Electoral College

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sounds like the People should get started on something.

Only the people who feel it needs to change.
Liberals should probably lead by example, and make their states award EC votes proportionally.

they all agreed as a whole that the system is fucked up.

True, but enough about Obama and the Clintons.
If you want improvement, support term limits.
And eliminate government pensions.
If 401Ks are good enough for taxpayers, they're good enough for "public servants".

Non multisequitur. Nice. Always handy to multitask.

Sounds like the People should get started on something.

Only the people who feel it needs to change.

Which is ------ again ----- everybody.

Liberals should probably lead by example, and make their states award EC votes proportionally.

--- While the "Red" states go on with the charade that their state's voters spoke unanimously?

Always instructive to find out who's in favor of "rigged" elections.

I see you aren't interested in solutions.

I see you aren't interested in acknowledging your own hypocrisy. Even going so far as to delete the part of the post that pointed to it.

Not to worry --- I restored it.

Didn't delete any of your silliness.

Correct. Because there wasn't any "silliness" to delete.
But oh how inconvenient was the missing part.

You realize that if I open the thread and you make a change afterward, it won't show up in my reply?

Yeah, your idiocy was inconvenient. LOL!

 

[JOEBIALEK]

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.

 

[Darkwind]

Yeah, good luck with that.

While we're at it, why not throw out all those court rulings that overturned a massive popular vote in such cases as Proposition 8 in California where clearly the vote was in favor of marriage is between one mand and one woman.

Or do we accept mob rule ONLY when it is in our favor and oppose it in all other instances?

 

[mgh80]

I think it should be adjusted but still in place. I'd like to see the winner takes all end for each individual state, but keep the Electoral College in place as well.

For example let's say candidate A receives 60% of the vote in the state of Wisconsin. Candidate A would receive 6 electoral votes, and candidate B would receive 4. This ends the notion that dem votes in Texas don't matter and gop votes in California don't matter and keeps the actual votes that matter proportionate to their population.

Just my two cents.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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.

There is no problem.

 

[Fenton Lum]

This conversation has been going on for quite some time and began at a time when a rational discussion was possible in america. You can forget that now.

 

[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.

Didn't you already start this topic a few days ago?

As already noted in that thread, you know who would agree with such an Amendment, and in fact proposed one?

-- James Madison POTUS 4 and one of the designers of the Electoral College. The cockamamie "winner take all" system was just starting to take hold in the early 1800s and he could see where it was leading. He actually described it as "pretty fucked up".

OK I'm paraphrasing slightly, but he did.

 

[JakeStarkey]

One, the EC is part of the Constitution.

Two, the vote itself as it affects the EC cannot be thrown out.

Three, if the vote has been infringed, by Russian hacking, e.g., so that the election cannot be considered valid, a Constitutional problem occurs.

Either SCOTUS can declare the election invalid and order a new election, or the President and Vice-President can be removed by impeachment and conviction.

 

[Pogo]

Yeah, good luck with that.

While we're at it, why not throw out all those court rulings that overturned a massive popular vote in such cases as Proposition 8 in California where clearly the vote was in favor of marriage is between one mand and one woman.

Or do we accept mob rule ONLY when it is in our favor and oppose it in all other instances?

Interesting you try to use a comparison with a Prop that has no relationship whatever to the topic.

 

[USNavyVet]

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.

Nice try but changing the EC to match the percentage of the popular vote is nothing more than another attempt at removing the EC. It takes an Amendment to the Constitution.

 

[Rustic]

Yeah, good luck with that.

While we're at it, why not throw out all those court rulings that overturned a massive popular vote in such cases as Proposition 8 in California where clearly the vote was in favor of marriage is between one mand and one woman.

Or do we accept mob rule ONLY when it is in our favor and oppose it in all other instances?

Interesting you try to use a comparison with a Prop that has no relationship whatever to the topic.

Too bad you have no understanding of the real history of the EC

 

[Darkwind]

Yeah, good luck with that.

While we're at it, why not throw out all those court rulings that overturned a massive popular vote in such cases as Proposition 8 in California where clearly the vote was in favor of marriage is between one mand and one woman.

Or do we accept mob rule ONLY when it is in our favor and oppose it in all other instances?

Interesting you try to use a comparison with a Prop that has no relationship whatever to the topic.

Too bad you have no understanding of the real history of the EC

I have a clear understanding of it, and the purpose for which it was enacted. A purpose that is as valid today was it was two centuries ago.

Mob rule is the last resort of the losers.

 

[sartre play]

Little late to take this one up done deal. what do we (the people) need in order to find common ground to avoid going back to a 2 class society

 

[Timmy]

Yeah, good luck with that.

While we're at it, why not throw out all those court rulings that overturned a massive popular vote in such cases as Proposition 8 in California where clearly the vote was in favor of marriage is between one mand and one woman.

Or do we accept mob rule ONLY when it is in our favor and oppose it in all other instances?

Word .

what happens now is that the candidates only care about a handful of states . The rest can just fuck off.

 

[S.J.]

The left sees a problem with everything in the Constitution that doesn't serve their agenda. When they say "fix it", they mean "change it so we will always get our way". If we did away with the EC and Republicans won the next election the left would be saying the popular vote wasn't fair and would want to change it again.

 

[mgh80]

The left sees a problem with everything in the Constitution that doesn't serve their agenda. When they say "fix it", they mean "change it so we will always get our way". If we did away with the EC and Republicans won the next election the left would be saying the popular vote wasn't fair and would want to change it again.

While I most certainly agree with you, the Republicans are just as bad as not being happy with parts of the Constitution that doesn't serve their agenda either. That's what politicians do.

 

[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.

Nice try but changing the EC to match the percentage of the popular vote is nothing more than another attempt at removing the EC. It takes an Amendment to the Constitution.

Nope. It really doesn't, although that's one avenue.

The Constitution doesn't care HOW the states set up Electors. Doesn't even require a popular vote at all. A state can consult a ouija board, toss dice or throw darts if it wants to. This entire bizarro "winner take all" system is solely the fault of states falling into the trap, one by one, until virtually all have it. And now having descended into the pit they're too scared to get out of it.

That's literally how it happened --- one state decided to snub all its minority voters and put its full force to a single candidate so that it could protect in the case one of its 'favorite sons' got into play. Then the next state, displaying marvelously creative imagination (<< sarcasm) went "well gee Wally, we better do that too, hyuk" and pretty soon we had this monstrosity of a joke system.

In other words it was brought about by, as another poster described it, "mob rule".

 

[kaz]

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.

Didn't you already start this topic a few days ago?

As already noted in that thread, you know who would agree with such an Amendment, and in fact proposed one?

-- James Madison POTUS 4 and one of the designers of the Electoral College. The cockamamie "winner take all" system was just starting to take hold in the early 1800s and he could see where it was leading. He actually described it as "pretty fucked up".

OK I'm paraphrasing slightly, but he did.

Still using quote marks for paraphrases, huh? Remember how you claimed to be an editor and you don't even know how to punctuate? Classic.

And OK, Madison did support popular vote at one point and he opposed winner take all. I stipulate to that, it's true. So?

 

[imawhosure]

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.

Yes, I seen you create this exact same argument a week or two ago.

That being said---------> You realize that you are trying to change the system because someone didn't like the outcome don't you? Also, the states have the power already to have their electors vote by any criteria they want. It is up to the states, not the federal government. This is exactly why not all states give all their electors to one candidate.

All you are doing is usurping Federalism. It is the states who decide, not the feds. Why? Because supposedly, the states have more power than the feds do collectively under the constitution........ergo........the federal government does the bidding of the states, not vice versa.

And so, your plan is fine and dandy, or for that matter, any plan is fine and dandy, as long as the states do it individually under their own volition, and it is not dictated from Washington. If the feds try and pull ANYTHING like this off, they are going to have an article 5 on their hands rather quickly, and guess who controls the article 5? The States. And guess who controls most of the states? The Republicans, so I say, let the feds try to usurp the states on this one, so we can remove power from Washington in the process-)

 

[Darkwind]

Yeah, good luck with that.

While we're at it, why not throw out all those court rulings that overturned a massive popular vote in such cases as Proposition 8 in California where clearly the vote was in favor of marriage is between one mand and one woman.

Or do we accept mob rule ONLY when it is in our favor and oppose it in all other instances?

Word .

what happens now is that the candidates only care about a handful of states. The rest can just fuck off.

That would be the case if the EC was eliminated. In fact, the candidates would only need to speak to California, New York, and maybe Illinois if the race is close.