Do You Understand the Electoral College?

[P@triot]

I don't need to "bait" you. I own you. And you know that you're my bitch.

That's right bitch....swim away! Swim away! Too disingenuous and ignorant to watch a video so you can learn something before discussing it.

 

[LuckyDuck]

The last thing the founding fathers wanted was equal representation and democracy, just like you.

What they wanted was to ensure that small states with less population also had sufficient representation. If it was simply handled like the state elections of one person, one vote, only those states with significantly large city populations would win every time.

 

[Borillar]

The last thing the founding fathers wanted was equal representation and democracy, just like you.

huh? what is not equal?

What isn't equal is the weight of citizen's votes. The electoral system is supposedly based upon the population census. This election was based upon the 2010 census. To give you an example, take a large state - California, and a small state - Montana. California has a population around 37,253,956 people and 55 electoral college votes. That is approximately 1 electoral vote per 677,345 people. Montana on the other hand has less than 1 million people - 989,415 people in the 2010 census. Montana has 3 electoral votes. That is 1 electoral vote per 329,805 people. A person living in Montana has a vote that is over twice as much representation in the electoral college than a person living in California. Texas is another big state with 25,145,561 people and 38 electoral votes. That's 1 electoral vote per 661,725 people. Wyoming is the smallest state population wise with 563,626 people. Wyoming has 3 electoral votes. That's 1 electoral vote per 187,875 people. A person living in Wyoming has over 3.5 times the electoral college representation than a person living in Texas. Does any of that seem equitable or make any sort of sense?

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

And if the Popular Vote was the final word then California is the only state that would matter at the end of the day...

Clinton was losing the popular vote until California threw her over the top...

so what? Point is, more Americans voted for her, not Trumpenfuhrer.

The Electoral College work but never for the Democratic Nominee ( well not since Andrew Jackson )...

No, when you put shitheads like Bush adn Trump in the White House most americans didn't want, it isn't working.

Also you were never suppose to vote for the President, so let cut the shit and remember the voice of the people was suppose to be the Congress...

Again, when you guys shit in chamber pots and use bleeding to treat colds, then I will take your devotion to the Founding Slave Rapists seriously.

Here's the real problem with the EC. For most of our history, it was an afterthought.

Love it!

You love the Constitution and the founding fathers when it suit you but when it does not then fuck them, right you simple minded dumb fuck of a retarded ass ape!?!

Don't get upset at my response because idiots like you love the constitution when it serve your interest but Trot's like you hate it when it does not!

The Electoral College was created to prevent idiots like you to abuse the system and let be factual the USSC appointed President Bush but the Electoral College elect every President including President Trump...

Only Simple minded fools like you would think the Electoral College is flawed because your candidate lost by a small percentage amount of voters and let me ask why didn't Hillary Clinton or President Obama object?

Simple, unlike simple minded fools like you they know how this game is played and Trump won no matter how California threw the popular vote!

 

[Jarlaxle]

Tara Ross does an excellent job of displaying the brilliance of why the Founding Fathers established the Electoral College. Share with your friends to educate them.

Why? Its actually a kind of stupid idea. I guess it kind of worked when you had 13 states that didn't really want to be in the same country... and they expected Congress to select the president, not the EC.

But today, when you can accurately count all the votes in one day... No so much.

Let's look at what's wrong with it.

1) Some asshole who the people didn't want can win if he marginally wins enough states.

2) If you state is demographically homogeneous, your vote doesn't count and no one spends a lot of time in your state.

3) A very small group can hold a state hostage- Yes, I'm looking at you, Cuban Americans in Florida.

4) It makes it impossible for third parties to grow. - Hey, remember when everyone spent all their time telling us how much they hated BOTH of these candidates. Yet a third party never gained any traction.

Let me ask this Joe.

Do you want majority rule, or just in the presidential election

He wants Joey-rule.

 

[JoeB131]

Yup, dun, der, cleetus, they dun live in them rural counties...

No. that's not a good reason to have an electoral college, guy.

In fact, there's NO good reason to have an electoral college in 2016.

 

[JoeB131]

Love it!

You love the Constitution and the founding fathers when it suit you but when it does not then fuck them, right you simple minded dumb fuck of a retarded ass ape!?!

No, I think our constitution is badly flawed and the Founding Fathers were a bunch of slave raping assholes who didn't want to pay their fair share in taxes. We should have written a new constitution decades ago.

Don't get upset at my response because idiots like you love the constitution when it serve your interest but Trot's like you hate it when it does not!

The Electoral College was created to prevent idiots like you to abuse the system and let be factual the USSC appointed President Bush but the Electoral College elect every President including President Trump...

No, guy, the Founding Slave Rapists wrote in the Electoral College because the Puritans in the North didn't trust the Slave-raping Baptists in the South. And none of them trusted the common people. They actually expected the EC to be an advisory council, and that the President would be selected by Congress. But when that didn't work out (after Aaron Burr tried to sandbag his running mate when it got to Congress in 1800) they put in the 11th Amendment and the current system... which still sucks.

The point is, you wouldn't practice 18th century medicine when you were sick (which mostly involved bleeding people.) You wouldn't use 18th century plumbing (which involved shitting in chamber pots) or 18th century law (which still allowed spectral evidence). But you think using an 18th century anachronism is just fine! Even when it selects a buffoon that 53% of the people didn't want.

Only Simple minded fools like you would think the Electoral College is flawed because your candidate lost by a small percentage amount of voters and let me ask why didn't Hillary Clinton or President Obama object?

Simple, unlike simple minded fools like you they know how this game is played and Trump won no matter how California threw the popular vote!

That's a dumb question. Look, just because something is legal doesn't make it good. slavery was legal until the civil war. It was in the constitution. No one but Trump's Alt-Right Cultists will ever argue it was a good thing.

 

[JoeB131]

As Joe won't answer the first, then I'll also ask. Would the progressives trade a popular vote to elect the president for the ability of the people to vote to overturn Supreme Court rulings? That creates the majority rule that Joe wants (if majority rule is such a great thing, who needs a Supreme Court anyway?) and adds another check and balance.

Boom! Pop23 delivers a knockout blow! Down goes JoeB131, down goes JoeB131!!!

Um, no. That's kind of retarded.

The people DO have the ability to overturn Supreme Court rulings. They can amend the constitution, or pass laws that pass constitutional muster.

 

[JoeB131]

Venezuela you dumb-fuck. Pure Democracy. Pure election for socialism. Pure implosion. They now have to get freaking toilet paper off of the black market. You continue to illustrate your ignorance for the world.

Well, first, I know that Venezuela is your go-to answer for everything, but it failed because the world punished it economically for making a decision the rest of the world didn't like. Not because of "Democracy".

What, you're throwing out the oil companies? Let's ruin your economy.

Not to worry, the big companies didn't want Trump, so you will be enjoying a big old recession soon enough.

 

[JoeB131]

What they wanted was to ensure that small states with less population also had sufficient representation. If it was simply handled like the state elections of one person, one vote, only those states with significantly large city populations would win every time.

Well, first, not really, since even if the biggest states all voted the same way, you'd still need some people in the smaller states.

Second, the small states already have disproportiate representation in the Senate.

Third- and here's the big one- I never hear anyone self-identify by their state today. I mean, yeah, back in the Founding Slave Rapist Days, you put your state ahead of your nationality... but today?

Now the people are stuck with a President that most of them didn't want. I'm sure that will end well.

Interest in #Calexit growing after Donald Trump victory - CNNPolitics.com

Interest in pushing for California's secession from the United States has increased after Donald Trump won the presidency.
The "Yes California" campaign is backing an independence referendum in support of a constitutional exit of the state from the US. In the wake of 60% of the state's voters supporting the presidential loser, Hillary Clinton, the movement is getting renewed interest.
"As the sixth largest economy in the world, California is more economically powerful than France and has a population larger than Poland. Point-by-point, California compares and competes with countries, not just the 49 other states," the campaign's website said.

 

[candycorn]

Tara Ross does an excellent job of displaying the brilliance of why the Founding Fathers established the Electoral College. Share with your friends to educate them.

Why? Its actually a kind of stupid idea. I guess it kind of worked when you had 13 states that didn't really want to be in the same country... and they expected Congress to select the president, not the EC.

But today, when you can accurately count all the votes in one day... No so much.

Let's look at what's wrong with it.

1) Some asshole who the people didn't want can win if he marginally wins enough states.

2) If you state is demographically homogeneous, your vote doesn't count and no one spends a lot of time in your state.

3) A very small group can hold a state hostage- Yes, I'm looking at you, Cuban Americans in Florida.

4) It makes it impossible for third parties to grow. - Hey, remember when everyone spent all their time telling us how much they hated BOTH of these candidates. Yet a third party never gained any traction.

It's hard to argue with any of that; but lets look at them:

1) If "the people" didn't want her/him; they wouldn't have ascended to be the party's nominee. If you're saying that the Party's running the Primary system should be amended so IA and NH don't have their outsized role; I agree.

2) Correct. Enhancing the EV with a stipulation that the President elect also get the plurality of the Popular Vote in addition to the majority of the Electoral would help in some places

3). Not sure but if you say so.

4). Third parties have themselves to blame by and large. Blaming their shortcomings on the other two parties is just an excuse. There are a lot of republicans who are happy with the GOP and a lot of democrats happy with the DNC.

 

[Pop23]

As Joe won't answer the first, then I'll also ask. Would the progressives trade a popular vote to elect the president for the ability of the people to vote to overturn Supreme Court rulings? That creates the majority rule that Joe wants (if majority rule is such a great thing, who needs a Supreme Court anyway?) and adds another check and balance.

Boom! Pop23 delivers a knockout blow! Down goes JoeB131, down goes JoeB131!!!

Um, no. That's kind of retarded.

The people DO have the ability to overturn Supreme Court rulings. They can amend the constitution, or pass laws that pass constitutional muster.

It's retarded to want the majority to rule?

Got it

Joe's a hypocrite

 

[Auld Phart]

As Joe won't answer the first, then I'll also ask. Would the progressives trade a popular vote to elect the president for the ability of the people to vote to overturn Supreme Court rulings? That creates the majority rule that Joe wants (if majority rule is such a great thing, who needs a Supreme Court anyway?) and adds another check and balance.

Boom! Pop23 delivers a knockout blow! Down goes JoeB131, down goes JoeB131!!!

Um, no. That's kind of retarded.

The people DO have the ability to overturn Supreme Court rulings. They can amend the constitution, or pass laws that pass constitutional muster.

It's retarded to want the majority to rule?

Got it

Joe's a hypocrite

Had enough of him this morning, I sent him to the cornfield

 

[JoeB131]

It's retarded to want the majority to rule?

Got it

Joe's a hypocrite

Guy, there's a big difference between protecting the rights of the minority (which you should do in a Republic) and letting the minority dictate policy.

I'm sorry you don't get this difference.

 

[JoeB131]

4). Third parties have themselves to blame by and large. Blaming their shortcomings on the other two parties is just an excuse. There are a lot of republicans who are happy with the GOP and a lot of democrats happy with the DNC.

I think a lot of people were unhappy with both parties, hence why Trump "won"(not really).

Trump is really the voters throwing a temper tantrum against 'more of the same". It's really like the guy who burns down his own house to get rid of a mouse, but the principles the same.

 

[Zoom-boing]

The sheer ignorance and stupidity of those who want to get rid of the EC is ... not even surprising because you're fucking idiots.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The sheer ignorance and stupidity of those who want to get rid of the EC is ... not even surprising because you're fucking idiots.

What is gained by electing a president that most voters didn't want?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh, and btw, when you talk about the electoral college being the intent of the founders...

1. Why should we bound by 18th century ideas?

2. The current electoral college is nothing like the way the founders originally set it up.

 

[peach174]

Those who want pure majority rule democracy to get rid of the EC really should think long and hard on this, because roughly 75% of this nation is Christian.
Do you all want the mob rule of christians votes?
Mob rule never works out in the end.

 

[peach174]

The sheer ignorance and stupidity of those who want to get rid of the EC is ... not even surprising because you're fucking idiots.

What is gained by electing a president that most voters didn't want?

.2% is not most.