Connecticut to Give their EC to National Popular Winner

[RunningMn9]

The reason to get rid of the Electoral College is because in a democratic republic your vote should count the same as everyone else's vote. Legitimacy only derives from the consent of the people who are governed, and twice in the last five elections the presidency has gone to the person whom the people did not choose.

In both cases, the Presidency has gone to the person whom the people *DID* choose, as set forth in the rules governing our elections. The race was run (by both sides) according to the same set of rules, with the same set of victory conditions. The side that met those victory conditions won. Suggesting that it's somehow the wrong outcome, because some other set of conditions wasn't met is wasting everyone's time. Choosing a new system, based on the set of circumstances that would have given you YOUR desired outcome in this election is short-sighted and dangerous.

The problem we find ourselves in right now (piece of shit demagogue winning the Presidency) is one of the primary things that the EC was supposed to prevent. That it didn't prevent it here is the fault of how we've meddled with the EC, not with the design of the EC. Abolishing it makes us MORE likely to elect a piece of shit demagogue, not less likely.

Although it will likely be a piece of shit demagogue that tells you what you want to hear rather than a piece of shit demagogue that tells Rip what he wants to hear. That's no way to "fix" the problem.

[tjg_marantz]

You are assuming the deplorables would ultimately revolt.

It's got nothing at all to do with deplorables. You would immediately disenfranchise all rural and most suburban America. How long do you think they'll be cool with that?

Seems to work in other places

[Unagi]

I thought it was pretty easy these days to reach most everyone via media, etc.

[ImLawBoy]

You are assuming the deplorables would ultimately revolt.

It's got nothing at all to do with deplorables. You would immediately disenfranchise all rural and most suburban America. How long do you think they'll be cool with that?

This may have been the case with whistlestop tours and taking weeks to cross the country, but it seems much less relevant given modern technology and the ability to craft messages that target demographic groups more efficiently than ever. There's no reason for rural or suburban people to feel disenfranchised when they can be specifically catered to by candidates (who are also specifically catering to urban people).

[Rip]

The reason to get rid of the Electoral College is because in a democratic republic your vote should count the same as everyone else's vote. Legitimacy only derives from the consent of the people who are governed, and twice in the last five elections the presidency has gone to the person whom the people did not choose.

In both cases, the Presidency has gone to the person whom the people *DID* choose, as set forth in the rules governing our elections. The race was run (by both sides) according to the same set of rules, with the same set of victory conditions. The side that met those victory conditions won. Suggesting that it's somehow the wrong outcome, because some other set of conditions wasn't met is wasting everyone's time. Choosing a new system, based on the set of circumstances that would have given you YOUR desired outcome in this election is short-sighted and dangerous.

The problem we find ourselves in right now (piece of shit demagogue winning the Presidency) is one of the primary things that the EC was supposed to prevent. That it didn't prevent it here is the fault of how we've meddled with the EC, not with the design of the EC. Abolishing it makes us MORE likely to elect a piece of shit demagogue, not less likely.

Although it will likely be a piece of shit demagogue that tells you what you want to hear rather than a piece of shit demagogue that tells Rip what he wants to hear. That's no way to "fix" the problem.

Yep, I agree. It is the same short-sightedness that led to the nuclear option.

[ImLawBoy]

Meanwhile, I've been disenfranchised for decades because my state votes Democratic every election since 1988. My (presidential) vote never matters, whether I vote D, R, or other. The same can be said for the rural parts of my state, which are overwhelmingly R, yet we've had no concerns with with revolution in our state.

[Rip]

Meanwhile, I've been disenfranchised for decades because my state votes Democratic every election since 1988. My (presidential) vote never matters, whether I vote D, R, or other. The same can be said for the rural parts of my state, which are overwhelmingly R, yet we've had no concerns with with revolution in our state.

Would you notice? There are war zones with less violence.

[ImLawBoy]

Meanwhile, I've been disenfranchised for decades because my state votes Democratic every election since 1988. My (presidential) vote never matters, whether I vote D, R, or other. The same can be said for the rural parts of my state, which are overwhelmingly R, yet we've had no concerns with with revolution in our state.

Would you notice? There are war zones with less violence.

The adults are trying to have a discussion, Rip.

[Rip]

Meanwhile, I've been disenfranchised for decades because my state votes Democratic every election since 1988. My (presidential) vote never matters, whether I vote D, R, or other. The same can be said for the rural parts of my state, which are overwhelmingly R, yet we've had no concerns with with revolution in our state.

Would you notice? There are war zones with less violence.

The adults are trying to have a discussion, Rip.

But I'm bored......

[RunningMn9]

The issue isn’t one of reaching voters. The issue is when one set of voters cares about A and another set of voters cares about !A, and there are 10 times as many people in the !A camp, those that care about A can go fuck themselves.

Politicians will play the game. If you design a game where catering to LA and the East Coast Boston to DC corridor is enough to win, that’s the game that politicians will play.

[malchior]

The problem we find ourselves in right now (piece of shit demagogue winning the Presidency) is one of the primary things that the EC was supposed to prevent. That it didn't prevent it here is the fault of how we've meddled with the EC, not with the design of the EC. Abolishing it makes us MORE likely to elect a piece of shit demagogue, not less likely.

The design of the EC was a hack to begin with. They needed it to get the States into the Union in the first place. Then tensions over slavery further broke it and then it continued to fail to scale for other reasons. The biggest failing is that the founding fathers couldn't have foreseen a massive nation where everyone crammed themselves into cities in a few states and silenced their own political voices. But that is what has happened. It is well past time for the EC to die (or be functionally disarmed as the State's are doing).

[msteelers]

The issue isn’t one of reaching voters. The issue is when one set of voters cares about A and another set of voters cares about !A, and there are 10 times as many people in the !A camp, those that care about A can go fuck themselves.

In other words, democracy?

[Rip]

That pure democracy cannot work is not a personal opinion—it is a mathematical result of Arrow’s impossibility theorem.

According to this theorem, so long as there are more than two candidates, there is no possible voting system that can ensure the satisfaction of three crucial criteria for fairness:– If every voter prefers alternative X over alternative Y, then the group prefers X over Y.– If every voter’s preference between X and Y remains unchanged, then the group’s preference between X and Y will also remain unchanged.– There is no “dictator”; no single voter possesses the power to always determine the group’s preference.If these criteria are left unsatisfied, it effectively means that democracy—at least in its purest form—cannot work.

[ImLawBoy]

The issue isn’t one of reaching voters. The issue is when one set of voters cares about A and another set of voters cares about !A, and there are 10 times as many people in the !A camp, those that care about A can go fuck themselves.

Politicians will play the game. If you design a game where catering to LA and the East Coast Boston to DC corridor is enough to win, that’s the game that politicians will play.

This already takes place. There is virtually no effort to reach for voters in states like New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, or California, because it's a waste of effort. Those states are going all-in for D. Likewise, there's no much point in campaigning in Texas, Nebraska, or Utah, because those states are hard R. The votes outside of swing states are virtually worthless - candidates only need to hit these areas for fundraisers. Why is that form of disenfranchisement less concerning than the kind you worry about?

I also think your concerns are overstated. Even in rural states, there are significant numbers of Ds and independents. Same goes with urban areas and Rs and independents. With modern campaigning, it's easier and more cost-effective than ever to try to get those people see your way, but there's currently no point in even trying. I think you'd see less disenfranchisement with direct election of the president, because D voters in an R state will now have value, and R voters in a D state will now have value.

[Fireball]

The reason to get rid of the Electoral College is because in a democratic republic your vote should count the same as everyone else's vote. Legitimacy only derives from the consent of the people who are governed, and twice in the last five elections the presidency has gone to the person whom the people did not choose.

In both cases, the Presidency has gone to the person whom the people *DID* choose, as set forth in the rules governing our elections.

Nonsense. Trump won and Bush won (but perhaps didn't) under the rules, but the American people as group voted for someone else. There was no true mandate for their agenda.

Choosing a new system, based on the set of circumstances that would have given you YOUR desired outcome in this election is short-sighted and dangerous.

That's not what I'm doing. I support, and have supported, a popular vote for the president regardless of outcome.

The problem we find ourselves in right now (piece of shit demagogue winning the Presidency) is one of the primary things that the EC was supposed to prevent. That it didn't prevent it here is the fault of how we've meddled with the EC, not with the design of the EC. Abolishing it makes us MORE likely to elect a piece of shit demagogue, not less likely.

Although it will likely be a piece of shit demagogue that tells you what you want to hear rather than a piece of shit demagogue that tells Rip what he wants to hear. That's no way to "fix" the problem.

The piece of shit demagogue thing is a structural failing of presidential systems. Every American-style presidential system has eventually produced a president like Trump, and collapsed into kleptocracy. Most of them never recover. The Presidential/Congressional system is fundamentally flawed. It puts too much power in the hands of one man, weakens parties to the point the they can't serve as institutional checks on demagogues rising in their ranks, and creates policy stalemates that breed deep cynicism in the electorate. Presidential systems are bad. Parliamentary systems are better, and certain parliamentary systems, like the one in Germany, are as close to "perfect" as realistically possible, in my opinion.

[Rip]

Republican urban areas? 12 of 51, yea that sound totally fair.

As far as Democrats in the rural areas.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... ana-216273

The facts are harsh. “The number of Democrats holding office across the nation is at its lowest point since the 1920s and the decline has been especially severe in rural America,” Bustos writes in the report. In 2009, the report notes, Democrats held 57 percent of the heartland’s seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. Now: 39 percent. In 2008, Barack Obama won seven of the eight heartland states. In 2012, he won six. In 2016? Trump won six. There are 737 counties in the Midwest—Trump won all but 63 of them. “We can’t keep bombing in the rural parts of these states,” Bustos told me. And with arguably some of the most critical midterms in American history less than 10 months away, the 2020 presidential election already looming and redistricting control on the line, Democrats need to find a fix fast, said Robin Johnson, a Bustos adviser and consultant who teaches political science at Monmouth College in Illinois and conducted the interviews for the report last summer. “If we don’t get this right in the next two cycles,” he told me, “we’re done”—rendered mostly powerless in Congress and in heartland state houses. He called the report “a cold reality check.”

[Smoove_B]

Republican urban areas? 12 of 51, yea that sound totally fair.

Fair? We're not suiting up for sportsball. We're discussing ways in which every single vote would count. Not the current system that draws imaginary lines on maps to try and figure out how to turn states a different color for EC support. What is more fair that making sure your individual vote goes towards electing the person you support?

[ImLawBoy]

Republican urban areas? 12 of 51, yea that sound totally fair.

As far as Democrats in the rural areas.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... ana-216273

The facts are harsh. “The number of Democrats holding office across the nation is at its lowest point since the 1920s and the decline has been especially severe in rural America,” Bustos writes in the report. In 2009, the report notes, Democrats held 57 percent of the heartland’s seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. Now: 39 percent. In 2008, Barack Obama won seven of the eight heartland states. In 2012, he won six. In 2016? Trump won six. There are 737 counties in the Midwest—Trump won all but 63 of them. “We can’t keep bombing in the rural parts of these states,” Bustos told me. And with arguably some of the most critical midterms in American history less than 10 months away, the 2020 presidential election already looming and redistricting control on the line, Democrats need to find a fix fast, said Robin Johnson, a Bustos adviser and consultant who teaches political science at Monmouth College in Illinois and conducted the interviews for the report last summer. “If we don’t get this right in the next two cycles,” he told me, “we’re done”—rendered mostly powerless in Congress and in heartland state houses. He called the report “a cold reality check.”

Thank you for supporting my point. I know it's hard to admit when you've been wrong, but acknowledging that the electoral college system has played a large part in the further polarization of the country is a big step. Without any incentive for a state's majority party to reach out to the minority party, they can harden in their far right/left positions. With direct elections of the president, though, maybe we'd see Rs reaching out to try to get some support in urban centers, or Ds reaching back into rural areas.

Republicans having support in blue states isn't a pipe dream. We have an R governor in Illinois, and until recently one of our senators was R. The successful ones, though, reach out to the other side. Specifically, they tend to be more socially liberal (or at least agnostic) than would be permitted at the national level. But if that were to occur regularly and on a national level, you could see a return to more moderation.

[Isgrimnur]

Likewise, there's no much point in campaigning in Texas, Nebraska, or Utah, because those states are hard R.

Nebraska went slightly purple (4-1) in 2008. Kansas, Oklahoma, and the Dakotas will fill that gap handily, however, as they and Texas have been red since 1980. Without Texas, since 1968.

[noxiousdog]

Likewise, there's no much point in campaigning in Texas, Nebraska, or Utah, because those states are hard R.

Nebraska went slightly purple (4-1) in 2008. Kansas, Oklahoma, and the Dakotas will fill that gap handily, however, as they and Texas have been red since 1980. Without Texas, since 1968.

Texas is not as R as is commonly believed. Democrats had a lot of representation prior to the 90s. I know that was 20 years ago, but the four major cities are solidly Democrat.

[Fireball]

Likewise, there's no much point in campaigning in Texas, Nebraska, or Utah, because those states are hard R.

Nebraska went slightly purple (4-1) in 2008. Kansas, Oklahoma, and the Dakotas will fill that gap handily, however, as they and Texas have been red since 1980. Without Texas, since 1968.

Texas is not as R as is commonly believed. Democrats had a lot of representation prior to the 90s. I know that was 20 years ago, but the four major cities are solidly Democrat.

Actually, Texas Democrats held the State House of Representatives until 2003, and were in a one-seat minority from 2009 to 2011. At the statewide and national level, however, Texas is super red. Even Trump's historically bad performance in 2016 was pretty lopsided.

[noxiousdog]

Likewise, there's no much point in campaigning in Texas, Nebraska, or Utah, because those states are hard R.

Nebraska went slightly purple (4-1) in 2008. Kansas, Oklahoma, and the Dakotas will fill that gap handily, however, as they and Texas have been red since 1980. Without Texas, since 1968.

Texas is not as R as is commonly believed. Democrats had a lot of representation prior to the 90s. I know that was 20 years ago, but the four major cities are solidly Democrat.

Actually, Texas Democrats held the State House of Representatives until 2003, and were in a one-seat minority from 2009 to 2011. At the statewide and national level, however, Texas is super red. Even Trump's historically bad performance in 2016 was pretty lopsided.

Almost like what we want from our state government is different than what we want from our national

[RunningMn9]

Nonsense. Trump won and Bush won (but perhaps didn't) under the rules, but the American people as group voted for someone else. There was no true mandate for their agenda.

Nobody was playing a game where we count all the votes, so no one was attempting to get all the votes, and no one was voting based on the notion of producing the most votes nationally. It's an utterly bullshit metric in a system where the popular vote is irrelevant to the outcome. It's not indicative of the "Will of the People(tm)" because people choose to not vote or vote third party because of the EC.

But again, using the popular vote as the measuring stick ENCOURAGES populist demagogues. Which is why wiser men than us went out of their way to prevent it.

[Rip]

Republican urban areas? 12 of 51, yea that sound totally fair.

As far as Democrats in the rural areas.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... ana-216273

The facts are harsh. “The number of Democrats holding office across the nation is at its lowest point since the 1920s and the decline has been especially severe in rural America,” Bustos writes in the report. In 2009, the report notes, Democrats held 57 percent of the heartland’s seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. Now: 39 percent. In 2008, Barack Obama won seven of the eight heartland states. In 2012, he won six. In 2016? Trump won six. There are 737 counties in the Midwest—Trump won all but 63 of them. “We can’t keep bombing in the rural parts of these states,” Bustos told me. And with arguably some of the most critical midterms in American history less than 10 months away, the 2020 presidential election already looming and redistricting control on the line, Democrats need to find a fix fast, said Robin Johnson, a Bustos adviser and consultant who teaches political science at Monmouth College in Illinois and conducted the interviews for the report last summer. “If we don’t get this right in the next two cycles,” he told me, “we’re done”—rendered mostly powerless in Congress and in heartland state houses. He called the report “a cold reality check.”

Thank you for supporting my point. I know it's hard to admit when you've been wrong, but acknowledging that the electoral college system has played a large part in the further polarization of the country is a big step. Without any incentive for a state's majority party to reach out to the minority party, they can harden in their far right/left positions. With direct elections of the president, though, maybe we'd see Rs reaching out to try to get some support in urban centers, or Ds reaching back into rural areas.

Republicans having support in blue states isn't a pipe dream. We have an R governor in Illinois, and until recently one of our senators was R. The successful ones, though, reach out to the other side. Specifically, they tend to be more socially liberal (or at least agnostic) than would be permitted at the national level. But if that were to occur regularly and on a national level, you could see a return to more moderation.

Why would anyone want to pursue rural areas? They can't win you any big offices.

There are more people just in NY/Chicago/LA that in nearly half of the STATES. You would essentially ensure that we would never see a POTUS with a rural background ever again. In fact I will posit that if we went that way EVERY POTUS thereafter would hail from one of those three places.

[Fireball]

Nonsense. Trump won and Bush won (but perhaps didn't) under the rules, but the American people as group voted for someone else. There was no true mandate for their agenda.

Nobody was playing a game where we count all the votes, so no one was attempting to get all the votes, and no one was voting based on the notion of producing the most votes nationally. It's an utterly bullshit metric in a system where the popular vote is irrelevant to the outcome. It's not indicative of the "Will of the People(tm)" because people choose to not vote or vote third party because of the EC.

But again, using the popular vote as the measuring stick ENCOURAGES populist demagogues. Which is why wiser men than us went out of their way to prevent it.

Those "wiser men" weren't trying to prevent demagogues like Trump. They were trying to protect the power of slave states and ensure the continuation of slavery in the South. Every compromise that limits democracy in our Constitution, from the Senate to the Electoral College, was in the end driven by the South's desperate struggle to retain chattel slavery in the new nation. Slavery tore our nation apart in the 1800s, and the flaws in our government structure that originate because of it are making America ungovernable today.

[ImLawBoy]

Likewise, there's no much point in campaigning in Texas, Nebraska, or Utah, because those states are hard R.

Nebraska went slightly purple (4-1) in 2008. Kansas, Oklahoma, and the Dakotas will fill that gap handily, however, as they and Texas have been red since 1980. Without Texas, since 1968.

Texas is not as R as is commonly believed. Democrats had a lot of representation prior to the 90s. I know that was 20 years ago, but the four major cities are solidly Democrat.

Yes, and those D voters in the major cities are effectively disenfranchised with respect to the presidential election, because the state is solidly R (since 1980, per Isg) for the presidential election.

[Isgrimnur]

Yes, and those D voters in the major cities are effectively disenfranchised with respect to the presidential election, because the state is solidly R (since 1980, per Isg) for the presidential election.

Source

[ImLawBoy]

Why would anyone want to pursue rural areas? They can't win you any big offices.

As I've said multiple times in this very thread, you can go after them now because technology makes it easy and cost-effective to pick up some votes there, and with direct election of the president, they now actually have value as voters. There's no reason for a D to pursue R areas at all today, as those votes are worthless to them.

There are more people just in NY/Chicago/LA that in nearly half of the STATES. You would essentially ensure that we would never see a POTUS with a rural background ever again. In fact I will posit that if we went that way EVERY POTUS thereafter would hail from one of those three places.

In fact, I will posit that this posit of yours is dead wrong. Even if it weren't, the self-styled hero of the working class (it's hard to type that) is from NYC, so apparently the rural folks can still be adequately represented by someone from the big city.

[em2nought]

Y'all should go one step further and ban bacon because it offends "certain" people so we can get this war started.

1) How does this comment have anything to do with this conversation?

My point is "getting rid of the EC" is just as silly of an idea as a "ban on bacon", you just don't see much evidence here because of the lopsidedness of this forum.

[noxiousdog]

Yes, and those D voters in the major cities are effectively disenfranchised with respect to the presidential election, because the state is solidly R (since 1980, per Isg) for the presidential election.

Ok. And R voters in D districts are effectively disenfranchised with respect to the House of Representatives.

That's how it's designed.

I'm not saying it can't be improved or changed outright, but this was the design. It's a Republic. It's working (for good or for bad) as intended.

[ImLawBoy]

Yes, and those D voters in the major cities are effectively disenfranchised with respect to the presidential election, because the state is solidly R (since 1980, per Isg) for the presidential election.

Ok. And R voters in D districts are effectively disenfranchised with respect to the House of Representatives.

That's how it's designed.

Yeah, but I can't fix every problem at once. On a more serious note, I realize that you can't fix every problem with representation. It's an easy fix with respect to the presidential election, though. (Easy in theory, that is. Eliminating the EC in practice is a much taller task than just talking about it.)

I'm not saying it can't be improved or changed outright, but this was the design. It's a Republic. It's working (for good or for bad) as intended.

However the EC is operating today, I don't think it's as it was originally intended. It's had significant modifications, both in terms of how the electors are selected and in how they are supposed to vote. And even if you stretch original intent to somehow argue that it is working as intended, that's hardly a persuasive argument that it should continue operating that way.

[Fireball]

Yes, and those D voters in the major cities are effectively disenfranchised with respect to the presidential election, because the state is solidly R (since 1980, per Isg) for the presidential election.

Ok. And R voters in D districts are effectively disenfranchised with respect to the House of Representatives.

That's how it's designed.

I'm not saying it can't be improved or changed outright, but this was the design. It's a Republic. It's working (for good or for bad) as intended.

There are better ways to design democratic republican forms of government. We are saddled with a creaky, busted 18th Century government designed with compromises that were established to protect Southern slavery. There are better forms of representative government out there, and we would be wise to adopt one of them.

[Rip]

Why would anyone want to pursue rural areas? They can't win you any big offices.

As I've said multiple times in this very thread, you can go after them now because technology makes it easy and cost-effective to pick up some votes there, and with direct election of the president, they now actually have value as voters. There's no reason for a D to pursue R areas at all today, as those votes are worthless to them.

Not if any policy they float upsets two city voters. It isn't about whether you can reach the voters it is whether you have any incentive to support anything that benefits rural voters over urban voters. In the opposite vein supporting the urban position in any policy decision that favors one over the other will always result in the urban supported position, I mean why wouldn't it? Rural areas would decline into collapse as they would see zilch as far as federal money. Of course they would still be taxed to hell federally. The only thing that would be left is migrant farmers and people living on the dole.

There are more people just in NY/Chicago/LA that in nearly half of the STATES. You would essentially ensure that we would never see a POTUS with a rural background ever again. In fact I will posit that if we went that way EVERY POTUS thereafter would hail from one of those three places.

In fact, I will posit that this posit of yours is dead wrong. Even if it weren't, the self-styled hero of the working class (it's hard to type that) is from NYC, so apparently the rural folks can still be adequately represented by someone from the big city.

He isn't a working class hero, he is an opportunist that won because the only other choice was an urbanite globalist who was so fake she has the accent of a former slave one day before she fills her pockets selling favors to the rich and famous the next. Trump didn't win anything, Hillary lost it. If you are looking for something broken it was the candidate not the system.

[ImLawBoy]

Why would anyone want to pursue rural areas? They can't win you any big offices.

As I've said multiple times in this very thread, you can go after them now because technology makes it easy and cost-effective to pick up some votes there, and with direct election of the president, they now actually have value as voters. There's no reason for a D to pursue R areas at all today, as those votes are worthless to them.

Not if any policy they float upsets two city voters. It isn't about whether you can reach the voters it is whether you have any incentive to support anything that benefits rural voters over urban voters. In the opposite vein supporting the urban position in any policy decision that favors one over the other will always result in the urban supported position, I mean why wouldn't it? Rural areas would decline into collapse as they would see zilch as far as federal money. Of course they would still be taxed to hell federally. The only thing that would be left is migrant farmers and people living on the dole.

Nonsense. It is easy to have two different messages for two sets of voters. Your failing seems to be that you think everything is binary (another symptom of our polarized culture). Just because something is favored by a rural voter doesn't mean it is opposed by an urban voter. Different sets of voters have different things they care about at different levels, and a campaign can easily take advantage of that without rural areas falling into some sort of dystopia. Likewise, Rs could actually make hay in the cities (there's some kind of rural/urban joke there if you dig enough for it). Many minority voters have conservative social views. National R candidates can play on that. Keep in mind that they don't have to actually win the cities. But actually getting some votes from the cities? That would be huge. And maybe we'd be able to cut down on some of this divisive coastal elite rhetoric as an added bonus, since the Rs would be actively trying to woo them.

There are more people just in NY/Chicago/LA that in nearly half of the STATES. You would essentially ensure that we would never see a POTUS with a rural background ever again. In fact I will posit that if we went that way EVERY POTUS thereafter would hail from one of those three places.

In fact, I will posit that this posit of yours is dead wrong. Even if it weren't, the self-styled hero of the working class (it's hard to type that) is from NYC, so apparently the rural folks can still be adequately represented by someone from the big city.

He isn't a working class hero, he is an opportunist that won because the only other choice was an urbanite globalist who was so fake she has the accent of a former slave one day before she fills her pockets selling favors to the rich and famous the next. Trump didn't win anything, Hillary lost it. If you are looking for something broken it was the candidate not the system.

None of that is relevant to what I said. Trump is from NYC, and rural voters seem to be happy with him.

[LordMortis]

I like when RM9 does all the heavy lifting when it comes to holding my opinions and understanding and I can just sit back and have a beer. I miss this RM9. I feel he could go full on treatment at any moment. Now that I've contribute nothing, back to

[RunningMn9]

Those "wiser men" weren't trying to prevent demagogues like Trump.

Yes, they were, and they even wrote about so we wouldn’t have to guess.

[noxiousdog]

Those "wiser men" weren't trying to prevent demagogues like Trump.

Yes, they were, and they even wrote about so we wouldn’t have to guess.

The Senate is a pretty good piece of evidence.

[Fireball]

Those "wiser men" weren't trying to prevent demagogues like Trump.

Yes, they were, and they even wrote about so we wouldn’t have to guess.

The Senate is a pretty good piece of evidence.

The Senate is yet another element of our government put in place to ensure that Southern states could block action against slavery. Today, its warping effect gives an extremely small minority of Americans a complete veto over legislation. The slow failure of America's political system is in large parts due to the anti-democratic nature of the Senate.

[malchior]

Those "wiser men" weren't trying to prevent demagogues like Trump.

Yes, they were, and they even wrote about so we wouldn’t have to guess.

Sure but this system isn't that system. And that system still would have most of the same problems. The problem that we have is that we grew to 50 states. Artificially created and scaled due to slavery. And over time political power has increased dramatically in fewer states as population clustered. It is just not a problem you can ignore. Eventually there will be civil war or some devolution politically. It could be argued that we are having a cold political war now. With one side having a permanent constitutional advantage.

That leads to polarization increasing with no mechanism to cool it down. And besides "fixing" the EC only gets you a popularly chosen President with all the pitfalls you describe. It doesn't fix the Senate which is the same problem at the core. The question becomes how do we deal with that reality and not some ideal for 200 years that simply hasn't scaled?

[noxiousdog]

Those "wiser men" weren't trying to prevent demagogues like Trump.

Yes, they were, and they even wrote about so we wouldn’t have to guess.

The Senate is a pretty good piece of evidence.

The Senate is yet another element of our government put in place to ensure that Southern states could block action against slavery. Today, its warping effect gives an extremely small minority of Americans a complete veto over legislation. The slow failure of America's political system is in large parts due to the anti-democratic nature of the Senate.

Oh, good grief. You're a caricature. All 13 colonies except Pennsylvania had bicameral legislatures.