Electoral College

[blackhawk]

I'm guessing if Hillary had won the electoral vote as all the so called experts thought she would there would be no debate about ending or changing the electoral college.

 

[Pogo]

I'm guessing if Hillary had won the electoral vote as all the so called experts thought she would there would be no debate about ending or changing the electoral college.

Doesn't matter ---there is debate on the EC exactly every four years. It was four years ago, eight years ago, twelve years ago, and it will be again four years from now, eight years, etc etc. Unless it goes away of course.

Why exactly every four years? Because that's when it's an issue. Duh?

 

[Pogo]

Hillary lost by 3 to 4 million votes, why cant the Dem's just shut up and go home for another 8 years !!!

Actually she won the PV by, last I looked, around 2.9 million. Which gives the Democrat six of the last seven elections.

Yeah, take that PV with $7.00 and you might get a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

Try reading the post I replied to, moronic person.

 

[CowboyTed]

The debate has started again

Among whom? No one is seriously debating this. But ... if YOU want to change the Constitution, just get 2/3rds of the states to come on board and you'll get your wish.

So 14 million can stop the wishes of 350 million... Great point...

 

[Slyhunter]

The debate has started again as to whether the US Constitution should be amended in order to change the presidential election process. Some promote
eliminating the Electoral College in favor of a direct popular vote for president while others believe the Electoral College should remain unchanged. Just as compromise solved the initial problems of the framers so it is that compromise can solve this problem. The solution is to change the electoral votes to electoral points and reward each candidate a percentage of points based on the percentage of popular votes received in each state.

This would eliminate the "winner take all" system thus allowing for all the votes to count. A voter is more apt to believe their vote counted when a percentage of popular votes are taken into account rather than the "all or nothing" system currently in existence. Further, this new system would integrate the desire for a popular vote for president with the need for the individual states to determine who actually gets elected.

As for political primaries the number of delegates awarded in each state should be determined by the percentage of votes won by each candidate.

For 2016 multiplying the percentage of votes each candidate received {in each state} times the number of electoral votes {in each state} results in the following: Clinton 256.985 and Trump 253.482.

The solution is to change the electoral votes to electoral points and reward each candidate a percentage of points based on the percentage of popular votes received in each state.

Every liberal state that wants to do that.....should.

Those states that want to should. No state should be able to tell another state how to proportion their share of the EC.

 

[blackhawk]

I'm guessing if Hillary had won the electoral vote as all the so called experts thought she would there would be no debate about ending or changing the electoral college.

Doesn't matter ---there is debate on the EC exactly every four years. It was four years ago, eight years ago, twelve years ago, and it will be again four years from now, eight years, etc etc. Unless it goes away of course.

Why exactly every four years? Because that's when it's an issue. Duh?

I heard no calls to do away the electoral college four years ago or eight years in fact it seems to only be an issue when an election does not go as the experts predict.

 

[Care4all]

According to the U.S. Constitution, the President is to be selected by the States, not the general public. The Electoral College was simply the means of apportioning this voting power between large and small states, and certifying these votes to the national government.

The Founders were well aware of how the rabble could be roused. That is why they limited direct popular elections to the House of Representatives. The ill-conceived 17th Amendment (1913), which extended this procedure to the election of U.S. Senators, has unfortunately caused these elections to now be dominated by out-of-state money and special interests (especially in smaller states).

Direct popular election of the President would be the final step in converting our representative form of government into a mobocracy.

Like the rest of the world that elects their heads of state have?

Oh wait, not all of them. Besides us there's ................... Pakistan.

The world should be emulating us, not the other way around. Why would we want to be like nations that ARENT the greatest nation on earth?

whoa!

I thought America was crap, one of the worst countries, and ONLY donald j trump could make it great again?

 

[Pogo]

I'm guessing if Hillary had won the electoral vote as all the so called experts thought she would there would be no debate about ending or changing the electoral college.

Doesn't matter ---there is debate on the EC exactly every four years. It was four years ago, eight years ago, twelve years ago, and it will be again four years from now, eight years, etc etc. Unless it goes away of course.

Why exactly every four years? Because that's when it's an issue. Duh?

I heard no calls to do away the electoral college four years ago or eight years in fact it seems to only be an issue when an election does not go as the experts predict.

The key phrase is the first few words: "I heard no calls". That's exactly what happens when you aren't listening.

 

[Pogo]

According to the U.S. Constitution, the President is to be selected by the States, not the general public. The Electoral College was simply the means of apportioning this voting power between large and small states, and certifying these votes to the national government.

The Founders were well aware of how the rabble could be roused. That is why they limited direct popular elections to the House of Representatives. The ill-conceived 17th Amendment (1913), which extended this procedure to the election of U.S. Senators, has unfortunately caused these elections to now be dominated by out-of-state money and special interests (especially in smaller states).

Direct popular election of the President would be the final step in converting our representative form of government into a mobocracy.

Like the rest of the world that elects their heads of state have?

Oh wait, not all of them. Besides us there's ................... Pakistan.

The world should be emulating us, not the other way around. Why would we want to be like nations that ARENT the greatest nation on earth?

whoa!

I thought America was crap, one of the worst countries, and ONLY donald j trump could make it great again?

Saaayy.... that's right. "They're laughing at us", aren't they?

Well no wonder. It's this Electrical College thing.

 

[Godboy]

According to the U.S. Constitution, the President is to be selected by the States, not the general public. The Electoral College was simply the means of apportioning this voting power between large and small states, and certifying these votes to the national government.

The Founders were well aware of how the rabble could be roused. That is why they limited direct popular elections to the House of Representatives. The ill-conceived 17th Amendment (1913), which extended this procedure to the election of U.S. Senators, has unfortunately caused these elections to now be dominated by out-of-state money and special interests (especially in smaller states).

Direct popular election of the President would be the final step in converting our representative form of government into a mobocracy.

Like the rest of the world that elects their heads of state have?

Oh wait, not all of them. Besides us there's ................... Pakistan.

The world should be emulating us, not the other way around. Why would we want to be like nations that ARENT the greatest nation on earth?

whoa!

I thought America was crap, one of the worst countries, and ONLY donald j trump could make it great again?

Thats because youre stupid.

 

[LeftofLeft]

The debate has started again

Among whom? No one is seriously debating this. But ... if YOU want to change the Constitution, just get 2/3rds of the states to come on board and you'll get your wish.

Nope. Liberals don't have time for due process. They believe that such moves and outcomes aligned with their agenda can be achieved from a Bench stacked with like-minded robes and/or egregious reach via executive orders.

 

[Care4all]

there is no need for a constitutional amendment....

We just need electors to not be WINNER TAKES ALL electors, which our States changed electors in to after the first 4 presidential elections....

The founders wanted each elector vote to count as an individual vote, the States changed this in to a mandated winner takes all electors, and that simply defeats the whole purpose of the individual electoral vote, which our founders created.

 

[yiostheoy]

The debate has started again as to whether the US Constitution should be amended in order to change the presidential election process. Some promote
eliminating the Electoral College in favor of a direct popular vote for president while others believe the Electoral College should remain unchanged. Just as compromise solved the initial problems of the framers so it is that compromise can solve this problem. The solution is to change the electoral votes to electoral points and reward each candidate a percentage of points based on the percentage of popular votes received in each state.

This would eliminate the "winner take all" system thus allowing for all the votes to count. A voter is more apt to believe their vote counted when a percentage of popular votes are taken into account rather than the "all or nothing" system currently in existence. Further, this new system would integrate the desire for a popular vote for president with the need for the individual states to determine who actually gets elected.

As for political primaries the number of delegates awarded in each state should be determined by the percentage of votes won by each candidate.

For 2016 multiplying the percentage of votes each candidate received {in each state} times the number of electoral votes {in each state} results in the following: Clinton 256.985 and Trump 253.482.

Well the DEM's are "debating" this again, sure.

The GOP is not.

I do not want NYS and Calif dictating to the rest of the nation.

It is easy for 2 states to go Commie (like they have).

It is not so easy for the whole Nation to.

The Electoral College is working just fine. So since it is not broke don't try to fix it.

 

[yiostheoy]

there is no need for a constitutional amendment....

We just need electors to not be WINNER TAKES ALL electors, which our States changed electors in to after the first 4 presidential elections....

The founders wanted each elector vote to count as an individual vote, the States changed this in to a mandated winner takes all electors, and that simply defeats the whole purpose of the individual electoral vote, which our founders created.

Link ??

Citation ??

 

[yiostheoy]

The debate has started again

Among whom? No one is seriously debating this. But ... if YOU want to change the Constitution, just get 2/3rds of the states to come on board and you'll get your wish.

Plant your head in the sand all you like but I've got sixty polls taken over the years that ALL say the People, in every state, agree it needs to be fixed.

pogo still believes in polls

You all need to get over losing badly and try to regroup for 2020, you're going to need it. Life under Trump will last a GOOD (literally) 8 years...believe me

I hope you are right.

Because Hillary said she wants to run again in 2020.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

The debate has started again as to whether the US Constitution should be amended in order to change the presidential election process. Some promote
eliminating the Electoral College in favor of a direct popular vote for president while others believe the Electoral College should remain unchanged. Just as compromise solved the initial problems of the framers so it is that compromise can solve this problem. The solution is to change the electoral votes to electoral points and reward each candidate a percentage of points based on the percentage of popular votes received in each state.

This would eliminate the "winner take all" system thus allowing for all the votes to count. A voter is more apt to believe their vote counted when a percentage of popular votes are taken into account rather than the "all or nothing" system currently in existence. Further, this new system would integrate the desire for a popular vote for president with the need for the individual states to determine who actually gets elected.

As for political primaries the number of delegates awarded in each state should be determined by the percentage of votes won by each candidate.

For 2016 multiplying the percentage of votes each candidate received {in each state} times the number of electoral votes {in each state} results in the following: Clinton 256.985 and Trump 253.482.

Reject. We have a system that works exactly as intended.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

According to the U.S. Constitution, the President is to be selected by the States, not the general public. The Electoral College was simply the means of apportioning this voting power between large and small states, and certifying these votes to the national government.

The Founders were well aware of how the rabble could be roused. That is why they limited direct popular elections to the House of Representatives. The ill-conceived 17th Amendment (1913), which extended this procedure to the election of U.S. Senators, has unfortunately caused these elections to now be dominated by out-of-state money and special interests (especially in smaller states).

Direct popular election of the President would be the final step in converting our representative form of government into a mobocracy.

Ditto that post. Well said jwoodie.

 

[Care4all]

there is no need for a constitutional amendment....

We just need electors to not be WINNER TAKES ALL electors, which our States changed electors in to after the first 4 presidential elections....

The founders wanted each elector vote to count as an individual vote, the States changed this in to a mandated winner takes all electors, and that simply defeats the whole purpose of the individual electoral vote, which our founders created.

Link ??

Citation ??

federalist paper#68, Hamilton who, along with Madison, was the founder of the electoral process, explained the creation of electors and the process... and I believe it was federalist 74 where Madison explained it, but not 100% certain that is the right # on madison's explanation... also, google electoral history....

Madison and Hamilton were so upset that the States were changing the electoral process, having electors collude with the States in this winner take all thingy that they contemplated amending the constitution to prevent the states from doing it....

the whole reason they had this electoral process was to PREVENT colluding...which they thought the US congressmen would do, to try to benefit their States more or their political party more...so they gave each state, one elector for every us congressmen they had, that were not suppose to be part of government, they were suppose to be individuals with individual votes...and then they gave each state, 2 more electors, that represented their US Senators, where a small state, got as much power as a big state, with both small and large states getting these 2 extra electors..... just like it is in our Senate...this gives the small states equal power to the large states with each getting 2, JUST LIKE OUR Senate...nebraska is just as powerful as California....

 

[BuckToothMoron]

According to the U.S. Constitution, the President is to be selected by the States, not the general public. The Electoral College was simply the means of apportioning this voting power between large and small states, and certifying these votes to the national government.

The Founders were well aware of how the rabble could be roused. That is why they limited direct popular elections to the House of Representatives. The ill-conceived 17th Amendment (1913), which extended this procedure to the election of U.S. Senators, has unfortunately caused these elections to now be dominated by out-of-state money and special interests (especially in smaller states).

Direct popular election of the President would be the final step in converting our representative form of government into a mobocracy.

Like the rest of the world that elects their heads of state have?

Oh wait, not all of them. Besides us there's ................... Pakistan.

Perhaps the rest of the world should figure out what they are doing wrong.

U.S. Senate: Constitution of the United States
Written in 1787, ratified in 1788, and in operation since 1789, the United States Constitution is the world’s longest surviving written charter of government. Its first three words – “We The People” – affirm that the government of the United States exists to serve its citizens. The supremacy of the people through their elected representatives is recognized in Article I, which creates a Congress consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives. The positioning of Congress at the beginning of the Constitution reaffirms its status as the “First Branch” of the federal government.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

A voter is more apt to believe their vote counted when a percentage of popular votes are taken into account rather than the "all or nothing" system currently in existence.

EXACTLY -- it would put way more voters in play since everybody would now have a reason to vote at all, which is certainly not the case for "locked" states. I've been pointing this out for years as the primary, though not the only, ill effect of the EC as practiced.

This would eliminate the "winner take all" system thus allowing for all the votes to count.

Actually it's not the EC itself that requires this wacko system --- it's the states that caved in to it. Kind of a "mobocracy" to quote a previous poster with his rectum speaking. One state did this "winner take all" crapola to protect the power of its 'favorite son' candidate, then the next state figured "well we gotta do it too" and pretty soon there was poo in the whole pool. Ridiculous.

James Madison, one of the guys that actually created the EC, tried to make that winner-take-all practice illegal as he could see where it was heading ---- even though his own state stood to lose influence by abandoning it.

It's ludicrous that my state goes to Congress and says "wow, literally everybody in our state voted for Donald Rump" and Virginia goes "wow, what a coincidence, literally everybody in our state voted for Hillary". Well no --- we didn't.

More Prep H POGO, and keep apply until the swelling completely disappears.