General Discussion

dpibel

(3,466 posts)

23. Trade for 32 of 32? Sure.

Tue Oct 29, 2024, 02:48 PM

Oct 29

Not sure what you think the trade you're offering is. Last I heard, we were discussing the Electoral College.

Without the Electoral College, Dems would likely have held the Presidency for 32 of the last 32 years (the "likely" is because there's no way to prove Gore would have been elected, nor what would have happened in the parallel world from 2008 to present.

But your question makes no sense. Doing away with the EC would in no way create a straight swap for those 32 years.

As to the small states banding together, please do tell. I haven't heard about the great Wyoming/NoDak/SoDak/Nebraska consortium.

And, while we're do-telling, please give me an example of, e.g., California attempting to dictate...well...anything to the above-listed small states.

You are making pretty abstract claims that, far as I no, have no relationship to the real world.

Once again: The small states get no special attention in presidential elections because their votes don't matter. With the EC, the only votes that matter are the swing states. Which, in case you've missed it, are actually not small states.

Finally, as to the protection of the poor little states by overrepresentation in the Senate, we've seen the clearest example you could ever what to see of what happens when the minority tyrranizes. Would I trade the Senate where a small fraction of Americans can dictate to the majority who sits on the Supreme Court for a system where that can't happen? With gusto.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

113 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The electoral college is 100% PURE BULLSHIT! [View all] garybeck Oct 29 OP

Time to do away with it. republianmushroom Oct 29 #1

Petition to eliminate Electoral College - actblue kerry-is-my-prez Oct 29 #55

How does one rule the Constitution unconstitutional? sarisataka Oct 29 #2

well. if there are two contradictory things in there, garybeck Oct 29 #64

It is horrible. H2O Man Oct 29 #84

Yeah there's no way we can get rid of the electoral college without an amendment. Initech Oct 29 #104

..and there never will be Cirsium Oct 30 #105

Technically, it can't be unconstitutional if it's part no_hypocrisy Oct 29 #3

Perhaps by ruling that if each candidate receives an equal number of the popular vote then the EC kicks in in2herbs Oct 29 #5

But that's not what the Constitution says. It would take an Amendment to do that, not a court decision. rsdsharp Oct 29 #51

That is how an amendment would work. nt in2herbs Oct 29 #65

Amendments aren't "ruling[s]." Court decisions are. rsdsharp Oct 29 #66

The fundamental problem is that it IS constitutional. We need to amend the US Constitution to abolish it. Pacifist Patriot Oct 29 #4

The Senate composition is unamendable DetroitLegalBeagle Oct 29 #11

Thank you, this doesn't get said enough Amishman Oct 29 #18

Equal should be replaced by equitable everywhere dickthegrouch Oct 29 #19

You can not change the senate but you can work to balance things in the house. bottomofthehill Oct 29 #81

What are the other unamendable provisions? dpibel Oct 29 #25

We could hypothetically write and ratify a new constitution Jerry2144 Oct 29 #28

You don't have to rewrite the Constitution to pass an amendment dpibel Oct 29 #34

But when you factor in how old it isand how much things changed Jerry2144 Oct 29 #46

let's write a new constitution after the MAGAts succeed from the Union, like they did last time Stardust Mirror Oct 29 #82

There are 3 unamendable provisions written into the Constitution DetroitLegalBeagle Oct 29 #62

proposed amendment lapfog_1 Oct 29 #36

Damn! I've read a couple of really compelling articles about this by people who should know better. Pacifist Patriot Oct 29 #39

Here's a possibility dpibel Oct 29 #48

Actually it can be. Angleae Oct 29 #59

Yes DetroitLegalBeagle Oct 29 #63

Thank you for that clarification. Pacifist Patriot Oct 29 #72

Well then the Senate will continue to be RW, radius777 Nov 3 #111

True. - - - - also true , it's all been said before stopdiggin Oct 29 #6

We're not one country Baggies Oct 29 #7

What leverage do the small states have? dpibel Oct 29 #9

The current situation has worked Baggies Oct 29 #20

Trade for 32 of 32? Sure. dpibel Oct 29 #23

Not entirely Baggies Oct 29 #26

Objection. Nonresponsive. dpibel Oct 29 #31

Pax Romana Baggies Oct 29 #33

LOL dpibel Oct 29 #35

Our system is designed Zeitghost Oct 29 #70

The EC does that? dpibel Oct 29 #73

Not by itself Zeitghost Oct 29 #83

Explain for those of us who are slow dpibel Oct 29 #86

this was all about the south and owning black people lapfog_1 Oct 29 #37

WTF Skittles Oct 29 #79

We are a federation of independent states. Cuthbert Allgood Oct 29 #89

THEY NEED TO GET RID OF IT Skittles Oct 29 #95

Rant on brother. maxsolomon Oct 29 #8

The US far from unique in not directly electing its head of government Jose Garcia Oct 29 #10

Unconstitutional, even though it is in the constitution ? MichMan Oct 29 #12

the 87th Amendment. Citizens fee-fees shall not be hurt? WarGamer Oct 29 #15

Can you kindly point me dpibel Oct 29 #76

actually this happens all the time lapfog_1 Oct 29 #41

That isn't at all the same MichMan Oct 29 #56

much like Presidential immunity? lapfog_1 Oct 29 #74

I remember my outrage when I first learned about the EC BWdem4life Oct 29 #13

This is a very important point Metaphorical Oct 29 #40

If the GOP saw an advantage in going towards proportional representation MichMan Oct 29 #68

Got anything other than ad hominem? dpibel Oct 29 #77

I rather doubt it Metaphorical Oct 30 #106

I think baseball games should be decided by which team gets more home runs. WarGamer Oct 29 #14

Win more innings, win the game, regardless of dvan Oct 29 #16

You do know about MLB rules, right? dpibel Oct 29 #29

The Constitution mandates that we use the system we have now Kaleva Oct 29 #17

It's part of the Constitution Polybius Oct 29 #21

Democracy- sarisataka Oct 29 #22

This quote is not exactly an argument for minority rule dpibel Oct 29 #45

I am not arguing for minority rule sarisataka Oct 29 #54

You're misrepresenting the OP dpibel Oct 29 #78

Keep it as it is manicdem Oct 29 #24

"It's worked well" except for when it hasn't dpibel Oct 29 #30

Which is way too often since 2000 JCMach1 Oct 29 #32

It HAD a purpose for existing. That purpose has long passed. In It to Win It Oct 29 #42

WTF Skittles Oct 29 #98

K&R. Quite the Electoral Clown College ck4829 Oct 29 #27

I have a question for all you constitutional law experts - TBF Oct 29 #38

It's a Good Question Metaphorical Oct 29 #57

Thank you for the explanation - TBF Oct 29 #71

I don't see anyone saying the EC CAN'T be changed, just that it needs to be changed by contitutional kelly1mm Oct 29 #93

If it was keeping Republicans from getting elected it would have doc03 Oct 29 #43

And if it was keeping Republicans from getting elected, we would think it was sacrosanct. MichMan Oct 29 #69

The reasons weren't so stupid in 1787 DFW Oct 29 #44

Well said dpibel Oct 29 #50

Feelings aside Ontheboundry Oct 29 #47

Incantations dpibel Oct 29 #53

Article 4 section 4 Ontheboundry Oct 29 #60

I do not think dpibel Oct 29 #75

It don't say 'republican' Ontheboundry Oct 30 #107

Really, now? It do in my Constitution. dpibel Oct 30 #108

It's a legacy from mollifying the southern slave states so they would join the union al bupp Oct 29 #49

I couldn't agree more. raccoon Oct 29 #52

Until things improve -- like old rubes pass on -- there is virtually no chance of removing EC. Sad, but way it is. Silent Type Oct 29 #58

It was one of the dumbest ideas the creators decided Dem4life1234 Oct 29 #61

people in the backwoods of Idaho have access to the same information we all do Skittles Oct 29 #80

It really isn't Cuthbert Allgood Oct 29 #90

That horse has departed dpibel Oct 29 #96

But it's not dead Cuthbert Allgood Nov 3 #109

Say what? dpibel Nov 3 #110

I'm not saying it protects it; I'm saying it goes hand in hand. Cuthbert Allgood Nov 3 #112

You do know I can read your words, right? dpibel Nov 3 #113

Well Adam Smith's invisible hand sure is BS Blue Full Moon Oct 29 #67

This has been gone over many times here at DU. It is 100% not unconstitutional and the only kelly1mm Oct 29 #85

One more, as long as we're listing dpibel Oct 29 #87

Thats an expanded (but not needed) #1. If 270 EC votes states agree to award their EC kelly1mm Oct 29 #88

The only way Republicans would get on board for any reform to the EC or any method of reform that you outlined In It to Win It Oct 29 #91

Agree that the R's are not on board. But that doesn't change the available options, does it? If you kelly1mm Oct 29 #97

Not at all. I'm not disagreeing with you. In It to Win It Oct 29 #99

Nor I with you then! Sorry for my confusion. NPV compact seems the only viable potential (not easy) option. nt kelly1mm Oct 29 #102

You can not eliminate the electoral college...it would require a constitution amendment. Demsrule86 Oct 29 #92

What needs to happen is for a Democrat to win the electoral college Jack Valentino Oct 29 #94

Right. That's the only way they'll get on board. In It to Win It Oct 29 #100

Back in the 1980's when they were winning the popular vote by large margins, Jack Valentino Oct 29 #101

Once again, The Framers framed us. Hassler Oct 29 #103