Electoral College

[RetiredGySgt]

Once again for the slow and stupid either you support majority rules or you don't. You don't get to claim that when your person loses the rules should change while ignoring all the times you supported the Courts or anyone else overruling majority rule. Either you support it or you don't.

Once again I don't live in California. Don't you get that?

Once again you either support all cases of Majority rules or you are simply butt hurt your person lost.

And once again --- FOURTH TIME NOW --- I DON'T LIVE IN FUCKING CALIFORNIA DUMBASS.

Doesn't change the fact you support courts overruling popular vote when it suits you and that is in fact the point.

BULLSHIT. Go find a quote of me saying anything like that, LOSER.

If in fact you supported Popular vote you would not be denying that the Courts over rule it for your party. Yet four times you denied it.

 

[Pogo]

Once again I don't live in California. Don't you get that?

Once again you either support all cases of Majority rules or you are simply butt hurt your person lost.

And once again --- FOURTH TIME NOW --- I DON'T LIVE IN FUCKING CALIFORNIA DUMBASS.

Doesn't change the fact you support courts overruling popular vote when it suits you and that is in fact the point.

BULLSHIT. Go find a quote of me saying anything like that, LOSER.

If in fact you supported Popular vote you would not be denying that the Courts over rule it for your party. Yet four times you denied it.

I don't even have a "party" Dipshit. What the in the wide world of blue fuck are you even babbling about?

I ordered you to find me a quote. Get busy.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You don't support popular vote except when you lose like in November pretty simple concept.

 

[80zephyr]

Without an electoral college, every close vote would have to be contested, and a recount would have to be done in every state. In 1960, Kennedy beat Nixon 34,220,984 to 34,108,157. It would be a nightmare of biblical proportions.

 

[Pogo]

You don't support popular vote except when you lose like in November pretty simple concept.

And once again Fuckbreath PROVE IT. Quote me.

You can't do it. And that makes you a lying HACK.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The fact you ignore the California vote and claim it is meaningless cause you are not from California proves it. You denied it 4 times in this thread.

 

[Pogo]

The fact you ignore the California vote and claim it is meaningless cause you are not from California proves it. You denied it 4 times in this thread.

Fuck you, Dickwipe. I *DON'T* live in California. NOR am I required to, so jam whatever bullshit theory you think you have right up your ass.

I ordered you to quote me.

You can't do it.

YOU LOSE.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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.

There is no debate on the subject. Middle America, which is needed to alter the constitution, WILL NEVER CEDE POWER TO THE FUCKING LEFTISTS. So just stop with this pipe dream nonsense.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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.

Oh, and go find a box of fucking Kleenexs already ffs

 

[blackhawk]

This electoral college debate reminds me of a scene from a movie the name of which I can't remember it has man and woman togother the woman is having to carry a bunch of stuff and she ask I'm the girl why do I have to carry everything the guy replies I believe in equal rights don't you her response yeah when it works in my favor.

 

[Pop23]

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?

They love a good democracy until they realize that democratic rule requires no Supreme Court.

Get goin dudes, id benifit from a government via referendum than the snowflakes would.

 

[Divine Wind]

It is comforting to know that no matter how liberals feel, the EC will never be eliminated. If it means that much to you, go the civil war route.

Why? Congress will remove him if he does not wise up, or SCOTUS will if the Russians are proven to interfere with hacking on his behalf.

And if not, then the courts and Congress will have their way with him, as well as the great majority of Americans and SNL.

It will be fun.

The Russians did not hack the vote and sorry but releasing emails does not invalidate the vote.

Correct. There is no evidence of hacked voting machines. Whining by distraught Democrats means nothing.

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

If the progressives had not chipped away at Federalism 100 years ago with the 17th amendment, you might have a shot today at changing the electoral college.

Now you don't.

There is no way in hell we're going to let you undo one of the last vestiges of states rights.

Your unending pursuit of greater and greater centralization of power nauseating. Enough!

Doublethink --- ^^ alive and well.

Over your head, I understand. It's okay.

I only wish it were over my head, since ignorance is as they say, bliss.

But your crocodile tears over Big Gummint ring hollow when you're advocating for states to steamroll the individual's vote in similar fashion. Worse, in fact.

That is not advocating for states to steamroll anything at all. By that standard (and has already been pointed out to you) if we held a popular vote for the president and the winner took office with 55% of the vote it would be big government steamrolling over 45% of the voters who cast a vote for the other guy.

The state itself has an election and then backs the winner.

----- which is steamrolling all its own people who didn't vote that way.

My state's Electors told Congress that the entire state voted for Rump. That's absolute bullshit. Were our 15 EVs allocated according to how the state actually DID vote they would cast 8 for Rump and 7 for Clinton. Because that was the reality.

Ok, I get it now. You want the national popular vote to count as "Winner Take All", but have a state's popular vote to be proportional.

What we need to do then is the winner be President and to candidate that came in 2nd be the Vice-President, like it was in the beginning.

Hillary Pres with Trump the VP. Yeah, I can't see any problems with that! /sarc

How does that sound to ya?

 

[Pogo]

Doublethink --- ^^ alive and well.

Over your head, I understand. It's okay.

I only wish it were over my head, since ignorance is as they say, bliss.

But your crocodile tears over Big Gummint ring hollow when you're advocating for states to steamroll the individual's vote in similar fashion. Worse, in fact.

That is not advocating for states to steamroll anything at all. By that standard (and has already been pointed out to you) if we held a popular vote for the president and the winner took office with 55% of the vote it would be big government steamrolling over 45% of the voters who cast a vote for the other guy.

The state itself has an election and then backs the winner.

----- which is steamrolling all its own people who didn't vote that way.

My state's Electors told Congress that the entire state voted for Rump. That's absolute bullshit. Were our 15 EVs allocated according to how the state actually DID vote they would cast 8 for Rump and 7 for Clinton. Because that was the reality.

Ok, I get it now. You want the national popular vote to count as "Winner Take All", but have a state's popular vote to be proportional.

What we need to do then is the winner be President and to candidate that came in 2nd be the Vice-President, like it was in the beginning.

Hillary Pres with Trump the VP. Yeah, I can't see any problems with that! /sarc

How does that sound to ya?

I love it --- that would be extremely entertaining.

I might add, since the VP is a job that has nothing to do, it's a perfect slot for an orange clown who's never held a job in his life. He'd fit right in. When he's bored he could go chair the Senate and be all like, "the gentleman from California will yield 'cause he's a YUGE LOOZUH".

 

[FA_Q2]

If the progressives had not chipped away at Federalism 100 years ago with the 17th amendment, you might have a shot today at changing the electoral college.

Now you don't.

There is no way in hell we're going to let you undo one of the last vestiges of states rights.

Your unending pursuit of greater and greater centralization of power nauseating. Enough!

Doublethink --- ^^ alive and well.

Over your head, I understand. It's okay.

I only wish it were over my head, since ignorance is as they say, bliss.

But your crocodile tears over Big Gummint ring hollow when you're advocating for states to steamroll the individual's vote in similar fashion. Worse, in fact.

That is not advocating for states to steamroll anything at all. By that standard (and has already been pointed out to you) if we held a popular vote for the president and the winner took office with 55% of the vote it would be big government steamrolling over 45% of the voters who cast a vote for the other guy.

The state itself has an election and then backs the winner.

----- which is steamrolling all its own people who didn't vote that way.

No, its not and declaring it so does not change that fact.

My state's Electors told Congress that the entire state voted for Rump. That's absolute bullshit. Were our 15 EVs allocated according to how the state actually DID vote they would cast 8 for Rump and 7 for Clinton. Because that was the reality.

No, they actually did not. Your states electors told the federal government that Trump won the election in your state. Which he did.

Just like a national vote would elect the one person with the most votes to be the president for the entire nation even though the entire nation did not vote for them.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Britain and Australia do not elect PM by popular vote.

 

[Pogo]

Doublethink --- ^^ alive and well.

Over your head, I understand. It's okay.

I only wish it were over my head, since ignorance is as they say, bliss.

But your crocodile tears over Big Gummint ring hollow when you're advocating for states to steamroll the individual's vote in similar fashion. Worse, in fact.

That is not advocating for states to steamroll anything at all. By that standard (and has already been pointed out to you) if we held a popular vote for the president and the winner took office with 55% of the vote it would be big government steamrolling over 45% of the voters who cast a vote for the other guy.

The state itself has an election and then backs the winner.

----- which is steamrolling all its own people who didn't vote that way.

No, its not and declaring it so does not change that fact.

My state's Electors told Congress that the entire state voted for Rump. That's absolute bullshit. Were our 15 EVs allocated according to how the state actually DID vote they would cast 8 for Rump and 7 for Clinton. Because that was the reality.

No, they actually did not. Your states electors told the federal government that Trump won the election in your state. Which he did.

No that's not what it says.
IF each state had a single vote for a total of 51, that's what it would say.

But the EC is deliberately and pointedly set up proportionally --- so that my state's 15 votes represent its relative population size.

The Electors then declare that 100% of that proportional population voted for Rump (or O'bama, or Bush, whoever)
---- which has never been the case, in any year in any election in any state, ever.

It's in effect a spit in the face of the intended framework of the Electoral College.

Again --- James Madison could see this when it first started happening. That's why he wanted it done away with. And few better authorities on how the EC was supposed to work ever lived than those who designed it.

Face it --- it's an abomination. It perverts the original intent, it creates artificial bullshit "red state/blue state" walls of division, it restricts candidates to a tiny minority of states while ignoring most of the country, it makes us dependent on polls to find out if it's even worth leaving the house on Election Day, it nullifies millions upon milllions of votes, it keeps our national voter turnout at pathetic low levels, and it perpetuates the stagnant Duopoly and ensures nothing beyond the Duopoly will ever break through it.

Great fuggin' system that is.

 

[TooTall]

If the progressives had not chipped away at Federalism 100 years ago with the 17th amendment, you might have a shot today at changing the electoral college.

Now you don't.

There is no way in hell we're going to let you undo one of the last vestiges of states rights.

Your unending pursuit of greater and greater centralization of power nauseating. Enough!

Doublethink --- ^^ alive and well.

Over your head, I understand. It's okay.

I only wish it were over my head, since ignorance is as they say, bliss.

But your crocodile tears over Big Gummint ring hollow when you're advocating for states to steamroll the individual's vote in similar fashion. Worse, in fact.

That is not advocating for states to steamroll anything at all. By that standard (and has already been pointed out to you) if we held a popular vote for the president and the winner took office with 55% of the vote it would be big government steamrolling over 45% of the voters who cast a vote for the other guy.

The state itself has an election and then backs the winner.

----- which is steamrolling all its own people who didn't vote that way.

My state's Electors told Congress that the entire state voted for Rump. That's absolute bullshit. Were our 15 EVs allocated according to how the state actually DID vote they would cast 8 for Rump and 7 for Clinton. Because that was the reality.

If it is such a good idea to allocate electors based on the popular vote, why are their only two states out of 50 that use a form of that method?

 

[EverCurious]

James Madison to George Hay, 23 August 1823

Montpellier Aug. 23. 1823

Dr. Sir

I have recd your letter of the 11th. with the Newspapers containing your remarks on the present mode of electing a President, and your proposed remedy for its defects. I am glad to find you have not abandoned your attention to great Constitutional topics.

The difficulty of finding an unexceptionable process for appointing the Executive Organ of a Govt. such as that of the U.S. was deeply felt by the Convention; and as the final arrangement of it took place in the latter stage of the Session, it was not exempt from a degree of the hurrying influence produced by fatigue & impatience in all such bodies; tho’ the degree was much less than usually prevails in them.

The part of the arrangement which casts the eventual appointment on the H. of Rs. voting by States, was, as you presume, an accomodation to the anxiety of the smaller States for their sovereign equality, and to the jealousy of the larger States towards the cumulative functions of the Senate. The Agency of the H. of Reps. was thought safer also than that of the Senate, on account of the greater number of its members. It might indeed happen that the event would turn on one or two States having one or two Reps. only; but even in that case, the Representations of most of the States being numerous, the House would present greater obstacles to corruption, than the Senate with its paucity of Members. It may be observed also, that altho’ for a certain period the evil of State votes given by one or two individuals would be extended by the introduction of new States, it would be rapidly diminished by growing populations within extensive territories. At the present period, the evil is at its maximum. Another Census will leave none the States existing or in embryo, in the numerical rank of R. Island & Delaware: Nor is it impossible that the progressive assimilation of local Institutions, laws, & manners, may overcome the prejudices of those particular States agst. an incorporation with their neighbours.

But with all possible abatements, the present rule of voting for President by the House of Reps. is so great a departure from the republican principle of numerical, equality, and even from the federal rule which qualifies the numerical by a State equality, and is so pregnant also with a mischievous tendency in practice, that an amendment of the Constitution on that point is justly called for by all its considerate & best friends.

I agree entirely with you in thinking that the election of Presidential Electors by districts, is an amendment very proper to be brought forward at the same time with that relating to the eventual choice of President by the H. of Reps. The district mode was mostly, if not exclusively in view when the Constitution was framed & adopted; and was exchanged for the general ticket & the Legislative election, as the only expedient for baffling the policy of the particular States which had set the example. A constitutional establishment of that mode will doubtless aid in reconciling the smaller States to the other change which they will regard as a concession on their part. And it may not be without a value in another important respect. The States when voting for President by general tickets or by their Legislatures, are a string of beeds: When they make their elections by districts, some of these differing in sentiment from others, and sympathizing with that of districts in other States, they are so knit together as to break the force of those Geographical & other noxious parties which might render the repulsive too strong for the cohesive tendencies within the political System.

It may be worthy of consideration whether in requiring elections by districts, a discretion might not be conveniently left with the States to allot two members to a single district. It would manifestly be an important proviso, that no new arrangement of districts should be made within a certain period previous to an ensuing election of President

Of the different remedies you propose for the failure of a majority of Electoral votes for any one Candidate, I like best that which refers the final choice to a joint vote of the two Houses of Congress, restricted to the two highest names on the Electoral lists. It might be a question, whether the three instead of the two highest names, might not be put within the choice of Congress; inasmuch as it not unfrequently happens, that the Candidate third on the list of votes, would in a question with either of two first, outvote him, & consequently be the real preference of the Voters. But this advantage of opening a wider door and a better chance to merit, may be outweighed by an increased difficulty in obtaining a prompt & quiet decision by Congress, with three Candidates before them, supported by three parties, no one of them making a majority of the whole.

The mode which you seem to approve of making a plurality of Electoral votes a definitive appointment, would have the merit of avoiding the Legislative Agency in appointing the Executive. But might it not by multiplying hopes & chances, stimulate intrigue & exertion, as well as incur too great a risk of success to a very inferior candidate? Next to the propriety of having a President the real choice of a majority of his Constituents, it is desirable that he should inspire respect & acquiescence by qualifications not suffering too much by comparison.

I cannot but think also that there is a strong objection to undistinguishing votes for President & Vice President; the highest number appointing the former, the next, the latter. To say nothing of the different services (except in a rare contingency) which are to be performed by them, occasional transpositions would take place violating equally the mutual consciousness of the individuals, & the public estimate of their comparative fitnesses.

Having thus made the remarks to which your communication led with a frankness which I am sure you will not disapprove, whatever errours you may find in them, I will sketch, for your consideration, a substitute which has occurred to myself for the faulty part of the Constitution in question.

’The Electors to be chosen by Districts, not more than two by any one district; and the arrangement of the districts not to be alterable within the period of previous to the election of President. Each Elector to give two votes; one naming his first choice, the other his next choice. If there be a majority of all the votes on the first list for the same person, he, of course to be President; if not, & there be a majority (which may well happen) on the other list for the same person, he then to be the final choice: if there be no such majority on either list, then a choice to be made by joint ballot of the two Houses of Congress, from the two names having the greatest number of votes on the two lists taken together’. Such a process would avoid the inconveniency of a second resort to the Electors; and furnish a double chance of avoiding an eventual resort to Congress. The same process might be observed in electing the Vice President.

Your letter found me under some engagements which have retarded a compliance with its request, and may have also rendered my view of the subject presented in it, more superficial than I have been aware. This consideration alone would justify my wish not to be brought into the public discussion. But there is another in the propensity of the moment, to view every thing, however abstract from the Presidential election in prospect, thro’ a medium connecting it with that question; a propensity the less to be excused as no previous change of the Constitution can be contemplated; and the more to be regretted as opinions & commitments formed under its influence may become settled obstacles at a practicable season. Be pleased to accept the expression of my esteem & my friendly respects


-----

AKA - this argument is a moot point because the smaller states are not going to cede to the larger so EC isn't going anywhere.

Do note that Madison's suggestion was /not/ PV, but rather to have Senate decide.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If the progressives had not chipped away at Federalism 100 years ago with the 17th amendment, you might have a shot today at changing the electoral college.

Now you don't.

There is no way in hell we're going to let you undo one of the last vestiges of states rights.

Your unending pursuit of greater and greater centralization of power nauseating. Enough!

Doublethink --- ^^ alive and well.

Over your head, I understand. It's okay.

I only wish it were over my head, since ignorance is as they say, bliss.

But your crocodile tears over Big Gummint ring hollow when you're advocating for states to steamroll the individual's vote in similar fashion. Worse, in fact.

That is not advocating for states to steamroll anything at all. By that standard (and has already been pointed out to you) if we held a popular vote for the president and the winner took office with 55% of the vote it would be big government steamrolling over 45% of the voters who cast a vote for the other guy.

The state itself has an election and then backs the winner.

----- which is steamrolling all its own people who didn't vote that way.

My state's Electors told Congress that the entire state voted for Rump. That's absolute bullshit. Were our 15 EVs allocated according to how the state actually DID vote they would cast 8 for Rump and 7 for Clinton. Because that was the reality.

My state's Electors told Congress that the entire state voted for Rump.

Nope. Your state's electors all voted for Trump, not all your voters.

That's absolute bullshit.

Nope. That's the choice of each individual state.