Electoral College

[Pogo]

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

Yyyyeah umm..... I said SIXTY polls. And that's not an exaggeration, it may be more. Sixty-plus over several decades, that all agree with each other. Not a consensus--- unanimous.

And oh yeah also sixty-plus polls that don't contain an answer anybody would be embarrassed to be honest about.

Polls . . . polls . . . I'm checking my list of "Things I Give A Rat's Ass About" . . . Nope, don't see polls on there anywhere.

The point was made that "no one is seriously debating this". If you've got a more effective way than sixty-plus polls unanimously declaring it's what Americans want and what "no one is seriously debating" let's hear it.

 

[Pogo]

I've got sixty polls taken over the years that ALL say the People, in every state, agree it needs to be fixed

And we ALL know how good the polls are

The sad part about all this is the fact that lefties are the ones starting this argument again. It happens every time they don't get their way. They act like cry babies and say that everything is not fair. Its not really an argument on weather or not to fix it, its more of an argument or an excuse to say that the electoral system is too outdated or that It doesn't work anymore. This is all because their beloved Hitlery lost the election that everyone said she was going to win without a doubt.

Once again for the slow kids ----- the Electoral College comes up exactly every four years, like clockwork. And it does so because every four years we have a Presidential election ---- WHICH IS WHEN THE EC GOES TO WORK. It wouldn't be expected to come up as a topic on the 2 year/7month point of a term because IT'S NOT IN PLAY THEN.

Ain't exactly rocket surgery. It was here four years ago. It was here eight years ago. It was here twelve years ago. It was here sixteen years ago. Etc etc etc. And unless it gets fixed it will be here in four years minus six weeks. And four years from that. And four more after that.

That's what happens when you have a wacko system that nullifies millions of votes, keeps turnout abysmally low, restricts candidates to a few "battleground" states, creates artificial wall-divisions (that Mexico does not pay for) of "red" and "blue" states, and makes voters dependent on polls just to find out whether it's even worth getting out of bed on Election Day in their particular state.

-----All elections nullify votes you blithering idiot. Someone has to lose, no one gets 100% of the vote. Geeeze

Not WITHIN A GIVEN STATE they don't, Spunkly.

 

[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.

Too bad for you we don't tabulate "wins" according to whatever apocryphal vote-counting method you prefer at the moment. Otherwise, we could just poll the voices in your head and call it a day.

You're impressed that Democrats are able to carry New York and California and think those two areas should rule the nation. I'm impressed that the Electoral College continues to do its job and PREVENT those two areas from ruling the nation. So basically, you're left to sit in the corner and mutter to yourself about your fantasies of entitlement and victimhood, and I'm left to enjoy reality. As usual.

Again --- try reading the post I quoted. I said nothing about "New York and California", let alone what I 'think should rule the nation'. Rather I corrected a blatant mathematical lie. That's it. And yet you feel a need to twist it into other things I never even hinted at, speaking of "voices in one's head".

Blatant mathematical lie. Plain as day. Prove me wrong.

 

[Rustic]

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.

Too bad for you we don't tabulate "wins" according to whatever apocryphal vote-counting method you prefer at the moment. Otherwise, we could just poll the voices in your head and call it a day.

You're impressed that Democrats are able to carry New York and California and think those two areas should rule the nation. I'm impressed that the Electoral College continues to do its job and PREVENT those two areas from ruling the nation. So basically, you're left to sit in the corner and mutter to yourself about your fantasies of entitlement and victimhood, and I'm left to enjoy reality. As usual.

Again --- try reading the post I quoted. I said nothing about "New York and California", let alone what I 'think should rule the nation'. Rather I corrected a blatant mathematical lie. That's it. And yet you feel a need to twist it into other things I never even hinted at, speaking of "voices in one's head".

Blatant mathematical lie. Plain as day. Prove me wrong.

Pure popular vote is mob rule... fact

 

[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?

There's no such thing. Put the comic book down....... nice and slow....

And we want to take instructions and advice about running the nation from someone who thinks every other nation on Earth is better . . . because why?

No Idea. Ask whoever the fuck you're talking about.
EDIT -- just read previous post, now I see who you're talking about. Your own strawman.

And welcome back C. Even if we're no longer teammates. That was weird wasn't it?

 

[Pogo]

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.

This is the bit I don't get... Are 'All men(and Women) created equal...'?

If so then there votes should be equal too, Why should Wyoming have 2.5 times the representation than California?
And using the answer 'Because that is the only way we win' is not what the was intended...

The facts are 19.8% of Americans voted for Trump, more voted for someone else... That is far from a mandate...

Even the NAZI party got 25% in 1933....

The think is the AltRight guys want voter suppression, Gerrymandering, unrepresentative elections...

Cause that is the only way they win...

How come Democrats werent complaining about the failure of the electoral college in 2008 and 2012? but now they bring it up?

This one was complaining----

​

--- he even said there should be, and I quote, "revolution in the streets". By somebody else of course, while he watches. Bone spurs you know.

Fun fact --- somebody ran the 2012 election through a scenario where the EC would vote proportionally according to each state's vote returns (rather than the ridiculous and indefensible "winner take all" crapola). It said Romney won.

 

[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.

Yup. If not for the EC Cali, NY and a few other States would decide each and every election.

The FF were wise. Indeed they were.

So wise that they counted slaves as three-fifths of a person for population counting (while giving them zero-fifths of a vote) so that the South, and particularly Virginia, could dominate the first several Presidencies with an Electoral Vote that ---- how did you put it ---- "decided every election"

Washington - Virginia (slaveholder) 2 temrs
Adams - Massachusetts (non-slaveholder) 1 term
Jefferson - Virginia (slaveholder) 2 terms
Madison - Virginia (slaveholder) 2 terms
Monroe - Virginia (slaveholder) 2 terms

32 of the country's first 36 years. Oopsie.

To his credit, Madison called for an Amendment that would make the then-new wacko trend of "winner take all" state voting illegal. Even though his own state would have had to give up some of that 'decide every election' power.

 

[Pogo]

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....

Zackly, thank you. At first there were several methods, these being left up to the several states. One of the states (I forget which) adopted the wacko indefensible "winner take all" farce to give strength to its own favorite son, after which the next state, exhibiting a marvelous display of creative thinking, went "duh, we better do that too hyuk" and the snowball started rolling. It's a complete perversion of the intent of the whole system and it's why our national turnout is a pathetic 60% ---- because millions of us already know there's no point in going to vote, since it's already decided. That was in no way the Founders' intent, and remains indefensible as a system.

 

[Rustic]

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.

Yup. If not for the EC Cali, NY and a few other States would decide each and every election.

The FF were wise. Indeed they were.

So wise that they counted slaves as three-fifths of a person for population counting (while giving them zero-fifths of a vote) so that the South, and particularly Virginia, could dominate the first several Presidencies with an Electoral Vote that ---- how did you put it ---- "decided every election"

Washington - Virginia (slaveholder) 2 temrs
Adams - Massachusetts (non-slaveholder) 1 term
Jefferson - Virginia (slaveholder) 2 terms
Madison - Virginia (slaveholder) 2 terms
Monroe - Virginia (slaveholder) 2 terms

32 of the country's first 36 years. Oopsie.

To his credit, Madison called for an Amendment that would make the then-new wacko trend of "winner take all" state voting illegal. Even though his own state would have had to give up some of that 'decide every election' power.

 

[Pogo]

The only reason these Moon Bats are bitching about the EC is because their corrupt little bitch lost the EC. They don't give a crap about the "will of the people" or anything else.

Yyyyyeah. Unfortunately Sparkles I've been on this case for the entire last year, and for years before, making the same points. Before the election, before the conventions or nominations. Linear time --- it's what's dinner.

If Trump had lost the EC and won the popular vote these Moon Bats would be telling us that if we didn't like the Constitution then we should move to Cuba or someplace.

Speculation fallacy wrapped up in a five-dollar bill may get you a nice cup of coffee at Starbucks or someplace.

Trump didn't run a campaign to win the popular vote. He wrote off states like California and New York. He concentrated on the swing states

No shit, Sherlock. That's part of the effect of the EC. Voters in California and New York had no reason to go to the polls anyway. Their states were pre-decided. Their Electors were already going to tell Congress "it's amazing every single voter here went for Hillary! Haven't seen anything like it in ... four years!" Six million or so voters went and voted for Rump anyway, for whatever reason. Their votes were immediately flushed down the loo. They became unvotes that never happened.

That's "winner take all" for ya. Indefensible.

Had the popular vote been the rule then he would have campaigned much differently and there is no guarantee that Crooked Hillary would have won.

Again -- NO SHIT SHERLOCK. Candidates campaign to win the system as it is --- change it to something else and they'll campaign to win THAT system. Fucking DUH.

Again that's the effect of the EC. They spend all their time in the Ohios and the North Carolinas and the Floridas while the West Virginias and the Utahs and the Texases and the Californias get snubbed. They get snubbed because everybody in those states who doesn't vote as their state majority does is getting their vote disappeared.

Take away that indefensible system, and you'd see Rump in Connecticut and you'd see Clinton in Alabama. And you'd also see third parties doing a fuck of a lot better.

 

[Pop23]

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

Yyyyeah umm..... I said SIXTY polls. And that's not an exaggeration, it may be more. Sixty-plus over several decades, that all agree with each other. Not a consensus--- unanimous.

And oh yeah also sixty-plus polls that don't contain an answer anybody would be embarrassed to be honest about.

Polls . . . polls . . . I'm checking my list of "Things I Give A Rat's Ass About" . . . Nope, don't see polls on there anywhere.

The point was made that "no one is seriously debating this". If you've got a more effective way than sixty-plus polls unanimously declaring it's what Americans want and what "no one is seriously debating" let's hear it.

A poll is not a debate short bus

Because a polling company does a poll it does not automatically mean anyone really cares.

 

[Care4all]

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.

This is the bit I don't get... Are 'All men(and Women) created equal...'?

If so then there votes should be equal too, Why should Wyoming have 2.5 times the representation than California?
And using the answer 'Because that is the only way we win' is not what the was intended...

The facts are 19.8% of Americans voted for Trump, more voted for someone else... That is far from a mandate...

Even the NAZI party got 25% in 1933....

The think is the AltRight guys want voter suppression, Gerrymandering, unrepresentative elections...

Cause that is the only way they win...

How come Democrats werent complaining about the failure of the electoral college in 2008 and 2012? but now they bring it up?

easy peasey!

Obama, and ALL Democratic Presidents since our founding as a Nation, have won the Presidency with both the electoral vote and popular vote. In the recent era, in 2000 and now in 2016, the republican presidents, only won the electoral vote and NOT the popular vote of it's citizens as well... since our founding, 4 times repub presidents lost the popular vote... 2 of those times occurred in less than 2 decades, with bush2 and trump.... most citizens since our founding, have never even seen it happen once in their lifetime of voting...

People were very upset in 2000 over it, but were not upset in 2004 because Bush won both the popular and electoral vote, and Obama in 2008 and 2012 won both the pop and electoral.



I am personally, for the electoral college, but not in the manner the States manipulated it, where the electors representing the voters, are forced in to a Winner Take All situation, instead of them being individual votes proportional to the popular vote, and the 2 extra electors each state is given to represent the us senators in each state, should cast their votes to represent the state's overall popular vote....and giving the smaller states an advantage over the larger populated states.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

Never called my house.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

This is the bit I don't get... Are 'All men(and Women) created equal...'?

If so then there votes should be equal too, Why should Wyoming have 2.5 times the representation than California?
And using the answer 'Because that is the only way we win' is not what the was intended...

The facts are 19.8% of Americans voted for Trump, more voted for someone else... That is far from a mandate...

Even the NAZI party got 25% in 1933....

The think is the AltRight guys want voter suppression, Gerrymandering, unrepresentative elections...

Cause that is the only way they win...

How come Democrats werent complaining about the failure of the electoral college in 2008 and 2012? but now they bring it up?

easy peasey!

Obama, and ALL Democratic Presidents since our founding as a Nation, have won the Presidency with both the electoral vote and popular vote. In the recent era, in 2000 and now in 2016, the republican presidents, only won the electoral vote and NOT the popular vote of it's citizens as well... since our founding, 4 times repub presidents lost the popular vote... 2 of those times occurred in less than 2 decades, with bush2 and trump.... most citizens since our founding, have never even seen it happen once in their lifetime of voting...

People were very upset in 2000 over it, but were not upset in 2004 because Bush won both the popular and electoral vote, and Obama in 2008 and 2012 won both the pop and electoral.



I am personally, for the electoral college, but not in the manner the States manipulated it, where the electors representing the voters, are forced in to a Winner Take All situation, instead of them being individual votes proportional to the popular vote, and the 2 extra electors each state is given to represent the us senators in each state, should cast their votes to represent the state's overall popular vote....and giving the smaller states an advantage over the larger populated states.

I don't recall any kind of serious effort to change it.

Do you ?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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

Yyyyeah umm..... I said SIXTY polls. And that's not an exaggeration, it may be more. Sixty-plus over several decades, that all agree with each other. Not a consensus--- unanimous.

And oh yeah also sixty-plus polls that don't contain an answer anybody would be embarrassed to be honest about.

Polls . . . polls . . . I'm checking my list of "Things I Give A Rat's Ass About" . . . Nope, don't see polls on there anywhere.

The point was made that "no one is seriously debating this". If you've got a more effective way than sixty-plus polls unanimously declaring it's what Americans want and what "no one is seriously debating" let's hear it.

Has the amendment made it to the senate floor yet ?

 

[fncceo]

People were very upset in 2000 over it,

Who was? Not me.

 

[Care4all]

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.

This is the bit I don't get... Are 'All men(and Women) created equal...'?

If so then there votes should be equal too, Why should Wyoming have 2.5 times the representation than California?
And using the answer 'Because that is the only way we win' is not what the was intended...

The facts are 19.8% of Americans voted for Trump, more voted for someone else... That is far from a mandate...

Even the NAZI party got 25% in 1933....

The think is the AltRight guys want voter suppression, Gerrymandering, unrepresentative elections...

Cause that is the only way they win...

How come Democrats werent complaining about the failure of the electoral college in 2008 and 2012? but now they bring it up?

easy peasey!

Obama, and ALL Democratic Presidents since our founding as a Nation, have won the Presidency with both the electoral vote and popular vote. In the recent era, in 2000 and now in 2016, the republican presidents, only won the electoral vote and NOT the popular vote of it's citizens as well... since our founding, 4 times repub presidents lost the popular vote... 2 of those times occurred in less than 2 decades, with bush2 and trump.... most citizens since our founding, have never even seen it happen once in their lifetime of voting...

People were very upset in 2000 over it, but were not upset in 2004 because Bush won both the popular and electoral vote, and Obama in 2008 and 2012 won both the pop and electoral.



I am personally, for the electoral college, but not in the manner the States manipulated it, where the electors representing the voters, are forced in to a Winner Take All situation, instead of them being individual votes proportional to the popular vote, and the 2 extra electors each state is given to represent the us senators in each state, should cast their votes to represent the state's overall popular vote....and giving the smaller states an advantage over the larger populated states.

I don't recall any kind of serious effort to change it.

Do you ?

alot of screaming and yelling about it from the citizens, just like now....no different....maybe even moreso on Bush2 in 2000....even though Al won the pop vote by 500k and not the 2.8 million clinton won by....

BUT congress, both democrats and republicans don't want it changed from a winner take all in their own states....IF they did change it and electors were individual voters representing how the popular vote came out in their state, proportionally per candidate....this could spoil their cushy and secure 2 Party ONLY system they rigged....and would allow third party candidates a CHANCE at winning some electoral votes, and neither of the 2 party insiders want this.... imo.

 

[Pogo]

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

Yyyyeah umm..... I said SIXTY polls. And that's not an exaggeration, it may be more. Sixty-plus over several decades, that all agree with each other. Not a consensus--- unanimous.

And oh yeah also sixty-plus polls that don't contain an answer anybody would be embarrassed to be honest about.

Polls . . . polls . . . I'm checking my list of "Things I Give A Rat's Ass About" . . . Nope, don't see polls on there anywhere.

The point was made that "no one is seriously debating this". If you've got a more effective way than sixty-plus polls unanimously declaring it's what Americans want and what "no one is seriously debating" let's hear it.

Has the amendment made it to the senate floor yet ?

This time of year Doodles, not much makes it to the Senate floor other than a broom.

Welcome to America btw.

 

[Pogo]

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

Yyyyeah umm..... I said SIXTY polls. And that's not an exaggeration, it may be more. Sixty-plus over several decades, that all agree with each other. Not a consensus--- unanimous.

And oh yeah also sixty-plus polls that don't contain an answer anybody would be embarrassed to be honest about.

Polls . . . polls . . . I'm checking my list of "Things I Give A Rat's Ass About" . . . Nope, don't see polls on there anywhere.

The point was made that "no one is seriously debating this". If you've got a more effective way than sixty-plus polls unanimously declaring it's what Americans want and what "no one is seriously debating" let's hear it.

A poll is not a debate short bus

Because a polling company does a poll it does not automatically mean anyone really cares.

I'm afraid it does Geezer. You see, if no one cared no one would answer the polls. These got loads of answers. These go up to 11.

Bottom line still being ---- All over this country in literally every state, literally every poll says We the People want it changed.

 

[Pop23]

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

Yyyyeah umm..... I said SIXTY polls. And that's not an exaggeration, it may be more. Sixty-plus over several decades, that all agree with each other. Not a consensus--- unanimous.

And oh yeah also sixty-plus polls that don't contain an answer anybody would be embarrassed to be honest about.

Polls . . . polls . . . I'm checking my list of "Things I Give A Rat's Ass About" . . . Nope, don't see polls on there anywhere.

The point was made that "no one is seriously debating this". If you've got a more effective way than sixty-plus polls unanimously declaring it's what Americans want and what "no one is seriously debating" let's hear it.

A poll is not a debate short bus

Because a polling company does a poll it does not automatically mean anyone really cares.

I'm afraid it does Geezer. You see, if no one cared no one would answer the polls. These got loads of answers. These go up to 11.

Bottom line still being ---- All over this country in literally every state, literally every poll says We the People want it changed.

Fail. You receive a call from a polling company you either answer or not. The polling company just keep calling until they get enough answers. It does not indicate interest in the subject at all.

Grow the fuck up.