government.

 

Now imagine, loosely speaking, the following power blocks: Congress, President, States, The People.

In the modern system, The People vote for Congress and the President. But that's not the original system. Because, remember, the Founding Fathers didn't want anyone to have too much power. And that includes YOU. The people. They actually feared the people as much as a king. So they created the Electoral College.

 

You vote for Congress. You vote for your State legislatures. The States appoint Electors (usually done by citizens of a state voting in some manner). The Electors vote on who becomes President. The voting results are sent to Congress, which then determines a winner. Massively convoluted, right? It's designed like that.

 

Originally, in order for someone to become President, they needed to be approved by each of the following: Congress, Electors, The People. (The States are also indirectly involved, as they can change the rules regarding the Electors and can control them).

 

But why involve the Electors at all? Because the Founding Fathers didn't trust the people, and they didn't trust government(s). So they split the election up into several chunks and spread it out. In order to elect a President, you need multiple, separate, and distinct  groups working together to agree. (Spoiler alert: It was also designed so that this process would - spectacularly - fail most of the time. If this happens, the decision gets thrown to Congress. BUT WAIT! Each State only gets 1 vote in Congress, and each State's vote needs to be collectively determined by that State's representatives in the House).

 

 

 

 

This got long and I'm tired, so I think I'll summarize the rest. End result being, the Electoral College was created in an effort to prevent the President from being "appointed", by requiring the President to survive votes from multiple groups across the nation. In addition, the Electoral College prevented a majority in any group from overriding the rest of the groups, and was specifically designed so each State had "relatively" equal power in choosing a President. In effect, a farmer from Buttfuck, Nowhere would have roughly equivalent voting power as Warren Buffet. And someone from South Dakota would have roughly the same voting power as someone from Maryland. Etc etc. 

 

However, time has changed this (probably because we don't teach this anymore and it's confusing) (also probably because it's now easier to ramrod a candidate into the Presidency if they have enough money). Most things are decided by popular vote now, for one reason or another, but the fragments of the Electoral College still exist. And the point of the Electoral College, even in it's weakened, toothless state these days, is to spread the vote across the nation. To prevent a certain concentration of the population from overriding other parts of the population. Or in other words, to prevent the people of NYC from rolling over every citizen of Nebraska, Montana, Idaho, and Iowa combined.

 

So yeah. The Electoral College. It's here to stay.

Because changing it would trigger a Constitutional Convention, which is a whole separate can of worms I'm not getting into tonight.

 

If you made it through this post, this is probably you. If so, I'd recommend doing this.





Member Awards ()

#2 Manoka

Manoka
  • Internal Affairs: Writer
  • 6520 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:A place
  • Ruler Name:deadmanszpiper
  • Nation Name:Manoka
  • IRC Nick:Rawrmansz
  • Nation Link





Posted 12 November 2016 - 03:08 AM

It was difficult, but I found a way to jack off to this. 

 

Also, interesting read. xP



Member Awards ()

#3 voidoid

voidoid
  • Former Member
  • 105 posts
  • Gender:Other
  • Location:here
  • Ruler Name:voidoid
  • Nation Name:Quantia
  • Nation Link

Posted 12 November 2016 - 07:14 AM

I have grown frustrated by how many Americans do not understand how their government and Presidential elections work.  Last night Bill Mahr said (more or less) of the winner of the popular vote not being the winner of the Presidency, "This keeps happening to us (Democrats) because the Republicans rigged the system."

 

The Constitution predates the Republican party by roughly 80 years.  Oh, and this has happened at least five times, not just the recent two times.  Once (Jefferson v Madison?)  the Electoral College was a tie and the election was decided by the House (very controversially).

 

This is not the worst election we have ever had, is not the worst crisis in my lifetime (Nixon resignation), and is not caused by anything that is currently being debated.  The intractable 48%/48% divide in this country is caused by extreme gerrymandering which leads to lifetime sinecures in our legislature.  Our legislators do not have to accomplish anything other than to oppose the opposition since their constituents are 90% of one mind.  To quote the eminent philosopher Pogo:  we have met the enemy and he is us.



#4 He who posts

He who posts

    Intentialy offensive

  • Foreign Diplomat
  • 1444 posts
  • Gender:Sentient artificial intelligence - identifies as male
  • Location: 
  • Ruler Name: 
  • Nation Name: 
  • IRC Nick: 
  • Alliance Name: 
  • Nation Link


Posted 12 November 2016 - 08:15 AM

It was difficult, but I found a way to jack off to this. 

 

Also, interesting read. xP

Really. I can do it to a blank piece of paper at this point.



#5 He who posts

He who posts

    Intentialy offensive

  • Foreign Diplomat
  • 1444 posts
  • Gender:Sentient artificial intelligence - identifies as male
  • Location: 
  • Ruler Name: 
  • Nation Name: 
  • IRC Nick: 
  • Alliance Name: 
  • Nation Link


Posted 12 November 2016 - 08:55 AM

8Znuk8a.jpg
Udw8cpH.jpg
pazUjDH.jpg
oWJqVJp.jpg

Bin it start over.

#6 Thrash

Thrash

    not as gay

  • Former Member
  • 9559 posts
  • Location:Poconos, PA
  • Ruler Name:Thrash
  • Nation Name:Machas
  • IRC Nick:Thrash[Invicta]
  • Nation Link

Posted 12 November 2016 - 09:32 AM

heJOjnJ.jpg



Member Awards ()

#7 He who posts

He who posts

    Intentialy offensive

  • Foreign Diplomat
  • 1444 posts
  • Gender:Sentient artificial intelligence - identifies as male
  • Location: 
  • Ruler Name: 
  • Nation Name: 
  • IRC Nick: 
  • Alliance Name: 
  • Nation Link


Posted 12 November 2016 - 10:17 AM

Back off this is my turf.

#8 KiWi

KiWi

    To Be Or Not To be, Just Pick One!

  • Admin: Assistant Webmaster
  • 6060 posts
  • Gender:Other
  • Ruler Name:King William
  • Nation Name:Royal Nine
  • IRC Nick:KingWilliam
  • Nation Link


Posted 12 November 2016 - 11:10 AM

I like the Electoral College.

But I also have always understood it.

I have always tried to pivot conversations about it, towards gerrymandering which I feel (along with money in politics/being allowed) is the single thing that will kill our democracy.

*hyperbole mine

Member Awards ()

#9 voidoid

voidoid
  • Former Member
  • 105 posts
  • Gender:Other
  • Location:here
  • Ruler Name:voidoid
  • Nation Name:Quantia
  • Nation Link

Posted 12 November 2016 - 10:09 PM

The Founding Fathers never had any intention for this (US) country to be ruled by the simple majority.  Their fear of mob rule was justified one year after the ratification of our Constitution by the French Revolution.  Demagogues there whipped their illiterate masses in to frenzies to decapitate (literally) their opponents.

 

Members of the US Senate were appointed by the states and the general public voted for electors who would chose the President.  Both of these processes were circuit breakers to moderate popular passions.  We naively scrapped one of these and are debating the elimination of the other.



#10 Redezra

Redezra

    ~>:BAMF:<~

  • Invicta: Knight
  • 7728 posts
  • Gender:Sentient artificial intelligence - identifies as female
  • Location::D
  • Ruler Name:Redezra
  • Nation Name:Jorostopia
  • IRC Nick:Redezra
  • Alliance Name:Invicta
  • Nation Link


Posted 12 November 2016 - 10:15 PM

I have also always understood the US electoral college. But it's naff as shit, it's an attempt to try and make the whole thing uniform (which was an awesome idea), and does not succeed in making things proportional (cause it's an artifact of it's time, and nobody knew then).

 

Proportional Representation is the best kind of government. If you had that, shit might actually get done, and you guys would actually have your voices heard.

 

We've got it in the way our senate runs, and it's fucking awesome. I just wish we could introduce it into our house sorta like New Zealand did.



#11 Learz

Learz

    High Government

  • Advisor
  • 3459 posts
  • Ruler Name:Learz
  • Nation Name:Eridani Empire
  • IRC Nick:Learz
  • Nation Link





Posted 12 November 2016 - 10:30 PM

I have also always understood the US electoral college. But it's naff as shit, it's an attempt to try and make the whole thing uniform (which was an awesome idea), and does not succeed in making things proportional (cause it's an artifact of it's time, and nobody knew then).

 

Proportional Representation is the best kind of government. If you had that, shit might actually get done, and you guys would actually have your voices heard.

 

We've got it in the way our senate runs, and it's fucking awesome. I just wish we could introduce it into our house sorta like New Zealand did.

 

I've been a longtime advocate for PR, but the problem is, how do we implement it in America? We have two options, the House and Senate. We can't use the Senate as it's not designed for it, so that leaves the House. It would actually work really well in the House, but we have to give up the local connections that the Congressional districts give us. Yes, no more gerrymandering, and we will get national parties, better representation, but the 'local Congressman' a few miles from you will no longer exist. I'm not sure if it's better or worse than our current system, but to put it in perspective, I've met local Representatives personally about 4 times in my life. With a PR system, I wouldn't have.

 

I can drive to my local district office right now, and I can meet the local Representative (although more likely I will meet his staff). If there's a major issue, or something big going on locally, it's in a Congressional district, and the local Rep has a vested interested in being made aware of it and taking action. With a PR system, the closest Federal connection is the state US Senator (and they are not plugged in locally at all).

 

So yeah, I'm a big fan of it, but it's hard to implement it without giving something else up :/ But honestly, it probably wouldn't be any worse than our current system.



Member Awards ()

#12 KiWi

KiWi

    To Be Or Not To be, Just Pick One!

  • Admin: Assistant Webmaster
  • 6060 posts
  • Gender:Other
  • Ruler Name:King William
  • Nation Name:Royal Nine
  • IRC Nick:KingWilliam
  • Nation Link


Posted 12 November 2016 - 10:49 PM

Even still, while I want elections rethunk, I would want to involve directly into the system, political parties as the very last step.

I would do almost anything before that.

Member Awards ()

#13 Justavictim82

Justavictim82

    Better than you

  • Peer
  • 2233 posts
  • Gender:Born without genitals, proud of it
  • Location:Ohio
  • Ruler Name:justavictim82
  • Nation Name:AllaboutthePentiums
  • IRC Nick:Justavictim82[Invicta]
  • Alliance Name:Horse love
  • Nation Link




Posted 12 November 2016 - 11:07 PM

The Founding Fathers never had any intention for this (US) country to be ruled by the simple majority.  Their fear of mob rule was justified one year after the ratification of our Constitution by the French Revolution.  Demagogues there whipped their illiterate masses in to frenzies to decapitate (literally) their opponents.

 

Members of the US Senate were appointed by the states and the general public voted for electors who would chose the President.  Both of these processes were circuit breakers to moderate popular passions.  We naively scrapped one of these and are debating the elimination of the other.

 

We also elected the VP as the runner up for Presidency. It is time for the Electoral College to go. It serves no purpose anymore other to placate states rights. Why should I feel my Republican vote in Massachusetts or my Democrat vote in Nebraska mean jack shit? Popular vote would likely increase turnout significantly. When 46% of the qualifying adult populace does not turn out to vote for any candidate you have a problem.  



Member Awards ()

#14 Manoka

Manoka
  • Internal Affairs: Writer
  • 6520 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:A place
  • Ruler Name:deadmanszpiper
  • Nation Name:Manoka
  • IRC Nick:Rawrmansz
  • Nation Link





Posted 12 November 2016 - 11:37 PM

Honestly the election was so close that a 200,000 vote difference, ultimately a .2% difference, is not enough to really matter. It's a toin coss etheir way, and that's what the electoral college is for.

 

What should be done instead is that I think both presidents, the first and the second runner up, should be elected, along with their VP's. That way we maintain the essential balance of powers. With so many people so divided, simply a winner takes all because of .2% difference is too crazy. We need a way to share the presidency, imo. 


Edited by Manoka, 12 November 2016 - 11:38 PM.


Member Awards ()

#15 KiWi

KiWi

    To Be Or Not To be, Just Pick One!

  • Admin: Assistant Webmaster
  • 6060 posts
  • Gender:Other
  • Ruler Name:King William
  • Nation Name:Royal Nine
  • IRC Nick:KingWilliam
  • Nation Link


Posted 13 November 2016 - 01:50 AM


The Founding Fathers never had any intention for this (US) country to be ruled by the simple majority.  Their fear of mob rule was justified one year after the ratification of our Constitution by the French Revolution.  Demagogues there whipped their illiterate masses in to frenzies to decapitate (literally) their opponents.
 
Members of the US Senate were appointed by the states and the general public voted for electors who would chose the President.  Both of these processes were circuit breakers to moderate popular passions.  We naively scrapped one of these and are debating the elimination of the other.

 
We also elected the VP as the runner up for Presidency. It is time for the Electoral College to go. It serves no purpose anymore other to placate states rights. Why should I feel my Republican vote in Massachusetts or my Democrat vote in Nebraska mean jack shit? Popular vote would likely increase turnout significantly. When 46% of the qualifying adult populace does not turn out to vote for any candidate you have a problem.  
 



I am for a change in how we do elections; I just don't want it to be as simple or kneejerk as popular vote.

Member Awards ()

#16 Molagbal

Molagbal

    AWESOME

  • Foreign Diplomat
  • 217 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Merica
  • Ruler Name:XxHouseArrestXx
  • Nation Name:Poland
  • IRC Nick:Molagbal
  • Alliance Name:North Atlantic Defense Coalition
  • Nation Link

Posted 13 November 2016 - 07:10 PM

The Founding Fathers never had any intention for this (US) country to be ruled by the simple majority.  Their fear of mob rule was justified one year after the ratification of our Constitution by the French Revolution.  Demagogues there whipped their illiterate masses in to frenzies to decapitate (literally) their opponents.

 

Members of the US Senate were appointed by the states and the general public voted for electors who would chose the President.  Both of these processes were circuit breakers to moderate popular passions.  We naively scrapped one of these and are debating the elimination of the other.

 

We also elected the VP as the runner up for Presidency. It is time for the Electoral College to go. It serves no purpose anymore other to placate states rights. Why should I feel my Republican vote in Massachusetts or my Democrat vote in Nebraska mean jack shit? Popular vote would likely increase turnout significantly. When 46% of the qualifying adult populace does not turn out to vote for any candidate you have a problem.  

With the popular vote, your vote in Wisconsin, Rhode Island or Vermont would mean jack shit, candidates would only campaign and focus on high population states.  The electoral college is far from perfect, but the popular vote ain't better. 


Edited by Molagbal, 13 November 2016 - 07:11 PM.


#17 KiWi

KiWi

    To Be Or Not To be, Just Pick One!

  • Admin: Assistant Webmaster
  • 6060 posts
  • Gender:Other
  • Ruler Name:King William
  • Nation Name:Royal Nine
  • IRC Nick:KingWilliam
  • Nation Link


Posted 13 November 2016 - 08:10 PM

You'd see cities get more pork.

Member Awards ()

#18 Haflinger

Haflinger

    Flipper

  • Foreign Diplomat
  • 10259 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Ruler Name:Haflinger
  • Nation Name:Llonach
  • IRC Nick:Haflinger
  • Nation Link

Posted 15 November 2016 - 08:12 AM

The Founding Fathers were a bunch of different men, who had pretty radically different opinions about politics. The electoral college was designed by Hamilton, and supported by his people.

 

Alexander Hamilton is also the guy who thought that government debt was a good thing, because as long as the government had a debt to pay off it would be beholden to rich people, and especially bankers. He hated democracy but was aware that passing an absolute monarchy system was kinda unlikely in 1787.



Member Awards ()

#19 Thrash

Thrash

    not as gay

  • Former Member
  • 9559 posts
  • Location:Poconos, PA
  • Ruler Name:Thrash
  • Nation Name:Machas
  • IRC Nick:Thrash[Invicta]
  • Nation Link

Posted 15 November 2016 - 09:28 AM

The Founding Fathers were a bunch of different men, who had pretty radically different opinions about politics. The electoral college was designed by Hamilton, and supported by his people.

 

Alexander Hamilton is also the guy who thought that government debt was a good thing, because as long as the government had a debt to pay off it would be beholden to rich people, and especially bankers. He hated democracy but was aware that passing an absolute monarchy system was kinda unlikely in 1787.

 

Hamilton was a disaster, he created the Fed. He's even got a musical now. People flock to it. Go figure.



Member Awards ()

#20 voidoid

voidoid
  • Former Member
  • 105 posts
  • Gender:Other
  • Location:here
  • Ruler Name:voidoid
  • Nation Name:Quantia
  • Nation Link

Posted 15 November 2016 - 01:23 PM

Hamilton was a disaster, he created the Fed. He's even got a musical now. People flock to it. Go figure.

 

Hamilton is the most underappreciated architect of my nation's stability.  The Federal Reserve Bank was established more than one century after his death, but he would have approved of it.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users