Liberals Claim Electoral College Is Biased. Here Are the Facts.

[Leroy N. Soetoro]

https://www.dailysignal.com/2017/10/24/is-the-electoral-college-biased-
against-democrats/

In 1824, Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams were both members of the
same political party. But in every other election with a discrepancy
between the electoral and popular votes, the losing candidate has been the
Democrat.

Odd coincidence? Or is the Electoral College biased against the Democratic
Party?

Democratic President Barack Obama seemed to imply just that in a December
2016 press conference: “The Electoral College is a vestige,” he told
reporters. “It’s a carry-over. … [T]here are some structures in our
political system, as envisioned by the Founders, that sometimes are going
to disadvantage Democrats.”

It’s a funny thing to say, of course. Republicans have spent years
bemoaning the huge lead that Democrats have enjoyed in the Electoral
College.

The so-called “blue wall” was thought to be impenetrable, apparently
giving Democrats an advantage before voting even started. Pundits claimed
that Democrats would begin 2016 with a head start of at least 217
electoral votes—and perhaps as many as 249.

“No matter whom Republicans nominate to face Hillary Rodham Clinton in
November 2016,” one columnist at The Washington Post wrote, “that
candidate will start at a disadvantage. It’s not polling, Clinton’s deep
résumé, or the improving state of the economy. It’s the Electoral
College.”

Another political scientist made a similar prediction in 2014.

Benjamin Highton, a professor at the University of California, Davis
claimed that the Democratic tilt in the Electoral College was so heavy
that a Republican would be unlikely to win the 2016 election unless that
Republican first won the national popular vote by at least 1 or 2
percentage points.

The actual results flipped this expectation on its head: Donald Trump won
the electoral vote fairly easily, even as Clinton won the nationwide
popular tally by more than 2 percentage points.

Purchase Tara Ross’s book, “The Indispensable Electoral College: How

the Founders’ Plan Saves Our Country from Mob Rule“

Such results naturally resurrect the question: Is the Electoral College
biased against Democrats? Or did Democrats simply blow their lead by
taking voters for granted?

If Democrats did indeed blow their lead, then they were merely repeating a
mistake that the Republican Party made in the 1990s.

After the Reagan years, it was said that Republicans had a “lock” on the
Electoral College. At least 21 states, including California, were
consistently voting Republican. How could Democrats hope to compete?

Bill Clinton soon found a way, of course. He turned California and eight
other states blue for the first time since 1964.

Other presidents have accomplished similar feats. In 1952, Republican
Dwight D. Eisenhower won 16 states that hadn’t voted Republican since 1928
and two others that hadn’t voted Republican since 1924.

Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, of course, demolished a
North-South divide that had persisted, for the most part, since the Civil
War. In 1936, he won every state except Maine and Vermont.

The reality is that any “bias” in the Electoral College does not
consistently favor or disfavor either of the political parties. To the
degree that there are biases, they are short-lived.

States change their allegiances fairly consistently. Party allegiance is
like a pendulum, slowly swinging back and forth, first appearing to favor
the one party, and then appearing to favor the other.

The tension in the system reflects the constant, healthy competition
between the two parties: Each is always trying to outperform the other by
capturing the large bloc of voters in the middle of American politics.

A careful study of history reveals that the Electoral College is neither
pro-Democrat nor pro-Republican. It simply rewards the candidate who
appears to be listening to the greatest cross-section of people at any
given time.

Obama complained that the system put Democrats at a disadvantage, but he
came closer to the truth when he concluded, “[I]f we have a strong
message, if we’re speaking to what the American people care about,
typically the popular vote and the Electoral College vote will align.”
--
Donald J. Trump, 304 electoral votes to 227, defeated compulsive liar in
denial Hillary Rodham Clinton on December 19th, 2016. The clown car
parade of the democrat party ran out of gas and got run over by a Trump
truck.

Congratulations President Trump. Thank you for cleaning up the disaster
of the Obama presidency.

Under Barack Obama's leadership, the United States of America became the
The World According To Garp.

ObamaCare is a total 100% failure and no lie that can be put forth by its
supporters can dispute that.

Obama jobs, the result of ObamaCare. 12-15 working hours a week at minimum
wage, no benefits and the primary revenue stream for ObamaCare. It can't
be funded with money people don't have, yet liberals lie about how great
it is.

Obama increased total debt from $10 trillion to $20 trillion in the eight
years he was in office, and sold out heterosexuals for Hollywood queer
liberal democrat donors.

[Peter Franks]

Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
https://www.dailysignal.com/2017/10/24/is-the-electoral-college-biased-
against-democrats/
In 1824, Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams were both members of the
same political party. But in every other election with a discrepancy
between the electoral and popular votes, the losing candidate has been the
Democrat.
Odd coincidence? Or is the Electoral College biased against the Democratic
Party?
Democratic President Barack Obama seemed to imply just that in a December
2016 press conference: “The Electoral College is a vestige,” he told
reporters. “It’s a carry-over. … [T]here are some structures in our
political system, as envisioned by the Founders, that sometimes are going
to disadvantage Democrats.”
It’s a funny thing to say, of course. Republicans have spent years
bemoaning the huge lead that Democrats have enjoyed in the Electoral
College.
The so-called “blue wall” was thought to be impenetrable, apparently
giving Democrats an advantage before voting even started. Pundits claimed
that Democrats would begin 2016 with a head start of at least 217
electoral votes—and perhaps as many as 249.
“No matter whom Republicans nominate to face Hillary Rodham Clinton in
November 2016,” one columnist at The Washington Post wrote, “that
candidate will start at a disadvantage. It’s not polling, Clinton’s deep
résumé, or the improving state of the economy. It’s the Electoral
College.”
Another political scientist made a similar prediction in 2014.
Benjamin Highton, a professor at the University of California, Davis
claimed that the Democratic tilt in the Electoral College was so heavy
that a Republican would be unlikely to win the 2016 election unless that
Republican first won the national popular vote by at least 1 or 2
percentage points.
The actual results flipped this expectation on its head: Donald Trump won
the electoral vote fairly easily, even as Clinton won the nationwide
popular tally by more than 2 percentage points.

Purchase Tara Ross’s book, “The Indispensable Electoral College: How

the Founders’ Plan Saves Our Country from Mob Rule“
Such results naturally resurrect the question: Is the Electoral College
biased against Democrats? Or did Democrats simply blow their lead by
taking voters for granted?
If Democrats did indeed blow their lead, then they were merely repeating a
mistake that the Republican Party made in the 1990s.
After the Reagan years, it was said that Republicans had a “lock” on the
Electoral College. At least 21 states, including California, were
consistently voting Republican. How could Democrats hope to compete?
Bill Clinton soon found a way, of course. He turned California and eight
other states blue for the first time since 1964.
Other presidents have accomplished similar feats. In 1952, Republican
Dwight D. Eisenhower won 16 states that hadn’t voted Republican since 1928
and two others that hadn’t voted Republican since 1924.
Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, of course, demolished a
North-South divide that had persisted, for the most part, since the Civil
War. In 1936, he won every state except Maine and Vermont.
The reality is that any “bias” in the Electoral College does not
consistently favor or disfavor either of the political parties. To the
degree that there are biases, they are short-lived.
States change their allegiances fairly consistently. Party allegiance is
like a pendulum, slowly swinging back and forth, first appearing to favor
the one party, and then appearing to favor the other.
The tension in the system reflects the constant, healthy competition
between the two parties: Each is always trying to outperform the other by
capturing the large bloc of voters in the middle of American politics.
A careful study of history reveals that the Electoral College is neither
pro-Democrat nor pro-Republican. It simply rewards the candidate who
appears to be listening to the greatest cross-section of people at any
given time.
Obama complained that the system put Democrats at a disadvantage, but he
came closer to the truth when he concluded, “[I]f we have a strong
message, if we’re speaking to what the American people care about,
typically the popular vote and the Electoral College vote will align.”

But the electoral college was not instituted to align people, it was
instituted to ensure that the population of one state dominate the country.

But all of this flap about the electoral college is ancillary to the
core issue, that being that there is entirely too much power in
government, esp. the presidency. The office of president, as originally
instituted, was one of administration and execution of a few
well-defined powers. Unfortunately, that has unjustly morphed from an
office of president to an office of king. History shows us time and
time again that people have an innate and corrupt sense of being ruled
by a king, instead of being rulers of themselves.

[Peter Franks]

Post by Peter Franks

Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
https://www.dailysignal.com/2017/10/24/is-the-electoral-college-biased-
against-democrats/
In 1824, Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams were both members of the
same political party. But in every other election with a discrepancy
between the electoral and popular votes, the losing candidate has been the
Democrat.
Odd coincidence? Or is the Electoral College biased against the Democratic
Party?
Democratic President Barack Obama seemed to imply just that in a December
2016 press conference: “The Electoral College is a vestige,” he told
reporters. “It’s a carry-over. … [T]here are some structures in our
political system, as envisioned by the Founders, that sometimes are going
to disadvantage Democrats.”
It’s a funny thing to say, of course. Republicans have spent years
bemoaning the huge lead that Democrats have enjoyed in the Electoral
College.
The so-called “blue wall” was thought to be impenetrable, apparently
giving Democrats an advantage before voting even started. Pundits claimed
that Democrats would begin 2016 with a head start of at least 217
electoral votes—and perhaps as many as 249.
“No matter whom Republicans nominate to face Hillary Rodham Clinton in
November 2016,” one columnist at The Washington Post wrote, “that
candidate will start at a disadvantage. It’s not polling, Clinton’s deep
résumé, or the improving state of the economy. It’s the Electoral
College.”
Another political scientist made a similar prediction in 2014.
Benjamin Highton, a professor at the University of California, Davis
claimed that the Democratic tilt in the Electoral College was so heavy
that a Republican would be unlikely to win the 2016 election unless that
Republican first won the national popular vote by at least 1 or 2
percentage points.
The actual results flipped this expectation on its head: Donald Trump won
the electoral vote fairly easily, even as Clinton won the nationwide
popular tally by more than 2 percentage points.

Purchase Tara Ross’s book, “The Indispensable Electoral College: How

the Founders’ Plan Saves Our Country from Mob Rule“
Such results naturally resurrect the question: Is the Electoral College
biased against Democrats? Or did Democrats simply blow their lead by
taking voters for granted?
If Democrats did indeed blow their lead, then they were merely repeating a
mistake that the Republican Party made in the 1990s.
After the Reagan years, it was said that Republicans had a “lock” on the
Electoral College. At least 21 states, including California, were
consistently voting Republican. How could Democrats hope to compete?
Bill Clinton soon found a way, of course. He turned California and eight
other states blue for the first time since 1964.
Other presidents have accomplished similar feats. In 1952, Republican
Dwight D. Eisenhower won 16 states that hadn’t voted Republican since 1928
and two others that hadn’t voted Republican since 1924.
Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, of course, demolished a
North-South divide that had persisted, for the most part, since the Civil
War. In 1936, he won every state except Maine and Vermont.
The reality is that any “bias” in the Electoral College does not
consistently favor or disfavor either of the political parties. To the
degree that there are biases, they are short-lived.
States change their allegiances fairly consistently. Party allegiance is
like a pendulum, slowly swinging back and forth, first appearing to favor
the one party, and then appearing to favor the other.
The tension in the system reflects the constant, healthy competition
between the two parties: Each is always trying to outperform the other by
capturing the large bloc of voters in the middle of American politics.
A careful study of history reveals that the Electoral College is neither
pro-Democrat nor pro-Republican. It simply rewards the candidate who
appears to be listening to the greatest cross-section of people at any
given time.
Obama complained that the system put Democrats at a disadvantage, but he
came closer to the truth when he concluded, “[I]f we have a strong
message, if we’re speaking to what the American people care about,
typically the popular vote and the Electoral College vote will align.”

But the electoral college was not instituted to align people, it was
instituted to ensure that the population of one state dominate the country.

Corr: ...the population of one state /does not/ dominate the country...

[super70s]

Not "facts" at all but wild generalizations and unfounded conclusions...

Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
the greatest cross-section of people

There's a "cross-section of people" and opinions in populated areas also
-- even more than in sparsely populated areas -- however in the US their
opinions are given less weight than those in sparsely populated areas.

It violates the 1 person/1 vote principle that all modern democracies
(except the US with its antiquated policies) observe.

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

Post by super70s
Not "facts" at all but wild generalizations and unfounded conclusions...

Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
the greatest cross-section of people

There's a "cross-section of people" and opinions in populated areas also
-- even more than in sparsely populated areas -- however in the US their
opinions are given less weight than those in sparsely populated areas.
It violates the 1 person/1 vote principle that all modern democracies
(except the US with its antiquated policies) observe.

And it's a good thing... because Democracy is two wolves and a sheep
voting on what's for dinner.

Wouldn't Democracy mean that California would still NOT have gay
marriage? That must be what you want, a vote to ban gay marriage.

[Peter Franks]

Post by super70s
Not "facts" at all but wild generalizations and unfounded conclusions...

Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
the greatest cross-section of people

There's a "cross-section of people" and opinions in populated areas also

Well that's patently false.

It has been shown that urban/populated areas tend Democrat/liberal,
rural tends Republican/conservative.

Post by super70s
-- even more than in sparsely populated areas -- however in the US their
opinions are given less weight than those in sparsely populated areas.
It violates the 1 person/1 vote principle that all modern democracies
(except the US with its antiquated policies) observe.

So-called 'modern democracies' are nothing more than socialist fronts
where liberty takes a back seat to mob rule. The electoral college, far
from perfect, helps dissuade the socialist tendency that pollutes and
destroys freedom.

The preservation of liberty is the objective.

[Rudy Canoza]

Post by Peter Franks

Post by super70s
Not "facts" at all but wild generalizations and unfounded conclusions...

Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
the greatest cross-section of people

There's a "cross-section of people" and opinions in populated areas also

Well that's patently false.
It has been shown that urban/populated areas tend Democrat/liberal,
rural tends Republican/conservative.

Post by super70s
-- even more than in sparsely populated areas -- however in the US their
opinions are given less weight than those in sparsely populated areas.
It violates the 1 person/1 vote principle that all modern democracies
(except the US with its antiquated policies) observe.

So-called 'modern democracies' are nothing more than socialist fronts
where liberty takes a back seat to mob rule.  The electoral college, far
from perfect, helps dissuade the socialist tendency that pollutes and
destroys freedom.

Very odd that not a single state employs a state-level electoral college
to elect the governor. All governors are elected by direct popular vote.

The president ought to be as well.

[Peter Franks]

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Peter Franks

Post by super70s
Not "facts" at all but wild generalizations and unfounded conclusions...

Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
the greatest cross-section of people

There's a "cross-section of people" and opinions in populated areas also

Well that's patently false.
It has been shown that urban/populated areas tend Democrat/liberal,
rural tends Republican/conservative.

Post by super70s
-- even more than in sparsely populated areas -- however in the US their
opinions are given less weight than those in sparsely populated areas.
It violates the 1 person/1 vote principle that all modern democracies
(except the US with its antiquated policies) observe.

So-called 'modern democracies' are nothing more than socialist fronts
where liberty takes a back seat to mob rule.  The electoral college,
far from perfect, helps dissuade the socialist tendency that pollutes
and destroys freedom.

Very odd that not a single state employs a state-level electoral college
to elect the governor.  All governors are elected by direct popular vote.
The president ought to be as well.

Apparently you understood not even a single word of what I wrote.

[Richard L. Hamilton]

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Peter Franks

Post by super70s
Not "facts" at all but wild generalizations and unfounded conclusions...

Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
the greatest cross-section of people

There's a "cross-section of people" and opinions in populated areas also

Well that's patently false.
It has been shown that urban/populated areas tend Democrat/liberal,
rural tends Republican/conservative.

Post by super70s
-- even more than in sparsely populated areas -- however in the US their
opinions are given less weight than those in sparsely populated areas.
It violates the 1 person/1 vote principle that all modern democracies
(except the US with its antiquated policies) observe.

So-called 'modern democracies' are nothing more than socialist fronts
where liberty takes a back seat to mob rule.  The electoral college, far
from perfect, helps dissuade the socialist tendency that pollutes and
destroys freedom.

Very odd that not a single state employs a state-level electoral college
to elect the governor. All governors are elected by direct popular vote.
The president ought to be as well.

No, but originally senators were elected by state legislatures
rather than directly. If there's going to be popular sovereignty by
the ignorant unwashed (i.e. everyone that's NOT "landed gentry")
mob, that's supposed to happen at the _state_ level, and not trash
the whole country. You want more social spending? Have the cajones
to vote for it at the state and local level. Never happens. Why?
People know it doesn't work unless there's lots of other people to
steal from. Except it still doesn't work, because the population is
not infinite.

The only freedom is to work your @$$ off and die in the end anyway.
Whether or not you achieve any security or comfort, at least you'll
have been useful that way. Otherwise, you're just a parasite. And
parasites die too, because they get greedy and kill their host.

[Peter Franks]

Post by Richard L. Hamilton

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Peter Franks

Post by super70s
Not "facts" at all but wild generalizations and unfounded conclusions...

Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
the greatest cross-section of people

There's a "cross-section of people" and opinions in populated areas also

Well that's patently false.
It has been shown that urban/populated areas tend Democrat/liberal,
rural tends Republican/conservative.

Post by super70s
-- even more than in sparsely populated areas -- however in the US their
opinions are given less weight than those in sparsely populated areas.
It violates the 1 person/1 vote principle that all modern democracies
(except the US with its antiquated policies) observe.

So-called 'modern democracies' are nothing more than socialist fronts
where liberty takes a back seat to mob rule.  The electoral college, far
from perfect, helps dissuade the socialist tendency that pollutes and
destroys freedom.

Very odd that not a single state employs a state-level electoral college
to elect the governor. All governors are elected by direct popular vote.
The president ought to be as well.

No, but originally senators were elected by state legislatures
rather than directly. If there's going to be popular sovereignty by
the ignorant unwashed (i.e. everyone that's NOT "landed gentry")
mob, that's supposed to happen at the _state_ level, and not trash
the whole country. You want more social spending? Have the cajones
to vote for it at the state and local level. Never happens. Why?
People know it doesn't work unless there's lots of other people to
steal from. Except it still doesn't work, because the population is
not infinite.
Whether or not you achieve any security or comfort, at least you'll
have been useful that way. Otherwise, you're just a parasite. And
parasites die too, because they get greedy and kill their host.

Thank you.

[super70s]

Post by Peter Franks

Post by super70s
Not "facts" at all but wild generalizations and unfounded conclusions...

Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
the greatest cross-section of people

There's a "cross-section of people" and opinions in populated areas also

Well that's patently false.
It has been shown that urban/populated areas tend Democrat/liberal,
rural tends Republican/conservative.

I'm talking about "cross-section" of backgrounds, socioeconomic status,
and opinions -- not voting tendencies. I thought this diversity was the
main goal of the creaky EC (or at least that's how it's modern backers
try to rationalize what seemed like a good idea to the landed gentry of
the 18th century).

[Peter Franks]

Post by super70s

Post by Peter Franks

Post by super70s
Not "facts" at all but wild generalizations and unfounded conclusions...

Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
the greatest cross-section of people

There's a "cross-section of people" and opinions in populated areas also

Well that's patently false.
It has been shown that urban/populated areas tend Democrat/liberal,
rural tends Republican/conservative.

I'm talking about "cross-section" of backgrounds, socioeconomic status,
and opinions -- not voting tendencies. I thought this diversity was the
main goal of the creaky EC (or at least that's how it's modern backers
try to rationalize what seemed like a good idea to the landed gentry of
the 18th century).

Diversity is NOT the main goal of the creaky EC.

[Peter Franks]

Post by super70s
Not "facts" at all but wild generalizations and unfounded conclusions...

Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
the greatest cross-section of people

There's a "cross-section of people" and opinions in populated areas also
-- even more than in sparsely populated areas -- however in the US their
opinions are given less weight than those in sparsely populated areas.
It violates the 1 person/1 vote principle that all modern democracies
(except the US with its antiquated policies) observe.

The US is not a democracy.

[super70s]

Post by Peter Franks

Post by super70s
Not "facts" at all but wild generalizations and unfounded conclusions...

Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
the greatest cross-section of people

There's a "cross-section of people" and opinions in populated areas also
-- even more than in sparsely populated areas -- however in the US their
opinions are given less weight than those in sparsely populated areas.
It violates the 1 person/1 vote principle that all modern democracies
(except the US with its antiquated policies) observe.

The US is not a democracy.

I realize that claim is real big in conservative and libertarian circles
but there's no difference in "democracy" and "republic" in contemporary
usage.

[Peter Franks]

Post by super70s

Post by Peter Franks

Post by super70s
Not "facts" at all but wild generalizations and unfounded conclusions...

Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
the greatest cross-section of people

There's a "cross-section of people" and opinions in populated areas also
-- even more than in sparsely populated areas -- however in the US their
opinions are given less weight than those in sparsely populated areas.
It violates the 1 person/1 vote principle that all modern democracies
(except the US with its antiquated policies) observe.

The US is not a democracy.

I realize that claim is real big in conservative and libertarian circles
but there's no difference in "democracy" and "republic" in contemporary
usage.

Our system is based on the presumption that the constitution secures and
protects immutable truths, not subject to whim.

In a democracy, there is no immutable truth; only whim.

[Rudy Canoza]

Post by Peter Franks

Post by super70s

Post by Peter Franks

Post by super70s
Not "facts" at all but wild generalizations and unfounded
conclusions...

Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
the greatest cross-section of people

There's a "cross-section of people" and opinions in populated areas also
-- even more than in sparsely populated areas -- however in the US their
opinions are given less weight than those in sparsely populated areas.
It violates the 1 person/1 vote principle that all modern democracies
(except the US with its antiquated policies) observe.

The US is not a democracy.

I realize that claim is real big in conservative and libertarian circles
but there's no difference in "democracy" and "republic" in contemporary
usage.

Our system is based on the presumption that the constitution secures and
protects immutable truths, not subject to whim.

Irrelevant. We are nonetheless a democracy. People vote. That makes
us a democracy.

[super70s]

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Peter Franks

Post by super70s

Post by Peter Franks

Post by super70s
It violates the 1 person/1 vote principle that all modern democracies
(except the US with its antiquated policies) observe.

The US is not a democracy.

I realize that claim is real big in conservative and libertarian circles
but there's no difference in "democracy" and "republic" in contemporary
usage.

Our system is based on the presumption that the constitution secures and
protects immutable truths, not subject to whim.

Irrelevant. We are nonetheless a democracy. People vote. That makes
us a democracy.

Also he no doubt believes his own political persuasion isn't subject to
"whims," only opposing political persuasions.

Same thing with their attitude about the electoral college -- the really
populated areas have "whims" so you need rural areas with a
disproportionate amount of political power to control these "whims."

However they themselves never have "whims," such as nominating and
voting for a failed real estate hustler, TV reality show host and total
buffoon with zero experience and knowledge in politics and government.

[Peter Franks]

Post by super70s

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Peter Franks

Post by super70s

Post by Peter Franks

Post by super70s
It violates the 1 person/1 vote principle that all modern democracies
(except the US with its antiquated policies) observe.

The US is not a democracy.

I realize that claim is real big in conservative and libertarian circles
but there's no difference in "democracy" and "republic" in contemporary
usage.

Our system is based on the presumption that the constitution secures and
protects immutable truths, not subject to whim.

Irrelevant. We are nonetheless a democracy. People vote. That makes
us a democracy.

Also he no doubt believes his own political persuasion isn't subject to
"whims," only opposing political persuasions.
Same thing with their attitude about the electoral college -- the really
populated areas have "whims" so you need rural areas with a
disproportionate amount of political power to control these "whims."

Oh, I have whims, just like everyone else.

I've never advocating using them as a foundation for governance, though.
Not something that the proponents of liberalism/democracy can claim
though.

Post by super70s
However they themselves never have "whims," such as nominating and
voting for a failed real estate hustler, TV reality show host and total
buffoon with zero experience and knowledge in politics and government.

Yes, and he certainly has lived up to that image.

Perhaps we should have a more stringent tests for qualifications for
becoming president, instead of loosening...

[Richard L. Hamilton]

Post by super70s

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Peter Franks

Post by super70s

Post by Peter Franks

Post by super70s
It violates the 1 person/1 vote principle that all modern democracies
(except the US with its antiquated policies) observe.

The US is not a democracy.

I realize that claim is real big in conservative and libertarian circles
but there's no difference in "democracy" and "republic" in contemporary
usage.

Our system is based on the presumption that the constitution secures and
protects immutable truths, not subject to whim.

Irrelevant. We are nonetheless a democracy. People vote. That makes
us a democracy.

Also he no doubt believes his own political persuasion isn't subject to
"whims," only opposing political persuasions.
Same thing with their attitude about the electoral college -- the really
populated areas have "whims" so you need rural areas with a
disproportionate amount of political power to control these "whims."
However they themselves never have "whims," such as nominating and
voting for a failed real estate hustler, TV reality show host and total
buffoon with zero experience and knowledge in politics and government.

The Electoral College was not intended to offer any assurance that it
would give the same results as the popular vote. Ancient Athens had pure
democracy, and it had problems. Admittedly, only a small portion of the
populace had the franchise, but that wasn't the cause of most of those
problems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy#Criticism

[Rudy Canoza]

Post by super70s

Post by Peter Franks

Post by super70s
Not "facts" at all but wild generalizations and unfounded conclusions...

Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
the greatest cross-section of people

There's a "cross-section of people" and opinions in populated areas also
-- even more than in sparsely populated areas -- however in the US their
opinions are given less weight than those in sparsely populated areas.
It violates the 1 person/1 vote principle that all modern democracies
(except the US with its antiquated policies) observe.

The US is not a democracy.

I realize that claim is real big in conservative and libertarian circles

No, not libertarian. Knuckle-dragging far-right-wingnut circles only.

[Rudy Canoza]

Post by Peter Franks

Post by super70s
Not "facts" at all but wild generalizations and unfounded conclusions...

Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
the greatest cross-section of people

There's a "cross-section of people" and opinions in populated areas also
-- even more than in sparsely populated areas -- however in the US their
opinions are given less weight than those in sparsely populated areas.
It violates the 1 person/1 vote principle that all modern democracies
(except the US with its antiquated policies) observe.

The US is not a democracy.

The U.S. is, of course, a modern liberal democracy as all educated
persons use the word.

[Rudy Canoza]

Post by Peter Franks

Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
https://www.dailysignal.com/2017/10/24/is-the-electoral-college-biased-
against-democrats/
In 1824, Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams were both members of the
same political party. But in every other election with a discrepancy
between the electoral and popular votes, the losing candidate has been the
Democrat.
Odd coincidence? Or is the Electoral College biased against the Democratic
Party?
Democratic President Barack Obama seemed to imply just that in a December
2016 press conference: “The Electoral College is a vestige,” he told
reporters. “It’s a carry-over. … [T]here are some structures in our
political system, as envisioned by the Founders, that sometimes are going
to disadvantage Democrats.”
It’s a funny thing to say, of course. Republicans have spent years
bemoaning the huge lead that Democrats have enjoyed in the Electoral
College.
The so-called “blue wall” was thought to be impenetrable, apparently
giving Democrats an advantage before voting even started. Pundits claimed
that Democrats would begin 2016 with a head start of at least 217
electoral votes—and perhaps as many as 249.
“No matter whom Republicans nominate to face Hillary Rodham Clinton in
November 2016,” one columnist at The Washington Post wrote, “that
candidate will start at a disadvantage. It’s not polling, Clinton’s deep
résumé, or the improving state of the economy. It’s the Electoral
College.”
Another political scientist made a similar prediction in 2014.
Benjamin Highton, a professor at the University of California, Davis
claimed that the Democratic tilt in the Electoral College was so heavy
that a Republican would be unlikely to win the 2016 election unless that
Republican first won the national popular vote by at least 1 or 2
percentage points.
The actual results flipped this expectation on its head: Donald Trump won
the electoral vote fairly easily, even as Clinton won the nationwide
popular tally by more than 2 percentage points.

Purchase Tara Ross’s book, “The Indispensable Electoral College: How

the Founders’ Plan Saves Our Country from Mob Rule“
Such results naturally resurrect the question: Is the Electoral College
biased against Democrats? Or did Democrats simply blow their lead by
taking voters for granted?
If Democrats did indeed blow their lead, then they were merely repeating a
mistake that the Republican Party made in the 1990s.
After the Reagan years, it was said that Republicans had a “lock” on the
Electoral College. At least 21 states, including California, were
consistently voting Republican. How could Democrats hope to compete?
Bill Clinton soon found a way, of course. He turned California and eight
other states blue for the first time since 1964.
Other presidents have accomplished similar feats. In 1952, Republican
Dwight D. Eisenhower won 16 states that hadn’t voted Republican since 1928
and two others that hadn’t voted Republican since 1924.
Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, of course, demolished a
North-South divide that had persisted, for the most part, since the Civil
War. In 1936, he won every state except Maine and Vermont.
The reality is that any “bias” in the Electoral College does not
consistently favor or disfavor either of the political parties. To the
degree that there are biases, they are short-lived.
States change their allegiances fairly consistently. Party allegiance is
like a pendulum, slowly swinging back and forth, first appearing to favor
the one party, and then appearing to favor the other.
The tension in the system reflects the constant, healthy competition
between the two parties: Each is always trying to outperform the other by
capturing the large bloc of voters in the middle of American politics.
A careful study of history reveals that the Electoral College is neither
pro-Democrat nor pro-Republican. It simply rewards the candidate who
appears to be listening to the greatest cross-section of people at any
given time.
Obama complained that the system put Democrats at a disadvantage, but he
came closer to the truth when he concluded, “[I]f we have a strong
message, if we’re speaking to what the American people care about,
typically the popular vote and the Electoral College vote will align.”

But the electoral college was not instituted to align people, it was
instituted to ensure that the population of one state dominate the country.

You mean *not* dominate the country, but that's bullshit. That's one of
the bullshit excuses given for it by apologists. It was instituted to
give excessive power to the slave states to ensure they'd join the
union. That's the reason. That's the only reason. All the bullshit
about "distrust" of democracy, "small states", etc. has been debunked.
It was slavery.

[Peter Franks]

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Peter Franks

Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
https://www.dailysignal.com/2017/10/24/is-the-electoral-college-biased-
against-democrats/
In 1824, Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams were both members of the
same political party. But in every other election with a discrepancy
between the electoral and popular votes, the losing candidate has been the
Democrat.
Odd coincidence? Or is the Electoral College biased against the Democratic
Party?
Democratic President Barack Obama seemed to imply just that in a December
2016 press conference: “The Electoral College is a vestige,” he told
reporters. “It’s a carry-over. … [T]here are some structures in our
political system, as envisioned by the Founders, that sometimes are going
to disadvantage Democrats.”
It’s a funny thing to say, of course. Republicans have spent years
bemoaning the huge lead that Democrats have enjoyed in the Electoral
College.
The so-called “blue wall” was thought to be impenetrable, apparently
giving Democrats an advantage before voting even started. Pundits claimed
that Democrats would begin 2016 with a head start of at least 217
electoral votes—and perhaps as many as 249.
“No matter whom Republicans nominate to face Hillary Rodham Clinton in
November 2016,” one columnist at The Washington Post wrote, “that
candidate will start at a disadvantage. It’s not polling, Clinton’s deep
résumé, or the improving state of the economy. It’s the Electoral
College.”
Another political scientist made a similar prediction in 2014.
Benjamin Highton, a professor at the University of California, Davis
claimed that the Democratic tilt in the Electoral College was so heavy
that a Republican would be unlikely to win the 2016 election unless that
Republican first won the national popular vote by at least 1 or 2
percentage points.
The actual results flipped this expectation on its head: Donald Trump won
the electoral vote fairly easily, even as Clinton won the nationwide
popular tally by more than 2 percentage points.

Purchase Tara Ross’s book, “The Indispensable Electoral College: How

the Founders’ Plan Saves Our Country from Mob Rule“
Such results naturally resurrect the question: Is the Electoral College
biased against Democrats? Or did Democrats simply blow their lead by
taking voters for granted?
If Democrats did indeed blow their lead, then they were merely repeating a
mistake that the Republican Party made in the 1990s.
After the Reagan years, it was said that Republicans had a “lock” on the
Electoral College. At least 21 states, including California, were
consistently voting Republican. How could Democrats hope to compete?
Bill Clinton soon found a way, of course. He turned California and eight
other states blue for the first time since 1964.
Other presidents have accomplished similar feats. In 1952, Republican
Dwight D. Eisenhower won 16 states that hadn’t voted Republican since 1928
and two others that hadn’t voted Republican since 1924.
Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, of course, demolished a
North-South divide that had persisted, for the most part, since the Civil
War. In 1936, he won every state except Maine and Vermont.
The reality is that any “bias” in the Electoral College does not
consistently favor or disfavor either of the political parties. To the
degree that there are biases, they are short-lived.
States change their allegiances fairly consistently. Party allegiance is
like a pendulum, slowly swinging back and forth, first appearing to favor
the one party, and then appearing to favor the other.
The tension in the system reflects the constant, healthy competition
between the two parties: Each is always trying to outperform the other by
capturing the large bloc of voters in the middle of American politics.
A careful study of history reveals that the Electoral College is neither
pro-Democrat nor pro-Republican. It simply rewards the candidate who
appears to be listening to the greatest cross-section of people at any
given time.
Obama complained that the system put Democrats at a disadvantage, but he
came closer to the truth when he concluded, “[I]f we have a strong
message, if we’re speaking to what the American people care about,
typically the popular vote and the Electoral College vote will align.”

But the electoral college was not instituted to align people, it was
instituted to ensure that the population of one state dominate the country.

You mean *not* dominate the country

Yes, not dominate.

Post by Rudy Canoza
, but that's bullshit. That's one of
the bullshit excuses given for it by apologists. It was instituted to
give excessive power to the slave states to ensure they'd join the
union.

Please provide a substantive reference.

Post by Rudy Canoza
That's the reason. That's the only reason. All the bullshit
about "distrust" of democracy, "small states", etc. has been debunked.
It was slavery.

[Rudy Canoza]

Post by Peter Franks

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Peter Franks

Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
https://www.dailysignal.com/2017/10/24/is-the-electoral-college-biased-
against-democrats/
In 1824, Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams were both members of the
same political party. But in every other election with a discrepancy
between the electoral and popular votes, the losing candidate has been the
Democrat.
Odd coincidence? Or is the Electoral College biased against the Democratic
Party?
Democratic President Barack Obama seemed to imply just that in a December
2016 press conference: “The Electoral College is a vestige,” he told
reporters. “It’s a carry-over. … [T]here are some structures in our
political system, as envisioned by the Founders, that sometimes are going
to disadvantage Democrats.”
It’s a funny thing to say, of course. Republicans have spent years
bemoaning the huge lead that Democrats have enjoyed in the Electoral
College.
The so-called “blue wall” was thought to be impenetrable, apparently
giving Democrats an advantage before voting even started. Pundits claimed
that Democrats would begin 2016 with a head start of at least 217
electoral votes—and perhaps as many as 249.
“No matter whom Republicans nominate to face Hillary Rodham Clinton in
November 2016,” one columnist at The Washington Post wrote, “that
candidate will start at a disadvantage. It’s not polling, Clinton’s deep
résumé, or the improving state of the economy. It’s the Electoral
College.”
Another political scientist made a similar prediction in 2014.
Benjamin Highton, a professor at the University of California, Davis
claimed that the Democratic tilt in the Electoral College was so heavy
that a Republican would be unlikely to win the 2016 election unless that
Republican first won the national popular vote by at least 1 or 2
percentage points.
The actual results flipped this expectation on its head: Donald Trump won
the electoral vote fairly easily, even as Clinton won the nationwide
popular tally by more than 2 percentage points.

Purchase Tara Ross’s book, “The Indispensable Electoral College: How

the Founders’ Plan Saves Our Country from Mob Rule“
Such results naturally resurrect the question: Is the Electoral College
biased against Democrats? Or did Democrats simply blow their lead by
taking voters for granted?
If Democrats did indeed blow their lead, then they were merely repeating a
mistake that the Republican Party made in the 1990s.
After the Reagan years, it was said that Republicans had a “lock” on the
Electoral College. At least 21 states, including California, were
consistently voting Republican. How could Democrats hope to compete?
Bill Clinton soon found a way, of course. He turned California and eight
other states blue for the first time since 1964.
Other presidents have accomplished similar feats. In 1952, Republican
Dwight D. Eisenhower won 16 states that hadn’t voted Republican since 1928
and two others that hadn’t voted Republican since 1924.
Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, of course, demolished a
North-South divide that had persisted, for the most part, since the Civil
War. In 1936, he won every state except Maine and Vermont.
The reality is that any “bias” in the Electoral College does not
consistently favor or disfavor either of the political parties. To the
degree that there are biases, they are short-lived.
States change their allegiances fairly consistently. Party
allegiance is
like a pendulum, slowly swinging back and forth, first appearing to favor
the one party, and then appearing to favor the other.
The tension in the system reflects the constant, healthy competition
between the two parties: Each is always trying to outperform the other by
capturing the large bloc of voters in the middle of American politics.
A careful study of history reveals that the Electoral College is neither
pro-Democrat nor pro-Republican. It simply rewards the candidate who
appears to be listening to the greatest cross-section of people at any
given time.
Obama complained that the system put Democrats at a disadvantage, but he
came closer to the truth when he concluded, “[I]f we have a strong
message, if we’re speaking to what the American people care about,
typically the popular vote and the Electoral College vote will align.”

But the electoral college was not instituted to align people, it was
instituted to ensure that the population of one state dominate the country.

You mean *not* dominate the country

Yes, not dominate.

Post by Rudy Canoza
, but that's bullshit.  That's one of
the bullshit excuses given for it by apologists.  It was instituted to
give excessive power to the slave states to ensure they'd join the
union. 

Please provide a substantive reference.

Post by Rudy Canoza
That's the reason.  That's the only reason.  All the bullshit
about "distrust" of democracy, "small states", etc. has been debunked.
It was slavery.

I have done that dozens of times in the last year. I'm not revisiting
it now.