That's a pretty dumb take as until that time the EC and popular vote always went hand in hand so rarely did anyone ever discuss the EC.
For the great majority the EC was discussed one day in a civics class and never heard from again.
Bevin vs Beshear for KY governor
- Thread starter rick64
- Start date
- Status
For the great majority the EC was discussed one day in a civics class and never heard from again.
So you are one of these nuts that want the state to regress....just so we are clear.
That is a good take, but one of the problems with national elections now is that there really is no national election at all, it is a battle for about 6 or 7 key states, e.g., Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida. No Republican is going to spend 10 bucks or one hour campaigning in New York or California, much less NYC or LA, and no Democrat is is going to spend 10 bucks or one hour campaigning in Kentucky or Utah. Either effort would be a complete waste of time and money. I am not sure that is what the Founding Fathers had in mind.
I’d be interested to see how many conservatives in LA and NYC would show up to vote if they knew their vote would make a difference. Same with liberals in Utah.
Some have said that you could award one EC vote for each Congressional district, + 2 for carrying a state, so at least a Democrat would be willing to campaign in Louisville and Lexington, at least, hoping to pick off two EC votes here in Kentucky, for example. Republicans would also be more willing to campaign in Orange County and Upstate NY if that were the case as well.
The only “political experts” I’ve heard that have come out against the electoral college are those upset Hillary lost. In a popular vote, states like Kentucky would be completely irrelevant. The population of New York City would be enough to drown out every single vote in Kentucky. If 100% of Kentuckians voted for a Republican it wouldn’t matter to the Democrats because they know the big cities would be more than enough to swing it.
Essentially, a popular vote ensures that only a handful of our biggest cities will elect our presidents. Do you want Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles to decide all of our elections? Maybe you agree with their politics in those cities, but the electoral college is designed so that exact scenario doesn’t happen.
In terms of smaller states having the same amount of senators as big states, that was exactly the point. Smaller states shouldn’t get bullied by the bigger states. The bigger states get their representation in both the House or Representatives and the number of electoral college votes they get.
It’s pretty basic Civics 101 why we have the electoral college in place. It can be tweaked, but a popular vote renders states like Kentucky completely useless and forgotten.
National Media trying to make this about Trump . We all know here in Ky it wasnt at all about The Great Orange one .. it was Bevin's big mouth that cost the GOP greatly .
![[poop]](https://ct.yimg.com/mr/uploads/891/1682179.png "Poop [poop]")
He gets noting passed. It's all on the legislature & it's veto-proof Pub majorities.
ME & NE already do it that way. Trump got 1/4 ME EC votes in '16. That's on the states to do/change.
& I think it's the way to go for the reason you cite (hate saying that.). Candidates would have to pick off EV's mainly one at a time & force them to go/advertise in all states. You still get 10 votes in NYC & LA, but that's small in total. BUT, larger states are reluctant to change on their own as it dilutes their impact/importance if other large states don't.
Beshear didn't win. Bevin lost because he was the most unpopular governor in the nation 50 out of 50. A complete jerk. If any other republican besides Bevin was running, the republican would have won. And as far as a turnaround in Virginia goes. The reason that democrats have been winning in Virginia is because. Former governor Terry McAuliffe restored the voting rights of 173,000 felons. And surprised, surprised guess which party that ex-cons votes for. Yes you guessed right. Ex-cons votes overwhelmingly for democrats. Like they say birds of a feather flock to together.
there is zero question that part of the reason the electoral college was created was to implement a fair system and to eliminate the potential for rural areas to be disregarded and population centers to control all of the elections.
there certainly were additional considerations that were a part of the creation of the election process, but to say that the system was not implemented in part at least to try and even out the disparity between rural and urban areas or try and imply that was not a factor is false. To also plug in the other considerations which only were related to the creation of our system of government and the slave state vs northern states 3/5 dilemma is a straw man at best and outright propaganda at worst.
For those of us that's disappointed because a pro abortion, liberal like daddy's boy Andy Beshear won. Let's try to look on the bright side. When a republican gets beat. We don't have to worry about getting the windows in our business broke out or getting our cars turned over & burned & we don't have to dodge piles of human $h!t on the sidewalks like we do when a democrat gets beat. Remember the way that democrats acted after Hillary got beat. Subhuman bunch of filth. Like savage, animals.
I did not know that the states could do that on their own, think they should consider it, at least the smaller states that are almost certain to vote blue or red, that way there is incentive to campaign here. Last Democrat Presidential candidate I can ever remember coming to Lexington was Clinton either in 92 or 96, spoke in front of UK's campus, but I don't think I have seen one since, maybe Gore in 2000, but honestly, think one of his family spoke, not him personally.
Rural vs urban??? no...as we were mostly a rural society. Philadelphia and New York were the two largest cities and both were under 30,000. Marblehead Massachusetts was the 10th largest and had 5600 folks.
"There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections." --James Madison
That is not the system's fault my friend. That is the citizen's fault. And some could say the party's fault or even a cultural fault based on each state. Citizens deciding which side they are pre-election would not be what the Founders wanted, but it's also not an example systematic "error". Some forget that by the time Andrew Jackson came around, there was a much divided country as well, all the way up until James Buchanan, before ultimately a civil war broke out in Lincoln's term. There's no system that can avoid people taking sides and sticking to them, but the closest thing to preventing a mob rule of major cities is the Electoral College. Also "that's not how the Founders would want it" is a common phrase, that is almost always half true in substance. Many of the first Founders didn't agree on a lot of things, but compromise was key. Many of our Founders actually wanted George Washington to be a King. But the man was so great that he refused and gave AWAY powers on more occasions than taking them. Which is a goal I wish all in power would want nowadays, but it seems we are back to government wanting more and more power. And many even vote in favor of that (especially in big cities). Which I think just about every Founder would be opposed to.
I wish we could go back to the fairness and honesty of our Founders. They created a govt based off of compromise. Now we have a govt that wants to make changes based off of partisanship and votes.
Well, just read this article that shows that as long as gerrymandering goes on, this system isn't any better & may be worse. Hadn't thought of this.
https://www.makingeveryvotecount.co...-district-or-proportionally-is-not-the-answer
I don't really think that's true at all. The purpose of the electoral college was to respect the sovereignty of each state, thereby giving 2 additional votes to each state above what they would have if they went by population alone. So it's not about the cities "drowning out the votes", it's about the larger states taking too much control from the smaller states.
Let's take your example re: NYC. The five boroughs of NYC have almost twice as many people as all of Kentucky does. Even with the electoral college and the extra two votes of that Kentucky gets because it, NYC can wipe out our entire vote.
Congrats on focusing directly on another straw man. I referred to urban and rural and I suppose I assumed it was understood That wasn’t meant to imply that the urban centers of today were applicable then. I assumed it was understood to mean that the larger more populous states over less populous ones. But keep picking that straw man all you want. My entire point was that the large vs small population states and a system where they could make them as equal as possible were a part of the electoral college consideration when it was created, and that facet of the electoral system certainly still applies today.
im not gonna keep going back and forth on this with you neither of us are gonna change each other’s minds. But just for reference I also did a quick google search and found a quote from I believe the national archives relating to the founding of the electoral system:
During most of the Constitutional Convention, presidential selection was vested in the legislature. The electoral college was proposed near the end of the convention by the Committee on Unfinished Parts, chaired by David Brearley of New Jersey, to provide a system that would select the most qualified president and vice president. Historians have suggested a variety of reasons for the adoption of the electoral college, including concerns about the separation of powers and the relationship between the executive and legislative branches, the balance between small and large states, slavery, and the perceived dangers of direct democracy. One supporter of the electoral college, Alexander Hamilton, argued that while it might not be perfect, it was “at least excellent.”
I never argued it was the ONLY REASON. Just a part of the consideration. I certainly agree there were many other considerations in play as well relating to slavery and other concerns. But as stated I’m done arguing the electoral college is not going anywhere nor should it in my opinion. If you feel it should go to a straight popular vote keep fighting that battle good luck to you. I just strongly disagree.
Kentucky is already irrelevant in the electoral college system because we are one of the pundit states that Presidents don’t need to pay attention to. Only reason we hold on to it today is for tradition and so politicians can easily predict races to manipulate voters in 5 states.
A
anon_q409idbs5m40a
Guest
Bevin could down as one of the top five worst governors ever in Kentucky. I've been away from the state since 1983 but still keep up with current events. Very obvious that he did this to himself.
Bevin is a jackass, but not even close to as bad as lil Andy’s daddy.
E votes are allocated based on population. Are illegals considered as being part of the population?
I'd never be in favor of eliminating the EC but why not base the number of votes allocated on the number of registered voters in each state.
I'd never be in favor of eliminating the EC but why not base the number of votes allocated on the number of registered voters in each state.
Last edited:
A
anon_q409idbs5m40a
Guest
How does Bevin compare to Patton? Just lucky we have Greg Abbott here in Texas.
Given the current state of the state...Bevin has been a very successful Gov. Were it not for him offending the thin skinned idiots, he would have won in a landslide. Even then, it shouldn't have mattered.
- Status
