Cont: Trump’s Coup - Part 2

[newyorkguy]

The change I refer to that I think is being proposed today is, to elect the president based solely on the results of the popular election. That might be hard to sell in states with smaller populations, especially if they lean Republican.

For trump supporters it's a no-brainer. Despite losing the popular election by almost three million votes in 2016, trump was elected by virtue of winning the right combination of states. In 2020, despite being defeated in the popular vote by over seven million votes, a 5% margin, he nonetheless came close to winning. Without the Electoral College system, trump would never have been president, no chance.

 

[gnome]

That's sort of the Electoral Process and a major elephant in the room.

A group of elites who could as a safety net and override the people if they made a dump decisions is exactly the Electoral College was meant to be.

Not sure I really would support that though. Fully realized, all that means is that the voters' choice is just a recommendation.

 

[Stacyhs]

I may be misread. The state of a society that exists just prior to and during the rise of a despot is the key period at issue. I realize that subsequent to the consolidation of power it's much more difficult to effect change, much less reverse course. To the matter at hand...

If just enough votes had gone Dump's way in '20, that would indicate that the combination of the established and 'agreed upon' electoral system and the people supporting him had conferred to the Turd a legal, Constitutional and rightful win. The nation would have deserved him because of this. In spite of the majority wishing otherwise.
Not satisfied? Then do the bloody WORK necessary to achieve a better democracy. Until then, y'all deserve whatever dictator might get his hooks into power. The current citizenry, in the here and now, determines the course of history. Whatever you do or do not, you get precisely what you deserve. Action and inaction have consequences.

I'm trying to make a broader philosophical point. The US is currently at a very consequential fork in the road. What the people do now, through their elected representatives or by dint of their own individual activism, will set the course taken. Whichever route, resulting from the net action of the People collectively, will be that path chosen by the nation in aggregate. Who will fight harder?

The electoral system is not 'agreed upon' by any means. It was written by men and put into our Constitution over 200 years ago. It's been explained to you how difficult it is to change it and why the red states will never support a change, but you'd rather pass smug judgment and tell us we 'deserve it'.

I said many posts ago that the people elect their representatives and that is how we take action. Your suggestions for 'individual activism' was to have protest marches and strikes. Yeah...because those do so much to change things when most people of the party in control won't participate.

 

[gnome]

The change I refer to that I think is being proposed today is, to elect the president based solely on the results of the popular election. That might be hard to sell in states with smaller populations, especially if they lean Republican.

For trump supporters it's a no-brainer. Despite losing the popular election by almost three million votes in 2016, trump was elected by virtue of winning the right combination of states. In 2020, despite being defeated in the popular vote by over seven million votes, a 5% margin, he nonetheless came close to winning. Without the Electoral College system, trump would never have been president, no chance.

I could even support a compromise, preserving the intentional advantage of the less-populous states to some extent: splitting of electoral votes proportionally by population. That will bring the results closer to the popular result, but still distort slightly towards the more rural states.

 

[shemp]

I could even support a compromise, preserving the intentional advantage of the less-populous states to some extent: splitting of electoral votes proportionally by population. That will bring the results closer to the popular result, but still distort slightly towards the more rural states.

I've been saying that for almost thirty years. Apportion the electoral votes in each state, rounded to the nearest 0.1 vote, with a 10% threshold in a state to get any electoral votes at all* (to remove the possibility of small third parties to prevent a major candidate from getting a majority nationwide). Significantly reduces the likelihood of a minority President, and allows the smaller states to keep their advantage (otherwise they'd never agree to a compromise). Also makes candidates have to campaign in all states, because they will get electoral votes from every state.

You'll never see Creepublicans want to make any changes until a Democrat becomes a minority President, which is very unlikely under the present system, but if it does they'll be the ones screaming that the system is unfair.

* The percentage of electoral votes would be calculated after dropping all candidates who fail to meet the threshold. For example, in a state with 10 electoral votes, Candidate A gets 50% of the popular vote, Candidate B gets 45% and Candidate C gets 5%. After dropping C, Candidate A gets 5.3 electoral votes and Candidate B gets 4.7 electoral votes.

 

[Lurch]

The electoral system is not 'agreed upon' by any means. It was written by men and put into our Constitution over 200 years ago. It's been explained to you how difficult it is to change it and why the red states will never support a change, but you'd rather pass smug judgment and tell us we 'deserve it'.

I said many posts ago that the people elect their representatives and that is how we take action. Your suggestions for 'individual activism' was to have protest marches and strikes. Yeah...because those do so much to change things when most people of the party in control won't participate.

I'm not passing smug judgement. Again, I'm making a broad philosophical point. Don't like your electoral system? Then do something about it!

In '41 the US mobilized to take on the scourge of fascism on the other side of an ocean. Surely it can tackle another outbreak inside its own borders. But if the national will is lacking, then live with the consequences.

And again: Who will fight harder? If the fascists do, and win, then their victory will be earned. And the nation will get the government it deserves.

If you don't like being told this stark truth, then do more than just moan about the EC and gripe about voter suppression and whine about Gerrymandering and...........

 

[newyorkguy]

The problem is, there are no self-declared 'fascists' in the US. Those being labeled fascist see themselves as the 'real Americans,' true patriots who are willing to fight to save this nation. Biden won the 2020 election over trump with a 5% margin. That's a solid win but it's not exactly a landslide. Biden lost 25 states.

From the Democratic side, serious efforts are being made to oppose voter suppression and gerrymandering. The problem is, the Republicans are equally determined to fight those efforts and it's Republicans, not Democrats, who are a majority in many states.

You could also make an argument that it's misleading to say the US mobilized to fight fascism in 1941. We were attacked by Imperial Japan. Until that happened, America was staying out of the fight. Roosevelt thought that was a mistake but a huge part of the US population didn't agree. There are Americans who despise Franklin Delano Roosevelt to this day. Some of them have posted here.

It's easy -- too easy in my view -- to reduce a very complex political landscape to simple choices. The electoral college being an example. Many people think we should scrap it but many people don't. The broad-based public support that is a prerequisite to changing it just does not exist. People aren't just throwing up their hands and saying, "This is hopeless!" but it's a work in progress. A marathon not a sprint.

 

[Belz...]

I'm not passing smug judgement. Again, I'm making a broad philosophical point. Don't like your electoral system? Then do something about it!

Yeah that's easy for us to say but it's pretty damned hard to change these things in America to begin with, to say nothing of the current deadlock and partisan cockblocking.

You and I live in an enlightened country with a simple and efficient electoral system. We can't imagine the living hell our cousins from the sourth have to endure!

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm not passing smug judgement. Again, I'm making a broad philosophical point. Don't like your electoral system? Then do something about it!

Civil war it is! Hope none of it spreads to your side of the border.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Not sure I really would support that though. Fully realized, all that means is that the voters' choice is just a recommendation.

Nor do I.

My point was that a group of elites there as a last minute failsafe against the populace isn't some perversion of the EC or some technicality that the EC allows through procedural trickery or anything like that. It's the literal letter AND spirt intended purpose of the EC.

 

[Belz...]

Not sure I really would support that though. Fully realized, all that means is that the voters' choice is just a recommendation.

Well that's what it was, really, until it was made so that the Electors had to vote the people's way, in certain states.

 

[alfaniner]

Newly proposed Trump Cards. And my take on one of them. (Note the misspelling on the original -- "OFFICAL".)
ETA - couldn't resist making one more...

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Nor do I.

My point was that a group of elites there as a last minute failsafe against the populace isn't some perversion of the EC or some technicality that the EC allows through procedural trickery or anything like that. It's the literal letter AND spirt intended purpose of the EC.

Indeed. The founding fathers had a nasty anti-democratic streak, which isn't surprising considering most were of the elite class.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Newly proposed Trump Cards. And my take on one of them. (Note the misspelling on the original -- "OFFICAL".)

I dunno. A Trump card to buy animal innards seems really onbrand.

 

[alfaniner]

I dunno. A Trump card to buy animal innards seems really onbrand.

(see my ETA)

 

[newyorkguy]

I don't understand the comments being interjected about electors being an elite group that serve to, essentially, protect the public from the public. The role of the electors in the Presidential elections began changing two hundred and twenty-five years ago with the rise of political parties. In 1796, John Adams of the Federalist Party won the presidential election and Democratic-Republican Party candidate Thomas Jefferson finished second. Under the rules that meant Jefferson was named vice president. Thus the president and vice president were from different political parties. In 1800 Thomas Jefferson again ran as the Democratic-Republican Party candidate with his running mate Aaron Burr for vice president. Jefferson and Burr tied in the Electoral College vote but the EC only voted for president. If Burr had won the EC Burr would have been elected president despite his party selecting him to be the veep. Congress had to decide the 1800 election but the system as set up was obviously not working and changes began at that time.

But all of this ignores the reality that today -- not 200 years ago -- a state's electors are required to vote for whichever candidate wins the popular vote in that state. A minor problem is the occasional -- very occasional -- rogue elector who refuses to vote as instructed. The bigger problem, the real problem, is that states are awarded electors based on the number of Congressional seats they hold. A large state like New York State, with a population of 19.5 million (2019) has 29 electors. Idaho with a population of 1.8 million has 4 electors. Each elector in New York represents some 672,000 voters, while in Idaho each elector represents 450,000 voters. Thus the small states have proportionally more power in the EC. A small state vote carries more weight in the presidential election. Which is exactly why people are complaining the system is not fair -- that it violates the one person, one vote rule -- and are advocating switching to a strictly popular vote to elect a president. It explains why, by winning the right combination of states, trump was able to win the 2016 election despite losing the popular vote to Hillary Clinton by almost 3 million votes.

The political problem is, to change the system the smaller states -- many of which have Republican majorities -- would be asked to give up some of the power and influence they now have in presidential elections. How are you going to convince them to do that? Let's hear how the ISF pundits would pull that one off.

 

[Stacyhs]

I'm not passing smug judgement. Again, I'm making a broad philosophical point. Don't like your electoral system? Then do something about it!

In '41 the US mobilized to take on the scourge of fascism on the other side of an ocean. Surely it can tackle another outbreak inside its own borders. But if the national will is lacking, then live with the consequences.

And again: Who will fight harder? If the fascists do, and win, then their victory will be earned. And the nation will get the government it deserves.

If you don't like being told this stark truth, then do more than just moan about the EC and gripe about voter suppression and whine about Gerrymandering and...........

Yes, you are passing smug judgment with your constant telling us "we deserve the government we get" because you don't understand how difficult it is to change something almost half the damn country doesn't want changed! And we HAVE AND ARE trying to fight voter suppression and gerrymandering but when when GOP controlled states are doing everything they can to further those then there isn't a hell of a lot we can do about it because they control the damn state government.

 

[shemp]

I don't understand the comments being interjected about electors being an elite group that serve to, essentially, protect the public from the public. The role of the electors in the Presidential elections began changing two hundred and twenty-five years ago with the rise of political parties. In 1796, John Adams of the Federalist Party won the presidential election and Democratic-Republican Party candidate Thomas Jefferson finished second. Under the rules that meant Jefferson was named vice president. Thus the president and vice president were from different political parties. In 1800 Thomas Jefferson again ran as the Democratic-Republican Party candidate with his running mate Aaron Burr for vice president. Jefferson and Burr tied in the Electoral College vote but the EC only voted for president. If Burr had won the EC Burr would have been elected president despite his party selecting him to be the veep. Congress had to decide the 1800 election but the system as set up was obviously not working and changes began at that time.

But all of this ignores the reality that today -- not 200 years ago -- a state's electors are required to vote for whichever candidate wins the popular vote in that state. A minor problem is the occasional -- very occasional -- rogue elector who refuses to vote as instructed. The bigger problem, the real problem, is that states are awarded electors based on the number of Congressional seats they hold. A large state like New York State, with a population of 19.5 million (2019) has 29 electors. Idaho with a population of 1.8 million has 4 electors. Each elector in New York represents some 672,000 voters, while in Idaho each elector represents 450,000 voters. Thus the small states have proportionally more power in the EC. A small state vote carries more weight in the presidential election. Which is exactly why people are complaining the system is not fair -- that it violates the one person, one vote rule -- and are advocating switching to a strictly popular vote to elect a president. It explains why, by winning the right combination of states, trump was able to win the 2016 election despite losing the popular vote to Hillary Clinton by almost 3 million votes.

The political problem is, to change the system the smaller states -- many of which have Republican majorities -- would be asked to give up some of the power and influence they now have in presidential elections. How are you going to convince them to do that? Let's hear how the ISF pundits would pull that one off.

See post 2325 above. You'll never get rid of the Electoral College because 13 of 50 states can block the necessary constitutional amendment. But the constitution doesn't tell states how to apportion their votes. That could be changed by law. You might have a better chance of getting states to change their law regarding electoral vote apportionment; however, allowing states to award votes in units of 0.1 votes might require an amendment.

 

[Stacyhs]

The problem is, there are no self-declared 'fascists' in the US. Those being labeled fascist see themselves as the 'real Americans,' true patriots who are willing to fight to save this nation. Biden won the 2020 election over trump with a 5% margin. That's a solid win but it's not exactly a landslide. Biden lost 25 states.

From the Democratic side, serious efforts are being made to oppose voter suppression and gerrymandering. The problem is, the Republicans are equally determined to fight those efforts and it's Republicans, not Democrats, who are a majority in many states.

You could also make an argument that it's misleading to say the US mobilized to fight fascism in 1941. We were attacked by Imperial Japan. Until that happened, America was staying out of the fight. Roosevelt thought that was a mistake but a huge part of the US population didn't agree. There are Americans who despise Franklin Delano Roosevelt to this day. Some of them have posted here.

It's easy -- too easy in my view -- to reduce a very complex political landscape to simple choices. The electoral college being an example. Many people think we should scrap it but many people don't. The broad-based public support that is a prerequisite to changing it just does not exist. People aren't just throwing up their hands and saying, "This is hopeless!" but it's a work in progress. A marathon not a sprint.

Thank you for putting it so clearly. Protest marches and strikes aren't going to do a damn thing to change voter suppression in red states because they don't give a damn as long as the party in control gets what it wants and controls the legislature.

 

[Stacyhs]

See post 2325 above. You'll never get rid of the Electoral College because 13 of 50 states can block the necessary constitutional amendment. But the constitution doesn't tell states how to apportion their votes. That could be changed by law. You might have a better chance of getting states to change their law regarding electoral vote apportionment; however, allowing states to award votes in units of 0.1 votes might require an amendment.

I happen to like the apportioning of the electoral votes and that might fly in some purple states but that is not going to happen in states that are firmly red and that's most of them. They are not going to give an inch on the power the current EC gives them.