11 Democrat states have formed a pact to sabotage the Electoral College

[TheDude]

Liberal free-flowing policy has become all things contrary. They're no longer Americans.

 

[PredFan]

I don't think that how electors are chosen has an effect on whether a state has a republican government.

A government that gives away its right to select electors to people outside the State doesn't seem very republican to me.

Last time I checked, the goal of a republican form of government is to provide representation of the people governed.

So I'm going to say that choosing a slate of Electors for the state based on what people OUTSIDE that state want is not representing the people of that state, except perhaps by coincidence.

That's pretty much my take on it.

Yeah the Democrats keep pretending we live in a mob-rule Democracy.

You don’t want democracy. You want some wacko trumptard’s vote to be worth 700 of normal people’s

If you want to talk about mib rule, you might want to talk about Cohen and lushness strong-arming foreign countries and foreign and domestic corporations for pay offs.

You mad bro?

 

[PredFan]

it's the same argument now as it was before. States with larger populations should not be able to bully States with smaller populations.

Democracy isn't about states, it's about individuals. Why should voters in low population states have more voting power than those in high population states?

We don't live in a pure democracy, and for direct representation you have that at the State level.

The rules of our Republic were specifically designed to retard the power of the majority. It's a feature of our system, not a bug.

If you want it changed, amend the Constitution.

We don't live in a pure democracy because a pure democracy is not possible. That doesn't mean that we should not try to get as close to a pure Democracy as is possible.

So, you think that it's a good idea to 'retard' that power of the majority and have rule by the minority? That's called a 'dictatorship'.

We do have popular representation at the state level. The states are acting to make the electoral college obsolete.

No, it's called a Republic. A system where everything goes to the will of the majority is Mob rule.

They are doing it in a way that is probably Unconstitutional via Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1.

The court system is the mechanism for preventing a dictatorship of the majority. Not the electoral college.

The electoral college was created to prevent someone who was absolutely unfit to become President from becoming President. This past election the electoral college proved to be an absolute failure in that regard.

The electoral college was not created for the purpose of stopping majority rule.

So according to your idea of republicanism, the federal government has failed to adhere to Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1 since they've allowed states to elect officails according to the popular majority. Is that correct?

Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1 does not apply at all to federal elections.

Wow! You couldn’t be more wrong. I blame public education.

 

[Pogo]

more of the left just ignoring it

they have no respect for the constitution, which makes it funny when they act like they care.

Blue states rally to upend Electoral College, with addition of Connecticut

The electoral college was created as a compromise because southern states wanted representation without having to give their slaves representation. The EC became obsolete on April 9, 1865.

The EC's racist origins are another factoid we haven't even mentioned (in this thread anyway) but it's telling that:

(a) four of the first five POTUSes (and all of the first seven who got two terms) were slaveholders from the South, where EC numbers were inflated by being apportioned on the basis of 3/5 of slaves who had 0/5 of a vote;

(b) that the last election held before that country temporarily broke apart was won by a candidate who carried no Electoral Votes in the South and wasn't even on ballots there, triggering the aforesaid split. Once that split was resolved of course, that infamous Three-Fifths Compromise and its representation without franchise, was obliterated;

and (c) that the same lame biased-representation the Old South wangled its way into via the Electrical College is the same scheme the latter-day EC apologists are going for when they trot out these ludicrous fantasies of "Noo Yawk and California determining elections" and "mob rule".

Horse feathers.

1) I realize that leftists think yelling, "Slave owners!" somehow automatically makes a killing point about the Founding Fathers, without the messy details of actually showing a relationship, but . . .

Mais oui. I've just posted more detail (587).

You can use the Slave Power origin as an emotional basis or not as you like, but there it is in the historical record. The point is really to explain what the EC's actual purpose was, as opposed to the latter-day fantasy revisions thereof. Whether "slave" is read as a booga-booga word is of no consequence. It's simply fact.

2) Far from being a benefit to the slaveholding states, the "infamous 3/5 Compromise" was intended to LIMIT their power. And far from showing that the EC was all about benefiting slavery, pointing out that a candidate won without carrying any Electoral votes in the South shows that it DIDN'T benefit them, and that it pretty clearly works to protect our nation from the worst evils and excesses that might infect our populace.

Then it clearly didn't work since four of the first five POTUSes, five of the first seven and ALL of the two-term Presidents up to the Civil War, were in fact slaveholders from the South, and overwhelmingly from Virginia, the largest Electoral College prize. For a plan to "LIMIT their power" it doesn't seem to have engaged in a whole lot of "limiting".

The real reason the Constitution doesn't directly mandate a vote is because the Founding Fathers overestimated their descendants. They expected us to value the sovereignty of states far more than we do, and so they left the power to control elections to that level of government.

3) The arguments when the Electoral College was debated were all about an equitable division of power between populous states and small states, not about slave versus non-slave.

Already expounded on this too --- it was about both Slave Power and the fact that suffrage was not universal or homogenous from one state to another, meaning a direct popular vote would have meant more power for one state and less than another --- a condition which, again, no longer exists. There is no longer any state where owning property, being white, or being male is required to vote, all of which were factors in the late 1700s which varied from one state to another. Those daze are gone now.

4) If you think the arguments about "New York and California determining elections" are "ludicrous", then you must consider simple arithmetic to be "ludicrous". Personally, I think THAT is "ludicrous".

Here's another "ludicrous" map (cartogram) for ya. The relative size of each state represents its Electoral College power. Check New York, if you can even find it.

​

Clearly a New Yorker could magnify his voting power (by about three and a half times to be exact) just by moving over the line to Vermont.

It's also interesting that, from the Founding Fathers on through history, the debate about the EC has ALWAYS been about clearly-articulated concerns about populous states dominating the government, and yet you somehow think you can just breeze past all of that and dismiss those arguments with a half-assed insult, and that settles it.

Actually I think I can just breeze past all that with the cartogram above. Or this map showing the same point:

​

Inasmuch as a single vote in Wyoming is worth three and a half votes in Florida, yeah I'd say that qualifies as 'ludicrous'.

 

[Papageorgio]

This will make visiting these states a waste of time on the campaign trail since their votes won’t count in winning electoral votes because of it being tied to a general election national count. Also, looking back on history this law would not have the Electoral College results in the last five Presidential elections except in 2004 where Bush would have won by a larger electoral count.

Good law for liberal states to adopt.

They already only visit swing stares. Only Donald spends all of his time with the radical wingnut “base”

Doesn't bother me any, Bush would have won in landslide and Obama and Trump Electoral College votes would have been the same.

Actually for those Republicans that live in liberal states that may not vote in Presidential elections, it might now motivate them to vote. Who knows.

 

[Papageorgio]

it's the same argument now as it was before. States with larger populations should not be able to bully States with smaller populations.

Democracy isn't about states, it's about individuals. Why should voters in low population states have more voting power than those in high population states?

We don't live in a pure democracy, and for direct representation you have that at the State level.

The rules of our Republic were specifically designed to retard the power of the majority. It's a feature of our system, not a bug.

If you want it changed, amend the Constitution.

We don't live in a pure democracy because a pure democracy is not possible. That doesn't mean that we should not try to get as close to a pure Democracy as is possible.

So, you think that it's a good idea to 'retard' that power of the majority and have rule by the minority? That's called a 'dictatorship'.

We do have popular representation at the state level. The states are acting to make the electoral college obsolete.

No, it's called a Republic. A system where everything goes to the will of the majority is Mob rule.

They are doing it in a way that is probably Unconstitutional via Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1.

The court system is the mechanism for preventing a dictatorship of the majority. Not the electoral college.

The electoral college was created to prevent someone who was absolutely unfit to become President from becoming President. This past election the electoral college proved to be an absolute failure in that regard.

The electoral college was not created for the purpose of stopping majority rule.

So according to your idea of republicanism, the federal government has failed to adhere to Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1 since they've allowed states to elect officails according to the popular majority. Is that correct?

Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1 does not apply at all to federal elections.

Just because you hate a person the Electoral College failed? That is pretty elitist lefty BS.

 

[Pilot1]

Democrats just don't want to admit they lost, and face the fact that the Liberal/Progressive, divisive policies DON'T WORK. We are better than that.

 

[toobfreak]

Democracy isn't about states, it's about individuals. Why should voters in low population states have more voting power than those in high population states?

We live in a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. Pure Democracy is MOB RULE. Do you want a few states to decide for the entire country? That is now what has made this county successful.

The Federal government exists due to the STATES which were supposed to be stronger than the Feds, and thus States elect Presidents, not people. Take some History, and Civics courses, and read the Constitution.

the worst sort of MOB rule we can have is the rule of the DUMB-ASS REDNECKS in the low population states. This has been proven by the election of a New York City/Wall St. con man. How stupid can the people in these low population states get?

You gotta love Leftard idiots like you always too stupid that they don't even know when they've shoved one foot in their own mouth with the other up their ass, then proceed to go on thinking they are talking from a position of "superiority!"

HOW do you have "mob rule" from a bunch of "rednecks" from low population states, when by that very definition, THEY ARE A MINORITY? Do you actually imagine the whole country as low-population rednecks now outnumbering New York and California (the only "high-population" states outside of Texas)? I kinda hope you do. As to your question about how stupid can these low-population state people get, I would only point out that such states typically always vote red anyway; what got Trump elected was all the non-rednecks who voted for him in moderate/normal and high-population states! States like:

Texas, Missouri, Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North and South Carolina, Georgia and Florida, to name a few. You know: AMERICA, freek-boy! Maybe if you hadn't flunked math in grade school, you would have counted to realize that ELEVEN of the twenty states Hillary won were SINGLE DIGIT in electoral college votes.

 

[Papageorgio]

Democracy isn't about states, it's about individuals. Why should voters in low population states have more voting power than those in high population states?

We live in a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. Pure Democracy is MOB RULE. Do you want a few states to decide for the entire country? That is now what has made this county successful.

The Federal government exists due to the STATES which were supposed to be stronger than the Feds, and thus States elect Presidents, not people. Take some History, and Civics courses, and read the Constitution.

the worst sort of MOB rule we can have is the rule of the DUMB-ASS REDNECKS in the low population states. This has been proven by the election of a New York City/Wall St. con man. How stupid can the people in these low population states get?

You gotta love Leftard idiots like you always too stupid that they don't even know when they've shoved one foot in their own mouth with the other up their ass, then proceed to go on thinking they are talking from a position of "superiority!"

HOW do you have "mob rule" from a bunch of "rednecks" from low population states, when by that very definition, THEY ARE A MINORITY? Do you actually imagine the whole country as low-population rednecks now outnumbering New York and California (the only "high-population" states outside of Texas)? I kinda hope you do. As to your question about how stupid can these low-population state people get, I would only point out that such states typically always vote red anyway; what got Trump elected was all the non-rednecks who voted for him in moderate/normal and high-population states! States like:

Texas, Missouri, Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North and South Carolina, Georgia and Florida, to name a few. You know: AMERICA, freek-boy! Maybe if you hadn't flunked math in grade school, you would have counted to realize that ELEVEN of the twenty states Hillary won were SINGLE DIGIT in electoral college votes.

Richard is probably a foreign nutjob trying to influence our politics, just like the Russians tried to do.

Both are wrong and both should be ignored.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Absolutely

If states want to defer to the national popular vote, they can

The contortions you idiots are going through to push your BS is funny as hell to watch...

Do you really think you can just take away citizens rights, especially the right to vote by your fiat wish? This is precisely why we have a second amendment. The founders were right, they gave us a republic, if were smart enough to keep it..

The Electoral College takes away your right to vote. If you voted for the loser in your state, that vote did not count

This way, your vote counts towards the candidate of your choice regardless of how others in your state voted

By that logic any vote for the loser in an election doesn't count.

Try again.

Sorry, that doesn't work. It would work if voters were voting for President of the State. But they're not. If a state has an apportionment of, say, 13 EVs, and let's say the pop vote is close (so-called "battleground state") but in the end Clinton prevails, then by legitimate representative standards Clinton should get 7 and Rump 6. But the way it actually works Clinton got 13 and Rump got (Rudy Giuliani voice) ZEEERO. What then was the point of anyone going out to vote for Rump? It was a complete waste of time. Suppose you went out for groceries, paid for your purchases --- and then left the bags in the store. What was the point?

And one of the detriments of this corrupt system is that many of us can see how this works and the futility thereof, and don't bother to vote at all, which is why we have one of the worst election day participation rates in the world. Because what's the point?

The reason to go out is get those 13 votes for Trump.

Again, the real "fair" way to do it and still keep the flavor of the EC is to give each state's 2 Senate based EV's based on statewide vote, and the others based on Congressional districts.

NY and CA will never go for that because it means Republicans can win a share of their EV total, which they cannot do now!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The Electoral College is the only place where illegals are counted as votes

I don't understand what you mean with this statement.

Electoral votes are assigned to states by population. Not by citizenship. Hauling in a huge number of foreigners is a tactic California has used to raise its influence in national elections. For every so many illegals who the census counts the state gets an extra electoral vote even though those illegals cant actually vote (in theory).
California is never going to give up that edge.

Nope! The population is based on citizens, not illegals. Unfortunately, the Dems want to rig the Census to make it impossible to sort the illegals from the the legal US citizens.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The contortions you idiots are going through to push your BS is funny as hell to watch...

Do you really think you can just take away citizens rights, especially the right to vote by your fiat wish? This is precisely why we have a second amendment. The founders were right, they gave us a republic, if were smart enough to keep it..

The Electoral College takes away your right to vote. If you voted for the loser in your state, that vote did not count

This way, your vote counts towards the candidate of your choice regardless of how others in your state voted

By that logic any vote for the loser in an election doesn't count.

Try again.

Sorry, that doesn't work. It would work if voters were voting for President of the State. But they're not. If a state has an apportionment of, say, 13 EVs, and let's say the pop vote is close (so-called "battleground state") but in the end Clinton prevails, then by legitimate representative standards Clinton should get 7 and Rump 6. But the way it actually works Clinton got 13 and Rump got (Rudy Giuliani voice) ZEEERO. What then was the point of anyone going out to vote for Rump? It was a complete waste of time. Suppose you went out for groceries, paid for your purchases --- and then left the bags in the store. What was the point?

And one of the detriments of this corrupt system is that many of us can see how this works and the futility thereof, and don't bother to vote at all, which is why we have one of the worst election day participation rates in the world. Because what's the point?

The reason to go out is get those 13 votes for Trump.

Again, the real "fair" way to do it and still keep the flavor of the EC is to give each state's 2 Senate based EV's based on statewide vote, and the others based on Congressional districts.

NY and CA will never go for that because it means Republicans can win a share of their EV total, which they cannot do now!

Except they already did.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Connecticut To Give Its Electoral College Votes To National Popular Vote Victor

Connecticut voted to give its Electoral College Votes to the national popular vote victor. The state Senate voted 21-14 on Saturday to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which includes 10 states and the District of Columbia. The state House passed the measure last week, 77 to 73. California, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia have already signed the accord.

This might give the Corrupt Democratic Party permanent control.
With permanent control the Corrupt Democrats will be able ignore the laws and the constitution and nobody could stop them. What do you think will happen to America if the Democrats are undefeatable?

Based on this move, Democrats clearly believe in a raw, up or down vote. What happens if a concentration of conservatives in a state or local region have a popular vote that says prayers must be said before school starts? Majority rules!!! ...... and Democrats will tell you day and night that they are for the "little guy".

It will have to clear the courts in either case

Which is exactly why Democrats love the Courts. The Courts legislate from the bench.

 

[Pogo]

Democracy isn't about states, it's about individuals. Why should voters in low population states have more voting power than those in high population states?

We don't live in a pure democracy, and for direct representation you have that at the State level.

The rules of our Republic were specifically designed to retard the power of the majority. It's a feature of our system, not a bug.

If you want it changed, amend the Constitution.

We don't live in a pure democracy because a pure democracy is not possible. That doesn't mean that we should not try to get as close to a pure Democracy as is possible.

So, you think that it's a good idea to 'retard' that power of the majority and have rule by the minority? That's called a 'dictatorship'.

We do have popular representation at the state level. The states are acting to make the electoral college obsolete.

No, it's called a Republic. A system where everything goes to the will of the majority is Mob rule.

They are doing it in a way that is probably Unconstitutional via Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1.

The court system is the mechanism for preventing a dictatorship of the majority. Not the electoral college.

The electoral college was created to prevent someone who was absolutely unfit to become President from becoming President. This past election the electoral college proved to be an absolute failure in that regard.

The electoral college was not created for the purpose of stopping majority rule.

So according to your idea of republicanism, the federal government has failed to adhere to Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1 since they've allowed states to elect officails according to the popular majority. Is that correct?

Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1 does not apply at all to federal elections.

Just because you hate a person the Electoral College failed? That is pretty elitist lefty BS.

That's what this guy was doing when the candy he hated won the election........

"Elitist"? Definitely. "Lefty"? Eh, not so much.

 

[Montrovant]

The Electoral College takes away your right to vote. If you voted for the loser in your state, that vote did not count

This way, your vote counts towards the candidate of your choice regardless of how others in your state voted

By that logic any vote for the loser in an election doesn't count.

Try again.

Sorry, that doesn't work. It would work if voters were voting for President of the State. But they're not. If a state has an apportionment of, say, 13 EVs, and let's say the pop vote is close (so-called "battleground state") but in the end Clinton prevails, then by legitimate representative standards Clinton should get 7 and Rump 6. But the way it actually works Clinton got 13 and Rump got (Rudy Giuliani voice) ZEEERO. What then was the point of anyone going out to vote for Rump? It was a complete waste of time. Suppose you went out for groceries, paid for your purchases --- and then left the bags in the store. What was the point?

And one of the detriments of this corrupt system is that many of us can see how this works and the futility thereof, and don't bother to vote at all, which is why we have one of the worst election day participation rates in the world. Because what's the point?

The reason to go out is get those 13 votes for Trump.

Again, the real "fair" way to do it and still keep the flavor of the EC is to give each state's 2 Senate based EV's based on statewide vote, and the others based on Congressional districts.

NY and CA will never go for that because it means Republicans can win a share of their EV total, which they cannot do now!

Except they already did.

I think he was talking about having the House electors given out based on district voting, and only the Senate electors going by the winner-take-all state vote. In other words a proportional allocation of electoral votes, not the popular vote plan from the OP.

 

[Pogo]

Democrats just don't want to admit they lost, and face the fact that the Liberal/Progressive, divisive policies DON'T WORK. We are better than that.

Once AGAIN: (a) this is an initiative by states, not political parties, and (b) it's at least twelve years old, so has nothing to do with anyone having "lost". Nor does it have to do with any kind of "policies" outside of how the Electrical College works.

 

[Montrovant]

The contortions you idiots are going through to push your BS is funny as hell to watch...

Do you really think you can just take away citizens rights, especially the right to vote by your fiat wish? This is precisely why we have a second amendment. The founders were right, they gave us a republic, if were smart enough to keep it..

The Electoral College takes away your right to vote. If you voted for the loser in your state, that vote did not count

This way, your vote counts towards the candidate of your choice regardless of how others in your state voted

By that logic any vote for the loser in an election doesn't count.

Try again.

Sorry, that doesn't work. It would work if voters were voting for President of the State. But they're not. If a state has an apportionment of, say, 13 EVs, and let's say the pop vote is close (so-called "battleground state") but in the end Clinton prevails, then by legitimate representative standards Clinton should get 7 and Rump 6. But the way it actually works Clinton got 13 and Rump got (Rudy Giuliani voice) ZEEERO. What then was the point of anyone going out to vote for Rump? It was a complete waste of time. Suppose you went out for groceries, paid for your purchases --- and then left the bags in the store. What was the point?

And one of the detriments of this corrupt system is that many of us can see how this works and the futility thereof, and don't bother to vote at all, which is why we have one of the worst election day participation rates in the world. Because what's the point?

The reason to go out is get those 13 votes for Trump.

Again, the real "fair" way to do it and still keep the flavor of the EC is to give each state's 2 Senate based EV's based on statewide vote, and the others based on Congressional districts.

NY and CA will never go for that because it means Republicans can win a share of their EV total, which they cannot do now!

The same is probably true of Texas or Florida in the other direction. The party in power in a given state isn't going to want to see electoral votes going to any other party.

 

[Papageorgio]

We don't live in a pure democracy, and for direct representation you have that at the State level.

The rules of our Republic were specifically designed to retard the power of the majority. It's a feature of our system, not a bug.

If you want it changed, amend the Constitution.

We don't live in a pure democracy because a pure democracy is not possible. That doesn't mean that we should not try to get as close to a pure Democracy as is possible.

So, you think that it's a good idea to 'retard' that power of the majority and have rule by the minority? That's called a 'dictatorship'.

We do have popular representation at the state level. The states are acting to make the electoral college obsolete.

No, it's called a Republic. A system where everything goes to the will of the majority is Mob rule.

They are doing it in a way that is probably Unconstitutional via Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1.

The court system is the mechanism for preventing a dictatorship of the majority. Not the electoral college.

The electoral college was created to prevent someone who was absolutely unfit to become President from becoming President. This past election the electoral college proved to be an absolute failure in that regard.

The electoral college was not created for the purpose of stopping majority rule.

So according to your idea of republicanism, the federal government has failed to adhere to Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1 since they've allowed states to elect officails according to the popular majority. Is that correct?

Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1 does not apply at all to federal elections.

Just because you hate a person the Electoral College failed? That is pretty elitist lefty BS.

That's what this guy was doing when the candy he hated won the election........

"Elitist"? Definitely. "Lefty"? Eh, not so much.

Not sure what the "candy" is, nor is it relevant to me. Never said Trump wasn't an elitist, however Trump is a lefty, that is one reason I wouldn't vote for him. He had been a lefty for awhile and did a miracle conversion for the campaign.

 

[Pilot1]

Once AGAIN: (a) this is an initiative by states, not political parties, and (b) it's at least twelve years old, so has nothing to do with anyone having "lost". Nor does it have to do with any kind of "policies" outside of how the Electrical College works.

Agree, but it seems that CT is jumping on the anti Trump bandwagon. The Electoral College exists for a good reason.

 

[Papageorgio]

Democrats just don't want to admit they lost, and face the fact that the Liberal/Progressive, divisive policies DON'T WORK. We are better than that.

Once AGAIN: (a) this is an initiative by states, not political parties, and (b) it's at least twelve years old, so has nothing to do with anyone having "lost". Nor does it have to do with any kind of "policies" outside of how the Electrical College works.

It's a bad idea for blue states to latch on to this policy, it does nothing to help their cause. Dumb idea unless every state jumps onto the idea. I live in a deep blue state, no matter the turnout in Presidential elections the Democrat has won since Reagan, so it might bring out more Republicans to vote because the 11 states that work off the popular vote.