Elizabeth Warren: 'End Electoral College'

[Pogo]

Sen. Elizabeth Warren said Monday that she fully supports abolishing the Electoral College and moving toward a national vote, the first time the 2020 presidential candidate has publicly taken the stance.
“My view is that every vote matters,” the Massachusetts Democrat said to roaring applause at her CNN presidential town hall at Jackson State University in Mississippi. “And the way we can make that happen is that we can have national voting, and that means get rid of the Electoral College.”
Amen! I couldn't agree more! Elections should be about people - not acreage! BTW, the rest of the link is worth reading.

SWELL! GO FOR IT! We need more and more radicalism coming out of the democratic party! Or have they already so dumbed down America that enough of us already don't understand that EVERY VOTE ALREADY DOES COUNT~~ ~~ ~~ that is how every state is decided. Then the states are added up by weight proportional to their population. Let Pocahontas Liz go right on ahead championing the idea that what the DNC wants is:

MOB RULE,

where most of the states will no longer have any say in their government and every election will be decided by a handful of democratically-controlled states like California and New York!

With a HUNDRED important issues out there on the palette of America for a better life, I do hope you dumb fucking bastards pick rewriting the Constitution in your favor so you can win every election as your NUMBER ONE ISSUE to campaign on! LaJerkoff!

I honestly don't see why eliminating the electoral college would preclude Republicans from winning. Is that what you're saying?

I love the way they always fall back on the Doublethinkian "mob rule" canard, while utterly unable to defend it.

 

[Timmy]

We’ve outgrown the EC.

Look at what we have now . A handful of swing states get all the attention while 80% of the country is basically ignored .

Lol
With pure popular vote Rural America would be completely ignored

Why should some hillbilly have more of a vote?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I thought the Left was all about the "little guy" the transgendered, those who were left behind? I guess not...?

 

[georgephillip]

Well there seems to be the drumbeat of that again...

Getting rid of electoral college means rural America might as well not even vote, They would lose every single election.

States like California or Florida Texas and New York would dominate everything in this country…

There is a reason why they call this a republic not a shit eating democracy...

Under the current system of state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes, small states (the 13 states with only 3 or 4 electoral votes) are the most disadvantaged and ignored group of states in this Republic:

9.4 Myths about the Small States

• "The small states are not ignored because of their low population, but because they are not closely divided battleground states. The 12 small non-battleground states have about the same population (12 million) as the closely divided battleground state of Ohio.

• "The 12 small states have 40 electoral votes—more than twice Ohio’s 18 electoral votes. However, Ohio received 73 of 253 post-convention campaign events in 2012, while the 12 small non-battleground states received none."

 

[Lesh]

There's a difference between opposing the result you wanted, and delegitimizing the election. Katherine Harris followed the law as written, however much it wasn't how you wanted things to be. The GOP also demanded that the law be followed as written, however much it "disrupted" your attempts to make things the way you wanted them.

Bullshit. They were making it up on the fly and setting dates arbitrarily all the while stopping and restarting recounts to drag it out

 

[Auld Phart]

You make it sound like going to the moon. Oh, wait....
The Constitution has already been amended 27 times. Well, 17 if you take out the Bill of Rights. It is certainly not impossible.

Yes, impossible. Thirty-eight states would have to ratify the amendment effectively rendering their states mute regarding who is runs the country. Do you really think that's possible?

It is impossible to "render states mute" or even "moot". The idea would be that voters, not the EC, would make the decision. And those voters live in ---------- wait for it ------------------------ states.

The idea would be that voters, not the EC, would make the decision. And those voters live in ---------- wait for it ------------------------ states.

and the number of votes cast in 8 states was still smaller than Los Angeles County, in the last national election.

Imagine how many states it would take to cancel out California entirely.

Irrelevant. Votes are not for "cancelling out".

You wanna talk "cancel out", address all the Rump votes in California (New York, Massachusetts, etc) that were cancelled out by the WTA-EC. Along with who-knows-how-many-more who didn't bother to leave the house because what would be the point.

Get it?

If they get rid of the EC, and go to mob rule, what reason would Montana, north and south Dakota, Kansas, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Kansas and Iowa have to go to the polls?

They can't garner enough votes to beat one county, much less the entire state of California.

not to mention adding the other blue states into the mix.

 

[OldLady]

Sen. Elizabeth Warren said Monday that she fully supports abolishing the Electoral College and moving toward a national vote, the first time the 2020 presidential candidate has publicly taken the stance.
“My view is that every vote matters,” the Massachusetts Democrat said to roaring applause at her CNN presidential town hall at Jackson State University in Mississippi. “And the way we can make that happen is that we can have national voting, and that means get rid of the Electoral College.”
Amen! I couldn't agree more! Elections should be about people - not acreage! BTW, the rest of the link is worth reading.

SWELL! GO FOR IT! We need more and more radicalism coming out of the democratic party! Or have they already so dumbed down America that enough of us already don't understand that EVERY VOTE ALREADY DOES COUNT~~ ~~ ~~ that is how every state is decided. Then the states are added up by weight proportional to their population. Let Pocahontas Liz go right on ahead championing the idea that what the DNC wants is:

MOB RULE,

where most of the states will no longer have any say in their government and every election will be decided by a handful of democratically-controlled states like California and New York!

With a HUNDRED important issues out there on the palette of America for a better life, I do hope you dumb fucking bastards pick rewriting the Constitution in your favor so you can win every election as your NUMBER ONE ISSUE to campaign on! LaJerkoff!

I honestly don't see why eliminating the electoral college would preclude Republicans from winning. Is that what you're saying?

I love the way they always fall back on the Doublethinkian "mob rule" canard, while utterly unable to defend it.

Since I'm not so good at math concepts, I keep wondering if I'm missing something. I'm beginning to think maybe I'm not.

 

[Timmy]

Well there seems to be the drumbeat of that again...

Getting rid of electoral college means rural America might as well not even vote, They would lose every single election.

States like California or Florida Texas and New York would dominate everything in this country…

There is a reason why they call this a republic not a shit eating democracy...

How so ? We can eliminate winner take all state electoral college vote stealing .

Sure, like California?

Yes ! Right now the red areas of Cali never have a say in the prez election .

 

[2aguy]

Sen. Elizabeth Warren said Monday that she fully supports abolishing the Electoral College and moving toward a national vote, the first time the 2020 presidential candidate has publicly taken the stance.

“My view is that every vote matters,” the Massachusetts Democrat said to roaring applause at her CNN presidential town hall at Jackson State University in Mississippi. “And the way we can make that happen is that we can have national voting, and that means get rid of the Electoral College.”

More: Elizabeth Warren Calls For Getting Rid Of The Electoral College

Amen! I couldn't agree more! Elections should be about people - not acreage! BTW, the rest of the link is worth reading.

If she believes every vote matters she wouldn't want to get rid of the electoral college......getting rid of the electoral college means the only votes that will count are the ones in California, Illinois and New York...that's it. Everyone else will be ignored by the democrats and their illegal immigrant voters.

 

[2aguy]

You make it sound like going to the moon. Oh, wait....
The Constitution has already been amended 27 times. Well, 17 if you take out the Bill of Rights. It is certainly not impossible.

Yes, impossible. Thirty-eight states would have to ratify the amendment effectively rendering their states mute regarding who is runs the country. Do you really think that's possible?

It is impossible to "render states mute" or even "moot". The idea would be that voters, not the EC, would make the decision. And those voters live in ---------- wait for it ------------------------ states.

The idea would be that voters, not the EC, would make the decision. And those voters live in ---------- wait for it ------------------------ states.

and the number of votes cast in 8 states was still smaller than Los Angeles County, in the last national election.

Imagine how many states it would take to cancel out California entirely.

Irrelevant. Votes are not for "cancelling out".

You wanna talk "cancel out", address all the Rump votes in California (New York, Massachusetts, etc) that were cancelled out by the WTA-EC. Along with who-knows-how-many-more who didn't bother to leave the house because what would be the point.

Get it?

If they get rid of the EC, and go to mob rule, what reason would Montana, north and south Dakota, Kansas, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Kansas and Iowa have to go to the polls?

They can't garner enough votes to beat one county, much less the entire state of California.

not to mention adding the other blue states into the mix.

And that, according to the Joker, is all according to the plan....

 

[toobfreak]

Sen. Elizabeth Warren said Monday that she fully supports abolishing the Electoral College and moving toward a national vote, the first time the 2020 presidential candidate has publicly taken the stance.
“My view is that every vote matters,” the Massachusetts Democrat said to roaring applause at her CNN presidential town hall at Jackson State University in Mississippi. “And the way we can make that happen is that we can have national voting, and that means get rid of the Electoral College.”
Amen! I couldn't agree more! Elections should be about people - not acreage! BTW, the rest of the link is worth reading.

SWELL! GO FOR IT! We need more and more radicalism coming out of the democratic party! Or have they already so dumbed down America that enough of us already don't understand that EVERY VOTE ALREADY DOES COUNT~~ ~~ ~~ that is how every state is decided. Then the states are added up by weight proportional to their population. Let Pocahontas Liz go right on ahead championing the idea that what the DNC wants is:

MOB RULE,

where most of the states will no longer have any say in their government and every election will be decided by a handful of democratically-controlled states like California and New York!

With a HUNDRED important issues out there on the palette of America for a better life, I do hope you dumb fucking bastards pick rewriting the Constitution in your favor so you can win every election as your NUMBER ONE ISSUE to campaign on! LaJerkoff!

I honestly don't see why eliminating the electoral college would preclude Republicans from winning. Is that what you're saying?

Radical Leftards work in stages. They never state their real final intent.

• First it will be the popular vote. A national election. Every vote counts. Sounds good right? Who could be against it? Sure it will, along with the roughly 900,000 illegal voters who will now further dissolve untraceable into the system. Such a system lends itself toward centralization. And centralized control.
• Such a system automatically discounts most of the central states and elevates the weight and authority of states like California, all the while under the guise of perfect fairness! Overnight, 2/3rds of the states suddenly have no voice nor representation. The method is inherently skewed toward states with greater population having greater say and the Dems have been carefully taking control of every high population state for years, loading each of them up with guaranteed democratic votes!

The entire point of the plan is that there is nothing the Dems do better than create fake votes, illegal votes, and by doing away with the Electoral College, they only have ONE game to beat then, rather than 50 smaller ones! Do you really think the democrats would be FOR the idea if they weren't SURE it would benefit them greatly?

 

[2aguy]

Sen. Elizabeth Warren said Monday that she fully supports abolishing the Electoral College and moving toward a national vote, the first time the 2020 presidential candidate has publicly taken the stance.
“My view is that every vote matters,” the Massachusetts Democrat said to roaring applause at her CNN presidential town hall at Jackson State University in Mississippi. “And the way we can make that happen is that we can have national voting, and that means get rid of the Electoral College.”
Amen! I couldn't agree more! Elections should be about people - not acreage! BTW, the rest of the link is worth reading.

SWELL! GO FOR IT! We need more and more radicalism coming out of the democratic party! Or have they already so dumbed down America that enough of us already don't understand that EVERY VOTE ALREADY DOES COUNT~~ ~~ ~~ that is how every state is decided. Then the states are added up by weight proportional to their population. Let Pocahontas Liz go right on ahead championing the idea that what the DNC wants is:

MOB RULE,

where most of the states will no longer have any say in their government and every election will be decided by a handful of democratically-controlled states like California and New York!

With a HUNDRED important issues out there on the palette of America for a better life, I do hope you dumb fucking bastards pick rewriting the Constitution in your favor so you can win every election as your NUMBER ONE ISSUE to campaign on! LaJerkoff!

I honestly don't see why eliminating the electoral college would preclude Republicans from winning. Is that what you're saying?

Radical Leftards work in stages. They never state their real final intent.

• First it will be the popular vote. A national election. Every vote counts. Sounds good right? Who could be against it? Sure it will, along with the roughly 900,000 illegal voters who will now further dissolve untraceable into the system. Such a system lends itself toward centralization. And centralized control.
• Such a system automatically discounts most of the central states and elevates the weight and authority of states like California, all the while under the guise of perfect fairness! Overnight, 2/3rds of the states suddenly have no voice nor representation. The method is inherently skewed toward states with greater population having greater say and the Dems have been carefully taking control of every high population state for years, loading each of them up with guaranteed democratic votes!

The entire point of the plan is that there is nothing the Dems do better than create fake votes, illegal votes, and by doing away with the Electoral College, they only have ONE game to beat then, rather than 50 smaller ones!

Imagine....they will just have to steal votes in 3 states.....imagine the cost savings for the democrat party.

 

[xband]

Well there seems to be the drumbeat of that again...

Getting rid of electoral college means rural America might as well not even vote, They would lose every single election.

States like California or Florida Texas and New York would dominate everything in this country…

There is a reason why they call this a republic not a shit eating democracy...

How so ? We can eliminate winner take all state electoral college vote stealing .

Sure, like California?

Yes ! Right now the red areas of Cali never have a say in the prez election .

Red areas of California are few and inbetween.

 

[Auld Phart]

Sen. Elizabeth Warren said Monday that she fully supports abolishing the Electoral College and moving toward a national vote, the first time the 2020 presidential candidate has publicly taken the stance.

“My view is that every vote matters,” the Massachusetts Democrat said to roaring applause at her CNN presidential town hall at Jackson State University in Mississippi. “And the way we can make that happen is that we can have national voting, and that means get rid of the Electoral College.”

More: Elizabeth Warren Calls For Getting Rid Of The Electoral College

Amen! I couldn't agree more! Elections should be about people - not acreage! BTW, the rest of the link is worth reading.

If she believes every vote matters she wouldn't want to get rid of the electoral college......getting rid of the electoral college means the only votes that will count are the ones in California, Illinois and New York...that's it. Everyone else will be ignored by the democrats and their illegal immigrant voters.

the only votes that will count are the ones in California, Illinois and New York...

To her, those are the votes that matter

 

[Pogo]

You make it sound like going to the moon. Oh, wait....
The Constitution has already been amended 27 times. Well, 17 if you take out the Bill of Rights. It is certainly not impossible.

Yes, impossible. Thirty-eight states would have to ratify the amendment effectively rendering their states mute regarding who is runs the country. Do you really think that's possible?

It is impossible to "render states mute" or even "moot". The idea would be that voters, not the EC, would make the decision. And those voters live in ---------- wait for it ------------------------ states.

The idea would be that voters, not the EC, would make the decision. And those voters live in ---------- wait for it ------------------------ states.

and the number of votes cast in 8 states was still smaller than Los Angeles County, in the last national election.

Imagine how many states it would take to cancel out California entirely.

Irrelevant. Votes are not for "cancelling out".

You wanna talk "cancel out", address all the Rump votes in California (New York, Massachusetts, etc) that were cancelled out by the WTA-EC. Along with who-knows-how-many-more who didn't bother to leave the house because what would be the point.

Get it?

If they get rid of the EC, and go to mob rule, what reason would Montana, north and south Dakota, Kansas, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Kansas and Iowa have to go to the polls?

First of all "mob rule" is a completely bullshitious Doublethink term. If there are fifteen votes and eight of them vote one way, that's called a "majority", not a "mob". Drop the bullshitiousness.

Second, Montanta, Dakotas, etc etc would go to the polls for the same reason anybody else would --- because their votes count. And they'd count MORE since half of them wouldn't immediately be flushed down the electoral toilet, which, in the reverse scenario of what I just explained above, tons of voters didn't bother because their state was voting red regardless what they wanted, ergo what's the point?

A voter in a locked-red or locked-blue state has four choices: Vote with the state, vote against the state, vote third party, or stay home and bake cookies. ALL FOUR of those options bring the same result, with the exception that in the fourth scenario you actually get some cookies. That's not an election ---- that's a state-by-state LOCKOUT.

This appears to be the elephant in the room y'all can't touch. You're not interested in protecting state votes; you're interested in preserving RED votes. Now you'll mark this post "Funny" because you have no argument against it.

 

[Lakhota]

As the OP states: "Trump is the fifth United States president to have taken office without winning the national popular vote."

Here are the FIVE presidents who did not win the national popular vote:

• John Quincy Adams
• Rutherford B. Hayes
• Benjamin Harrison
• George W. Bush
• Donald Trump

United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote - Wikipedia

 

[bripat9643]

There's a difference between opposing the result you wanted, and delegitimizing the election. Katherine Harris followed the law as written, however much it wasn't how you wanted things to be. The GOP also demanded that the law be followed as written, however much it "disrupted" your attempts to make things the way you wanted them.

Bullshit. They were making it up on the fly and setting dates arbitrarily all the while stopping and restarting recounts to drag it out

The Dims were the ones making it up on the fly, shit for brains. They were constantly bleating about how "every vote should be counted," even though Florida election law says the counting stops after a certain date. There is no "dragging it out" past that date.

 

[blackhawk]

The lefts push for the popular vote over the electoral college is because then California would pretty much decide every Presidential election and it being a rock solid blue state would give the Democrats a huge advantage. In turn they would be able to keep the Supreme Court liberal as well as the lower courts with that they could get pretty much anything they passed upheld against legal challenges and anything they opposed shot down in the courts. Basically this would give us one party rule and you would have about half the country having no real say or influence in what happens look through history to see what that tends to lead to.

 

[Auld Phart]

Yes, impossible. Thirty-eight states would have to ratify the amendment effectively rendering their states mute regarding who is runs the country. Do you really think that's possible?

It is impossible to "render states mute" or even "moot". The idea would be that voters, not the EC, would make the decision. And those voters live in ---------- wait for it ------------------------ states.

The idea would be that voters, not the EC, would make the decision. And those voters live in ---------- wait for it ------------------------ states.

and the number of votes cast in 8 states was still smaller than Los Angeles County, in the last national election.

Imagine how many states it would take to cancel out California entirely.

Irrelevant. Votes are not for "cancelling out".

You wanna talk "cancel out", address all the Rump votes in California (New York, Massachusetts, etc) that were cancelled out by the WTA-EC. Along with who-knows-how-many-more who didn't bother to leave the house because what would be the point.

Get it?

If they get rid of the EC, and go to mob rule, what reason would Montana, north and south Dakota, Kansas, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Kansas and Iowa have to go to the polls?

First of all "mob rule" is a completely bullshitious Doublethink term. If there are fifteen votes and eight of them vote one way, that's called a "majority", not a "mob". Drop the bullshitiousness.

Second, Montanta, Dakotas, etc etc would go to the polls for the same reason anybody else would --- because their votes count. And they'd count MORE since half of them wouldn't immediately be flushed down the electoral toilet, which, in the reverse scenario of what I just explained above, tons of voters didn't bother because their state was voting red regardless what they wanted, ergo what's the point?

A voter in a locked-red or locked-blue state has four choices: Vote with the state, vote against the state, vote third party, or stay home and bake cookies. ALL FOUR of those options bring the same result, with the exception that in the fourth scenario you actually get some cookies. That's not an election ---- that's a state-by-state LOCKOUT.

This appears to be the elephant in the room y'all can't touch. You're not interested in protecting state votes; you're interested in RED votes.

If there are fifteen votes and eight of them vote one way, that's called a "majority", not a "mob".

when the votes in ONE state outnumber the votes in EIGHT states...

it's MOB RULE

 

[Cellblock2429]

Yes, impossible. Thirty-eight states would have to ratify the amendment effectively rendering their states mute regarding who is runs the country. Do you really think that's possible?

It is impossible to "render states mute" or even "moot". The idea would be that voters, not the EC, would make the decision. And those voters live in ---------- wait for it ------------------------ states.

The idea would be that voters, not the EC, would make the decision. And those voters live in ---------- wait for it ------------------------ states.

and the number of votes cast in 8 states was still smaller than Los Angeles County, in the last national election.

Imagine how many states it would take to cancel out California entirely.

Irrelevant. Votes are not for "cancelling out".

You wanna talk "cancel out", address all the Rump votes in California (New York, Massachusetts, etc) that were cancelled out by the WTA-EC. Along with who-knows-how-many-more who didn't bother to leave the house because what would be the point.

Get it?

If they get rid of the EC, and go to mob rule, what reason would Montana, north and south Dakota, Kansas, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Kansas and Iowa have to go to the polls?

First of all "mob rule" is a completely bullshitious Doublethink term. If there are fifteen votes and eight of them vote one way, that's called a "majority", not a "mob". Drop the bullshitiousness.

Second, Montanta, Dakotas, etc etc would go to the polls for the same reason anybody else would --- because their votes count. And they'd count MORE since half of them wouldn't immediately be flushed down the electoral toilet, which, in the reverse scenario of what I just explained above, tons of voters didn't bother because their state was voting red regardless what they wanted, ergo what's the point?

A voter in a locked-red or locked-blue state has four choices: Vote with the state, vote against the state, vote third party, or stay home and bake cookies. ALL FOUR of those options bring the same result, with the exception that in the fourth scenario you actually get some cookies.

This appears to be the elephant in the room y'all can't touch. You're not interested in protecting state votes; you're interested in RED votes.

/——/ It is mob rule. In a democracy, if 51% say slavery is legal then there is no recourse for the newly enslaved. In a Republic, Legislators protect the minorities