The electoral college is counter-majoritarian.

Because a governing by California and New York would be so fair!

Democratic states both. Hmmm.

More like you're proving yourself to have a double standard.

Where’s the double-standard, I just want the winner of an election to reflect the candidate who got the most votes. Is that too much to ask?

You guys are the only ones here supporting an anti-majoritarian system out of personal political reference

You. are. not. one. of. us.
You. are. Canadian.

How many tries did it take you to post the right link right?

You criticizing someone for imagining that they have a motive that you have advocated for directly.

What he's proving is that you're precisely the reason the electoral college, supported by our 12th amendment was ratified. You actually think that a majority of people should have more representative power than a minority. On the contrary, you are proving our founder's point. Your behavior is not only unconstitutional, but unethical.

We are a rule of law Republic which protects the weak and minority populations. You are waling against that protection and demanding that our rule of law Republic meet the criteria of your preference for a direct or pure democracy to facilitate oppression.

The real crux of the matter is. The 12th amendment is restricting the behavior of liberals in precisely the manner it was designed to, they don't like that, and want to remove it as a result. This has historically been the response of tyrants when their behavior is restricted by the rule of law.

If populations become corrupt enough, they will eventually overthrow that constitutional form of government. Men like John Adams wrote and spoke at length about this. People who cast off religious and moral restraint will soon follow with casting off earthly government restraint. This is precisely why Democrats most recently have been courting atheists, but also keeping their foot in the door with theological liberals.

It’s “unethical” to favor a majority having more electoral power than a minority? Really? Is that not the whole point of elections?

And this: “Restricting the liberals” again. You are proving my point also. Your attraction to and impassioned defense of the Electoral College seem to be motivated by the fact that it picked a Republican over the popular vote winner in 2 of the last 5 elections.

The Democrats simply do not want to “overturn our constitutional order,” no matter how many times you say it. I don’t agree that disputing the 12th Amendment amounts to overturning the Constitution. It is one small part of it. And for what feels like the 8th or so time: The Electoral College just picks an election winner. That’s it. It plays no particularized function in protecting individual rights. Theoretically, the Electoral College could pick an extremely unpopular leader (I’m tempted to say Hitler, but, let’s just posit an imaginary dumb but niche-popular leader) with an rather small share of the popular vote if he only succeeded in garnering enough votes in the right swing states.

And I won’t do this as a Morpheus meme this time... but: What if I told you that the Democratic Party is full of distinct minority groups who are also in need of constitutional protection? The Democratic Party is not simply the monolithic blob that you appear to regard it as. Republican policies have in the past and, to this day, threaten those rights (anti-gay rights, anti-reproductive rights, etc.). By picking a president in a counter-majoritarian way, the Electoral College runs roughshod over those groups.

Part 1 of 2. “It’s “unethical” to favor a majority having more electoral power than a minority?”

Yes. You are by implication citing that factors beyond anyone's control should be primary or favorable to people in a select geographical location with select political views. This is the very definition of discrimination and why the USA is based on rule of law – not majority rule. This has served us well for over 200 yrs – while majority rule societies have - and currently are - collapsing all around us.

“Really?”

Yes, Really. This indicates that this is some grand revelation to you – which tells me you haven't thought too deeply on the matter and are – with all due respect - ignorant of the constitutional form of government in which you're now discussing.

“Is that not the whole point of elections?”

Not at all. It's to select those to office with a process which best represents the entirety of the will of the people in the United States – or to use our founder's language – the consent of the governed – not the majority of people in a select geographical location with a select political viewpoint.

What I am explaining to you not only describes the electoral college, but the basis for our entire system of Constitutional government. I could write pages on this topic showing you how utterly silly your position is, but I have not the room and have already made this too long.

“ You are proving my point also. Your attraction to and impassioned defense of the Electoral College seem to be motivated by the fact that it picked a Republican over the popular vote winner in 2 of the last 5 elections. “

The only thing you're proving is that you know how commit what's known in logic as an appeal to motive fallacy. Even if what you're suggesting as my motive is true – it does nothing to counter argue my position.

“The Democrats simply do not want to “overturn our constitutional order,” no matter how many times you say it. “

The historical evidence points precisely in that direction. After the civil war when Republicans freed the slaves - Democrats voted against the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. Currently they're attacking the 1st amendment, 2nd amendment, and 12th amendment. They have a long history of attacking our Constitution.

2 of 3. “I don’t agree that disputing the 12th Amendment amounts to overturning the Constitution.”

I know, which says more about you than this issue. You need 2/3 of the states to even ratify an amendment to overturn it. Which means -You would need the principles used in the electoral college to overturn it. This is what I'm trying to tell you. The electoral college IS derived from the principles to construct our entire Constitutional form of government.

“It is one small part of it.”

A brick is one small part of a foundation for a house, but if you knock out enough of them that house will fall. This is historically how Republics have fallen. Little by little. This is what John Adams is talking about in my meme.

“And for what feels like the 8th or so time: The Electoral College just picks an election winner. That’s it. It plays no particularized function in protecting individual rights.”

This statement is so ignorant I'm not even sure how to answer. The electoral college – as are *ALL Amendments* – the protection of human rights. This is what the *entire* Constitution is. It's a set of by-laws to protect human rights.

“Theoretically, the Electoral College could pick an extremely unpopular leader (I’m tempted to say Hitler, but, let’s just posit an imaginary dumb but niche-popular leader) with an rather small share of the popular vote if he only succeeded in garnering enough votes in the right swing states.”

On the contrary. The chances of this occurring under the electoral college is little – unless what John Adams has described in my meme occurs - and much more likely under a popular vote. When you consider the political divides of states like Texas and Louisianan vs NY and CA, It's the exact opposite of what you're suggesting.

“And I won’t do this as a Morpheus meme this time... but: What if I told you that the Democratic Party is full of distinct minority groups who are also in need of constitutional protection?”

The Democrats garnering the support of minority groups by buying their votes - and their policies serving those minorities well, are separate issues. The Democrat party has devastated the lives of minorities by exploiting them for political gain – and I can argue that unequivocally.

I've already mentioned their attack of our Constitution. They also voted against the 1964 Civil rights act – as well as stated the KKK and Jim Crow segregation laws. Again, if we had the room I could write pages on this topic.

3 of 3. “The Democratic Party is not simply the monolithic blob that you appear to regard it as.”

It in fact is. And if I had the room I could argue that beyond a shadow of a doubt. The Hallmark positions largely marking the "Progressive" movement is a generalization for sure, but it's not at all a hasty one.

“Republican policies have in the past and, to this day, threaten those rights (anti-gay rights, anti-reproductive rights, etc.). “

Which is nothing but an empty claim that does not stand to rational or historical scrutiny. Also, You're conflating debauchery and immorality with “rights” Not the same thing. Nor would our founders use of the term " rights " line up with the modern "Progressive" use of the term.

Our founders understood our rights as coming from God - not government. The murder of unborn babies and facilitating of sexual perversion would not be considered " Rights" granted by God - but rather immorality abhorred by him.

This also takes us back to my John Adam's meme. He said this is what would occur when morality in a nation breaks down. That individuals will tear down the Constitution. To use his language " As a whale goes through a net "

There is a story, often told, that upon exiting the Constitutional Convention Benjamin Franklin was approached by a group of citizens asking what sort of government the delegates had created. His answer was: "A republic, if you can keep it."

“By picking a president in a counter-majoritarian way, the Electoral College runs roughshod over those groups.”

On the contrary – it protects minority groups – not just those Democrats want to exploit for political gain – but all minorities.

That first reply should have said 1 of 3. But I think you get what I'm saying. I don't suspect you'll be able to respond to all of this. This format is really not the greatest for these types of debates. By the way. You seem like a nice and well intentioned person, I just strongly disagree with your views. I'm not trying to beat you down in debate - I'm just trying to inform you about things I think you're currently not informed on - not hurt your pride or cause you to be miffed.