Elizabeth Warren: 'End Electoral College'

[RDD_1210]

Great then a conservative would have won.

The electoral college is past it's prime. It's time to ensure all votes are equal.

The EC does equalize the votes.

Sure doesn't.

It does the very opposite of that.

Great then a conservative would have won.

The electoral college is past it's prime. It's time to ensure all votes are equal.

The EC does equalize the votes.

Sure doesn't.

It does the very opposite of that.

Sure does.
The EC gives low population areas their voting rights over the densely populated States.

The EC devalues votes so that not all votes are equal.

they are all equal, it nullifies the INDOCTRINATION of the blue states and them trying to get as many illegals in as possible

All votes are not equal under the electoral college. That's a fact.

 

[RDD_1210]

It would make more sense breaking up the country than getting rid of the electoral college.

With a pure popular vote, urban America will fully control every aspect of Rural Americans lives...

Holy fuck.. You're acting as if there is no house or Senate.

 

[peach174]

The EC does equalize the votes.

Sure doesn't.

It does the very opposite of that.

The EC does equalize the votes.

Sure doesn't.

It does the very opposite of that.

Sure does.
The EC gives low population areas their voting rights over the densely populated States.

The EC devalues votes so that not all votes are equal.

they are all equal, it nullifies the INDOCTRINATION of the blue states and them trying to get as many illegals in as possible

All votes are not equal under the electoral college. That's a fact.

Because large populated areas should not rule over low populated areas.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Republicans don't want the presidential election decided by popular vote because their ideas aren't popular.

Suppressing what the people want is the only way Republicans can maintain power.

You don't know what the popular vote would turn out because we never had one for a Presidential election. Remember during DumBama that we had most of the Governorships across the country not to mention the lead in Congress and eventually the Senate. That in addition to the statewide positions of power that turned Republican.

The idea that Hil-Liar won the popular vote is a stupid one. It's like saying I'm a better poker player than you are even though you won because I formed some great gin rummy hands.

Cute story.

Literally makes no sense.

Hillary won the popular vote because she had more total votes. I know this is difficult for you to understand but you should really try.

I think it's you that doesn't understand.

Nobody ran to get the most votes. They ran to get the most electoral votes. If they ran for the most votes, then you might have a point. Both candidates would have created entirely different strategies. Republicans in those blue states would have come out to vote. Many didn't because it was fruitless.

Trump spent much time in those swing-vote and flyover country states. Hillary spent little time there. Trump knew the name of the game was electoral votes, so he planned his strategy that way and he won.

Just because Hillary got more votes does not mean that more people wanted her to win. She only got the votes of people that came out--not the people that wanted Trump and stayed home.

How many times do we need to change the system so that Democrats can win?

After GW's first win, you people screamed about punchcard ballots. So most of the country got rid of punchcards and went to electronic voting spending tens of millions of dollars. When GW won the second election, everybody had to scarp those electronic voting machines because they were manufactured by Diebold. Forget the fact that not a trace of evidence was found that those machines were manipulated in any way. So the country had to get rid of Diebold machines and spend millions more dollars replacing those!

So now that we've spent all this money, wasted all this time, and Democrats are still losing, we need to scrap the electoral college just like we did the punchcards and Diebold machines. But even if we did that and Democrats still lose, what else are we going to have to change next to try and make sure Democrats win every election?

 

[Pogo]

I'm for leaving it as it is now that allows the states to decide how they want to determine their electors. I'd vote against a state legislator candidate that favors the determination be based on national popular vote.

If you leave it as is, nothing changes. And if nothing changes we're doomed to be under the thumb of the Duopoly, forever.

Good point about if nothing changes, I just don't see dumping the Electoral College as the change needed. Personally, I'd like to see all these third parties and independents come together every four years to hold unified primaries and a convention. Right now they're so divided that they're easily conquered.

And it's impossible for them not to be under the current scheme. Besides which, third parties could no more be "unified" than Democrats and Republicans could hold a joint convention. Even less so since they represent disparate interests.

How many POTUS elections have you seen where you have to vote for the lesser of two evils? Pretty much every one in my lifetime. There's a reason for that, and that is the Duopoly is protected from any challenge, dominating political choices and shutting out any 3Ps. And as long as we keep running the same way we'll never get different results. You can vote 3P all you like but your state is tossing that vote directly in the garbage.

As noted earlier, the only viable strategy for a 3P is to siphon off enough votes that nobody gets an Electoral majority, thus throwing the election into the House of Reps who can do anything they want. In other words the only way a 3P can win is by nullifying the entire election and rolling the dice with the House.

 

[Rustic]

Trump had no reason to campaign in a state that he had no chance at winning. Hillary didn't spend a lot of time in the swing states because the bag thought she had those states in the bag. She totally ignored flyover country.

Exactly the point, he couldn’t win the state so he didn’t campaign there. But theres a ton of conservatives and republicans in California. Many farmers and blue collared industrial workers from rural areas. He could have pulled millions of votes. There are probability many with conservative views that don’t even bother to vote because they know which way the state is going to go. Think about it. A popular vote isn’t necessarily going to benefit the Left. If there really is a “forgotten man” then they could very well exist within these big blue states.

A pure popular vote is a slam dunk for progressives, It’s not even close.
There is no reason for rural America to even vote with a pure popular vote.

Explain why... these empty proclaimations are meaningless. I just put out some points. How about trying to respond to them or make some of your own. Something more than “it’s a slam dunk for progressives”. WHY? HOW?

Ok, Southern California Would displace five states in the northern plains, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Montana and Idaho.

Cali already wipes out those states with EC votes. Ca has 55... ND (3) SD(3) WY(3) MT(3) and ID(4) add up to 16. What’s else you got?

You’re not understanding, those EC votes add up as seen in 2016. With a pure popular vote the votes just are not there to make any difference... Never have been and never will be.

 

[RDD_1210]

Sure doesn't.

It does the very opposite of that.

Sure doesn't.

It does the very opposite of that.

Sure does.
The EC gives low population areas their voting rights over the densely populated States.

The EC devalues votes so that not all votes are equal.

they are all equal, it nullifies the INDOCTRINATION of the blue states and them trying to get as many illegals in as possible

All votes are not equal under the electoral college. That's a fact.

Because large populated areas should not rule over low populated areas.

And they won't.

Everyone's vote should be equally weighted, don't you agree?

 

[Rustic]

It would make more sense breaking up the country than getting rid of the electoral college.

With a pure popular vote, urban America will fully control every aspect of Rural Americans lives...

Holy fuck.. You're acting as if there is no house or Senate.

We are talking about presidential elections, with a pure popular vote rural America would have no representation by the executive branch...

 

[peach174]

It would make more sense breaking up the country than getting rid of the electoral college.

With a pure popular vote, urban America will fully control every aspect of Rural Americans lives...

Holy fuck.. You're acting as if there is no house or Senate.

It would make more sense breaking up the country than getting rid of the electoral college.

With a pure popular vote, urban America will fully control every aspect of Rural Americans lives...

Holy fuck.. You're acting as if there is no house or Senate.

It would make more sense breaking up the country than getting rid of the electoral college.

With a pure popular vote, urban America will fully control every aspect of Rural Americans lives...

Holy fuck.. You're acting as if there is no house or Senate.

It would make more sense breaking up the country than getting rid of the electoral college.

With a pure popular vote, urban America will fully control every aspect of Rural Americans lives...

Holy fuck.. You're acting as if there is no house or Senate.

It would make more sense breaking up the country than getting rid of the electoral college.

With a pure popular vote, urban America will fully control every aspect of Rural Americans lives...

Holy fuck.. You're acting as if there is no house or Senate.

That's because we're talking about the EC for President.
The EC does not apply to the house or Senate.

 

[Rustic]

Sure does.
The EC gives low population areas their voting rights over the densely populated States.

The EC devalues votes so that not all votes are equal.

they are all equal, it nullifies the INDOCTRINATION of the blue states and them trying to get as many illegals in as possible

All votes are not equal under the electoral college. That's a fact.

Because large populated areas should not rule over low populated areas.

And they won't.

Everyone's vote should be equally weighted, don't you agree?

This is supposed to be a republic not a shit eating democracy...

 

[denmark]

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.

So you believe we should accept the opinion of Elizabeth Warren, the woman who lied about her ancestry for decades?

I thought Warren agrees with Trump on this issue, although Trump lies 1000 times more often, or just makes things up.
Trumpsters should be able to understand Warren’s view, not because they like details, unlike Trump, but because of his pre-2016 declaration to abolish the Electoral College!

More hypocrisy from Trumpsters?

 

[RDD_1210]

Republicans don't want the presidential election decided by popular vote because their ideas aren't popular.

Suppressing what the people want is the only way Republicans can maintain power.

You don't know what the popular vote would turn out because we never had one for a Presidential election. Remember during DumBama that we had most of the Governorships across the country not to mention the lead in Congress and eventually the Senate. That in addition to the statewide positions of power that turned Republican.

The idea that Hil-Liar won the popular vote is a stupid one. It's like saying I'm a better poker player than you are even though you won because I formed some great gin rummy hands.

Cute story.

Literally makes no sense.

Hillary won the popular vote because she had more total votes. I know this is difficult for you to understand but you should really try.

I think it's you that doesn't understand.

Nobody ran to get the most votes. They ran to get the most electoral votes. If they ran for the most votes, then you might have a point. Both candidates would have created entirely different strategies. Republicans in those blue states would have come out to vote. Many didn't because it was fruitless.

Trump spent much time in those swing-vote and flyover country states. Hillary spent little time there. Trump knew the name of the game was electoral votes, so he planned his strategy that way and he won.

Just because Hillary got more votes does not mean that more people wanted her to win. She only got the votes of people that came out--not the people that wanted Trump and stayed home.

How many times do we need to change the system so that Democrats can win?

After GW's first win, you people screamed about punchcard ballots. So most of the country got rid of punchcards and went to electronic voting spending tens of millions of dollars. When GW won the second election, everybody had to scarp those electronic voting machines because they were manufactured by Diebold. Forget the fact that not a trace of evidence was found that those machines were manipulated in any way. So the country had to get rid of Diebold machines and spend millions more dollars replacing those!

So now that we've spent all this money, wasted all this time, and Democrats are still losing, we need to scrap the electoral college just like we did the punchcards and Diebold machines. But even if we did that and Democrats still lose, what else are we going to have to change next to try and make sure Democrats win every election?

Fuck Hillary...I don't care about her.

I'm talking about future elections. I realize strategies will change to account for the way votes are counted.. And that's fine.

But the electoral college is an out dated system that needs to go.

 

[easyt65]

Obama's Former Campaign Manager: Eliminating the Electoral College Isn't Going to Happen

"Former Obama campaign manager Jim Messina is pouring cold water on the elimination of the electoral college. In recent days and weeks, a number of 2020 Democrat presidential candidates have lobbied for the idea."

"Let me just answer the electoral college question. I also think just from a campaign manager standpoint from when I ran President Obama’s campaign, we would never go to a small state if there was no electoral college. You’d go to the major media markets, you would not go to Iowa, you wouldn’t go to Montana, you wouldn’t go to New Hampshire,”


"Since Hillary Clinton lost the presidency for a second time in 2016, due to her failure to visit important electoral college states like Wisconsin and Michigan, many on the left have advocated for the abolishment of the system in favor of a national popular vote."

Even Obama's former campaign manager knows it ain't happening ... and that Hillary's loss in 2016 was not due to the Russians or the Electoral College!

Hillary lost because of HILLARY!

 

[RDD_1210]

The EC devalues votes so that not all votes are equal.

they are all equal, it nullifies the INDOCTRINATION of the blue states and them trying to get as many illegals in as possible

All votes are not equal under the electoral college. That's a fact.

Because large populated areas should not rule over low populated areas.

And they won't.

Everyone's vote should be equally weighted, don't you agree?

This is supposed to be a republic not a shit eating democracy...

I heard you the first 27 times.

Do you feel that everyone's vote should not be weighted the same?

 

[Rustic]

Republicans don't want the presidential election decided by popular vote because their ideas aren't popular.

Suppressing what the people want is the only way Republicans can maintain power.

You don't know what the popular vote would turn out because we never had one for a Presidential election. Remember during DumBama that we had most of the Governorships across the country not to mention the lead in Congress and eventually the Senate. That in addition to the statewide positions of power that turned Republican.

The idea that Hil-Liar won the popular vote is a stupid one. It's like saying I'm a better poker player than you are even though you won because I formed some great gin rummy hands.

Cute story.

Literally makes no sense.

Hillary won the popular vote because she had more total votes. I know this is difficult for you to understand but you should really try.

I think it's you that doesn't understand.

Nobody ran to get the most votes. They ran to get the most electoral votes. If they ran for the most votes, then you might have a point. Both candidates would have created entirely different strategies. Republicans in those blue states would have come out to vote. Many didn't because it was fruitless.

Trump spent much time in those swing-vote and flyover country states. Hillary spent little time there. Trump knew the name of the game was electoral votes, so he planned his strategy that way and he won.

Just because Hillary got more votes does not mean that more people wanted her to win. She only got the votes of people that came out--not the people that wanted Trump and stayed home.

How many times do we need to change the system so that Democrats can win?

After GW's first win, you people screamed about punchcard ballots. So most of the country got rid of punchcards and went to electronic voting spending tens of millions of dollars. When GW won the second election, everybody had to scarp those electronic voting machines because they were manufactured by Diebold. Forget the fact that not a trace of evidence was found that those machines were manipulated in any way. So the country had to get rid of Diebold machines and spend millions more dollars replacing those!

So now that we've spent all this money, wasted all this time, and Democrats are still losing, we need to scrap the electoral college just like we did the punchcards and Diebold machines. But even if we did that and Democrats still lose, what else are we going to have to change next to try and make sure Democrats win every election?

Fuck Hillary...I don't care about her.

I'm talking about future elections. I realize strategies will change to account for the way votes are counted.. And that's fine.

But the electoral college is an out dated system that needs to go.

So basically you want no representation of rural America by the executive branch

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

With a pure popular vote rural America would have zero say in the direction of this country... mob rule

Why’s that?

Because what President would pay any attention to them? Their votes would be meaningless.

They wouldn’t be meaningless. But they probably wouldn’t mean as much as they do now, that’s a point for debate. Why should our presidential elections come down to a handleful of battle ground states when our population centers are majority of other states are pretty much predetermined. How many Rally’s did Trump do in California? Not many if any, right? That’s millions of people that were ignored with our current system. A popular vote would put those votes more in play right?

Trump had no reason to campaign in a state that he had no chance at winning. Hillary didn't spend a lot of time in the swing states because the bag thought she had those states in the bag. She totally ignored flyover country.

Exactly the point, he couldn’t win the state so he didn’t campaign there. But theres a ton of conservatives and republicans in California. Many farmers and blue collared industrial workers from rural areas. He could have pulled millions of votes. There are probability many with conservative views that don’t even bother to vote because they know which way the state is going to go. Think about it. A popular vote isn’t necessarily going to benefit the Left. If there really is a “forgotten man” then they could very well exist within these big blue states.

Unless a constitutional amendment is passed, then I guess we will never know. You could be right and you could be wrong. But here's the problem:

If we went to popular vote, and Republicans came out of the woodwork and totally buried Democrats, what would they be insisting we change next? Because after all, the reason Democrats are upset is because they can't win by the rules. So they (once again) want to change the rules so they can win. And if they don't??????

You're kidding yourself to think that would be the end of it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Again IF you want the electoral college gone whining about it on this board won't help your cause. You need to elected 66 Senators that want the EC gone and elected 292 House members that agree and then find more then 50 percent of the population in 37 States to agree all with in what ever time limit is established for the Amendment to pass.

 

[RDD_1210]

It would make more sense breaking up the country than getting rid of the electoral college.

With a pure popular vote, urban America will fully control every aspect of Rural Americans lives...

Holy fuck.. You're acting as if there is no house or Senate.

It would make more sense breaking up the country than getting rid of the electoral college.

With a pure popular vote, urban America will fully control every aspect of Rural Americans lives...

Holy fuck.. You're acting as if there is no house or Senate.

It would make more sense breaking up the country than getting rid of the electoral college.

With a pure popular vote, urban America will fully control every aspect of Rural Americans lives...

Holy fuck.. You're acting as if there is no house or Senate.

It would make more sense breaking up the country than getting rid of the electoral college.

With a pure popular vote, urban America will fully control every aspect of Rural Americans lives...

Holy fuck.. You're acting as if there is no house or Senate.

It would make more sense breaking up the country than getting rid of the electoral college.

With a pure popular vote, urban America will fully control every aspect of Rural Americans lives...

Holy fuck.. You're acting as if there is no house or Senate.

That's because we're talking about the EC for President.
The EC does not apply to the house or Senate.

Right. I'm aware of that.

 

[Rustic]

they are all equal, it nullifies the INDOCTRINATION of the blue states and them trying to get as many illegals in as possible

All votes are not equal under the electoral college. That's a fact.

Because large populated areas should not rule over low populated areas.

And they won't.

Everyone's vote should be equally weighted, don't you agree?

This is supposed to be a republic not a shit eating democracy...

I heard you the first 27 times.

Do you feel that everyone's vote should not be weighted the same?

This isn’t supposed to be a shit eating democracy... it’s supposed to be a republic

 

[RDD_1210]

Republicans don't want the presidential election decided by popular vote because their ideas aren't popular.

Suppressing what the people want is the only way Republicans can maintain power.

You don't know what the popular vote would turn out because we never had one for a Presidential election. Remember during DumBama that we had most of the Governorships across the country not to mention the lead in Congress and eventually the Senate. That in addition to the statewide positions of power that turned Republican.

The idea that Hil-Liar won the popular vote is a stupid one. It's like saying I'm a better poker player than you are even though you won because I formed some great gin rummy hands.

Cute story.

Literally makes no sense.

Hillary won the popular vote because she had more total votes. I know this is difficult for you to understand but you should really try.

I think it's you that doesn't understand.

Nobody ran to get the most votes. They ran to get the most electoral votes. If they ran for the most votes, then you might have a point. Both candidates would have created entirely different strategies. Republicans in those blue states would have come out to vote. Many didn't because it was fruitless.

Trump spent much time in those swing-vote and flyover country states. Hillary spent little time there. Trump knew the name of the game was electoral votes, so he planned his strategy that way and he won.

Just because Hillary got more votes does not mean that more people wanted her to win. She only got the votes of people that came out--not the people that wanted Trump and stayed home.

How many times do we need to change the system so that Democrats can win?

After GW's first win, you people screamed about punchcard ballots. So most of the country got rid of punchcards and went to electronic voting spending tens of millions of dollars. When GW won the second election, everybody had to scarp those electronic voting machines because they were manufactured by Diebold. Forget the fact that not a trace of evidence was found that those machines were manipulated in any way. So the country had to get rid of Diebold machines and spend millions more dollars replacing those!

So now that we've spent all this money, wasted all this time, and Democrats are still losing, we need to scrap the electoral college just like we did the punchcards and Diebold machines. But even if we did that and Democrats still lose, what else are we going to have to change next to try and make sure Democrats win every election?

Fuck Hillary...I don't care about her.

I'm talking about future elections. I realize strategies will change to account for the way votes are counted.. And that's fine.

But the electoral college is an out dated system that needs to go.

So basically you want no representation of rural America by the executive branch

I want all people's votes to count equally.