Election fairness

Post Reply New Topic

First, that assumes that all of CA will vote the same way.

Second, only through the electoral college, do states vote enbloc, so it actuall makes it less fair.

Third, check the definition of Democracy.

Fourth, you make it sound like CA would take over and enslave WY because WY can not out vote CA.

Fifth, how many actual voters does CA have? It can not be more that 15,000,000, so that 3,000,000 becomes closer to 1/5th.

Does it make you wonder that no other nation in the world has adopted the US model?

Democracy does mean majority rule, not minority rule to ensure thier issues are addressed.

You still have not addressed the issue of fairness. Will you be ok if it happens to you?

Of all the influences we as a country have had on the spread of free government around the world, one institution no one else has ever embraced is the electoral college. Direct democracy in national elections works everywhere else, so I fail to see why it wouldn't work here. And lest it be forgotten, the electoral college had originally been devised because the founders were so frightened of the common people choosing the chief executive.

So you'd be cool with reinstating slavery and putting gays in camps if the majority decided to do that, because democracy?



If what happens to me? That my preferred party runs a flawed candidate poorly and loses in an electoral system that everyone knew about in advance? For all we know, Trump would still have won under a straight popular vote because he would have campaigned differently and people would have voted differently; blue state republicans are just as disenfranchised as red state democrats in our current system after all, and more of them might have come out for Trump in a popular election.

Given that you're so passionate about this issue, surely you were rallying against the electoral college before the election, right? If you have a link, perhaps I'd find your earlier arguments more persuasive.

Slavery and these "gay camps" are not inherent parts of a democracy. Please stick with the topic and avoid logical fallacies.

Once again, I am not asking about hypotheticals. I am citing NO statistics or websites.

I am asked a simple question about fairness.

In a democracy, of any kind, is it fair that a president can be choosen who did not win the popular vote?

If we didn't have systems like the electoral college to keep California in check, it would end up taking over the entire country.

California Uber Alles

If there was no EC then there probably would be a lot more extreme push back to immigration and demographic change, the invasion argument gains a lot more traction when you take away people's self-governance. If California doesn't think it's fair then try to leave, I don't think they'll get very far. California has damaged the country with the stupid selfish decisions of its illegitimate electorate, California's excess is a big part of the reason Trump exists.

Our EC completely fair, if you want mob rule go somewhere else. No, democracy is not about simply who has the plurality of votes but rather the institutions and rule of law. It can be nothing but tyranny without.

To restate your argument, in a democracy, you think it is fair to be able to elect a president who did not win the popular vote?

Is this correct?

Because it does not really fit the definition of a democracy.

Absurdum: if you are going to be a virgin, it means you have to have sex.

I don't think those words, 'logical fallacies', mean what you think they do. Why don't you answer the question: if slavery and gay camps were instituted democratically by a majority, would you support them as legitimate because they were the will of the people?




I'm not asking for stats or websites, I'm asking you if you cared about this issue before the election, to gauge whether you're genuine here or merely being partisan.



Actually, I'd say you're trying to lure people into a poorly constructed rhetorical trap that everyone sees coming, but that's just my opinion.



Yes, as we're a constitutional democracy where an electoral college system is used. It would be different if we were a direct democracy, but we're not, so it's pointless to argue as if we were, and as if "democracy" were some sort of virtue unto itself, when it's just another form of government. Same with "fairness", an obvious and persistent attempt to inject a loaded word into an argument to force other people into a rhetorical corner.

Part of the reason was at that time the "states" were still real states, now they are provinces, a state is a soverign nation.

At that time the states did not want to lose their soverignity.

Which I will bring up in another poll.

I am curious if people think it is fair and I want to know why.

I am purposely taking your arguments to an absurdity, once again I am trying to understand. If I have stated your argument uncorrectly, I expect you to correct my understanding, but we can only do this if you are willing to communicate.

I bring this up now, because are seeing it happen. It happened once beforeb and I did not think it fair then and I have want a direct democracy since.

I think we have a duty, to try to change the government when it does wrong, and look, no more slavery and currently no "gay camps", so the majority must have some morality.

logical fallacies
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

If you think this is a trap, then why did/do you bother answering?

It is only a trap if you can not address the question asked. Ask your own question in another thread and see if I can address it.

Apparently the left has just recently discovered that we have an electoral college, and now that the bogey man has won the election via electoral votes they want it done away with.....for now.

When you get down to it, as my own Washington state and California pretty much tend to be like minded, I have no problem with that.

If you have a majority of the citizens behind you and still can't get your support together to ensure an electoral college win, you may lack the basic competence to govern.

The system is what it is. A case can be made that it should change, but this election was fought under this system. Knowing what kind of battle they were fighting, and with a very clear idea of what Trump's unorthodox strategy was going to be, Hillary's team failed to organize an effective response.

Comey's intervention probably gave it to Trump, but, again, Hillary could have responded more effectively to the challenge of his intervention.

The election was Clinton's to lose and she did just that. Whining about the electoral college now is beyond pointless.

The point of wanting to rid ourselves of the Electoral College isn't to reverse a Trump victory - that's already irreversible - but to stop the subverting of the majority's will in future elections.