Elizabeth Warren: 'End Electoral College'

[peach174]

So how would low populated rural areas become as densely populated as the blue states, for that to become equal?
The rural areas grow the crops and raise the live stock that feed those densely populated states.
Get rid of the EC and the rural area would have no say in our Presidential Elections.

You're concerned about "areas". I'm concerned about people and ensuring every person is counted and weighted the same.

Areas are represented by the house and Senate.

No I'm concerned over more city voters ,over rural voters ,who have as much rights as the city voters do.

Should rural votes count more than urban votes?
Should urban votes count more than rural votes?

So how would low populated rural areas become as densely populated as the blue states, for that to become equal?
The rural areas grow the crops and raise the live stock that feed those densely populated states.
Get rid of the EC and the rural area would have no say in our Presidential Elections.

You're concerned about "areas". I'm concerned about people and ensuring every person is counted and weighted the same.

Areas are represented by the house and Senate.

No I'm concerned over more city voters ,over rural voters ,who have as much rights as the city voters do.

Should rural votes count more than urban votes?
Should urban votes count more than rural votes?

No, that's exactly why we have the EC.

No?

But right now all votes are not the same. A vote in Wyoming is worth more than 3x as much as a vote in California.

Is that fair?

Yes because most of the land in Wyoming uses crops and live stock. This means less voters for Wyoming.

 

[peach174]

That is why we have the electoral college it’s the best system, It keeps urban America from overwhelming rural America.
There is a reason why urban America want to get rid of the electoral college, they don’t want rural America to be represented...

Every vote should be weighted equally.

A president should be elected by the people and all votes should count the same.

Then kiss rural America good bye.

Hardly. The Senate and House will be there to ensure every area is spoken for regardless of who is president.

The Senate and House are not elected by the EC.

Exactly. Which is why we know rural areas will never be left behind.

That is why we have the electoral college it’s the best system, It keeps urban America from overwhelming rural America.
There is a reason why urban America want to get rid of the electoral college, they don’t want rural America to be represented...

Every vote should be weighted equally.

A president should be elected by the people and all votes should count the same.

Then kiss rural America good bye.

Hardly. The Senate and House will be there to ensure every area is spoken for regardless of who is president.

The Senate and House are not elected by the EC.

Exactly. Which is why we know rural areas will never be left behind.

That is why we have the electoral college it’s the best system, It keeps urban America from overwhelming rural America.
There is a reason why urban America want to get rid of the electoral college, they don’t want rural America to be represented...

Every vote should be weighted equally.

A president should be elected by the people and all votes should count the same.

Then kiss rural America good bye.

Hardly. The Senate and House will be there to ensure every area is spoken for regardless of who is president.

The Senate and House are not elected by the EC.

Exactly. Which is why we know rural areas will never be left behind.

Trump got elected because rural Americans were being left behind.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

You're clearly confused.

Maybe ask your grandson to explain it to you.

Well, why don’t you change it? You do know what it takes to change an amendment?

I think voters who voted in Tlaib and Omar and AOC are idiots. May I vote against them?

Which of those states do you love in?

Love? I get you. I dont. I live in MA where my vote is useless. But I think only idiots would elect devout Muslim extremists to Congress. So if we open up the POTUS votes let’s open up all the votes?

The president oversees the country. Which is why each vote should be equal when selecting that person.

AOC represents her district which is why only people who live there should be able to decide who gets to represent them in the house.

This really isn't that complex.

Except AOC also sways many other voters in the country with her rhetoric and presence and especially on social media. Don’t play coy as you know this to be true. She also sits on numerous committees as do many of her fellow HORs

So since we re changing the rules let’s keep going. As AOC and her brood have started to overtake the party. Really not that difficult to see where I am coming from.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

You're concerned about "areas". I'm concerned about people and ensuring every person is counted and weighted the same.

Areas are represented by the house and Senate.

No I'm concerned over more city voters ,over rural voters ,who have as much rights as the city voters do.

Should rural votes count more than urban votes?
Should urban votes count more than rural votes?

You're concerned about "areas". I'm concerned about people and ensuring every person is counted and weighted the same.

Areas are represented by the house and Senate.

No I'm concerned over more city voters ,over rural voters ,who have as much rights as the city voters do.

Should rural votes count more than urban votes?
Should urban votes count more than rural votes?

No, that's exactly why we have the EC.

No?

But right now all votes are not the same. A vote in Wyoming is worth more than 3x as much as a vote in California.

Is that fair?

Yes because most of the land in Wyoming uses crops and live stock. This means less voters for Wyoming.

No. It means fewer voters.

 

[RDD_1210]

You're concerned about "areas". I'm concerned about people and ensuring every person is counted and weighted the same.

Areas are represented by the house and Senate.

No I'm concerned over more city voters ,over rural voters ,who have as much rights as the city voters do.

Should rural votes count more than urban votes?
Should urban votes count more than rural votes?

You're concerned about "areas". I'm concerned about people and ensuring every person is counted and weighted the same.

Areas are represented by the house and Senate.

No I'm concerned over more city voters ,over rural voters ,who have as much rights as the city voters do.

Should rural votes count more than urban votes?
Should urban votes count more than rural votes?

No, that's exactly why we have the EC.

No?

But right now all votes are not the same. A vote in Wyoming is worth more than 3x as much as a vote in California.

Is that fair?

Yes because most of the land in Wyoming uses crops and live stock. This means less voters for Wyoming.

Interesting. Ok so you think Wyoming votes should count for more than California but not equal,?

 

[RDD_1210]

Every vote should be weighted equally.

A president should be elected by the people and all votes should count the same.

Then kiss rural America good bye.

Hardly. The Senate and House will be there to ensure every area is spoken for regardless of who is president.

The Senate and House are not elected by the EC.

Exactly. Which is why we know rural areas will never be left behind.

Every vote should be weighted equally.

A president should be elected by the people and all votes should count the same.

Then kiss rural America good bye.

Hardly. The Senate and House will be there to ensure every area is spoken for regardless of who is president.

The Senate and House are not elected by the EC.

Exactly. Which is why we know rural areas will never be left behind.

Every vote should be weighted equally.

A president should be elected by the people and all votes should count the same.

Then kiss rural America good bye.

Hardly. The Senate and House will be there to ensure every area is spoken for regardless of who is president.

The Senate and House are not elected by the EC.

Exactly. Which is why we know rural areas will never be left behind.

Trump got elected because rural Americans were being left behind.

Trump got elected because he sold a bunch of snake oil and Hillary was a terrible candidate.

 

[RDD_1210]

Well, why don’t you change it? You do know what it takes to change an amendment?

I think voters who voted in Tlaib and Omar and AOC are idiots. May I vote against them?

Which of those states do you love in?

Love? I get you. I dont. I live in MA where my vote is useless. But I think only idiots would elect devout Muslim extremists to Congress. So if we open up the POTUS votes let’s open up all the votes?

The president oversees the country. Which is why each vote should be equal when selecting that person.

AOC represents her district which is why only people who live there should be able to decide who gets to represent them in the house.

This really isn't that complex.

Except AOC also sways many other voters in the country with her rhetoric and presence and especially on social media. Don’t play coy as you know this to be true. She also sits on numerous committees as do many of her fellow HORs

So since we re changing the rules let’s keep going. As AOC and her brood have started to overtake the party. Really not that difficult to see where I am coming from.

Actually you are really just rambling. But let me know when you have a coherent point you want to make that's relevant.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

No I'm concerned over more city voters ,over rural voters ,who have as much rights as the city voters do.

Should rural votes count more than urban votes?
Should urban votes count more than rural votes?

No I'm concerned over more city voters ,over rural voters ,who have as much rights as the city voters do.

Should rural votes count more than urban votes?
Should urban votes count more than rural votes?

No, that's exactly why we have the EC.

No?

But right now all votes are not the same. A vote in Wyoming is worth more than 3x as much as a vote in California.

Is that fair?

Yes because most of the land in Wyoming uses crops and live stock. This means less voters for Wyoming.

Interesting. Ok so you think Wyoming votes should count for more than California but not equal,?

Cali decides 20%...pretty big given it’s just one of 50 states. I am OK with eliminating the EC but I am not OK with allowing stupid ass people in dumbass welfare districts to elect people like AOC and Omar. If we change we change everything. We don’t pick and choose. Senators and HORs have voting power that impacts more than their states and districts.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I think voters who voted in Tlaib and Omar and AOC are idiots. May I vote against them?

Which of those states do you love in?

Love? I get you. I dont. I live in MA where my vote is useless. But I think only idiots would elect devout Muslim extremists to Congress. So if we open up the POTUS votes let’s open up all the votes?

The president oversees the country. Which is why each vote should be equal when selecting that person.

AOC represents her district which is why only people who live there should be able to decide who gets to represent them in the house.

This really isn't that complex.

Except AOC also sways many other voters in the country with her rhetoric and presence and especially on social media. Don’t play coy as you know this to be true. She also sits on numerous committees as do many of her fellow HORs

So since we re changing the rules let’s keep going. As AOC and her brood have started to overtake the party. Really not that difficult to see where I am coming from.

Actually you are really just rambling. But let me know when you have a coherent point you want to make that's relevant.

Bullshit. These reps have voting power as you saw in the Kav case. They don’t just represent their states and districts. Let me know when you want to be civil again. You have one more chance.

 

[Lakhota]

'In 1992, Bill Clinton did not get a majority of the popular vote (only 43 percent) but he received 70 percent of the electoral votes.'

Where was the Democratic Party's tantrum and call to abolish the Electoral College in 1992 when Bill Clinton LOST the 'Popular Vote' Presidential Election?

Why We Shouldn’t Scrap the Electoral College | myHeritage

The frickin' "Democratic Party" has nothing to do with the EC question, Dumbass. 1992 was in fact when the "FairVote" project was launched, as noted earlier, from both sides of politics.

Time to grow the fuck up and shed the binary-bot shit.

Bill Clinton, if snowflakes had had their way - no electoral college in '92, would have LOST!
Instead, he lost the 'popular vote' BS but won the Presidency with the Electoral College....NO TANTRUM.

Hillary ran the worst campaign in US history in 2016, did not even visit the states she list - which cost her the election....she did what Bill did not do - win the popular vote - and failed to do what he DID do - win the Presidency.

Hillary supporters openly wept, and for the last 2 years they have continued to throw a tantrum...and you laughably tell ME to 'grow up'...

Bwuhahahaha......

Once AGAIN moron, there is no "Hillary" in this question. And also AGAIN, just because you were too fucked up to notice or chose to ignore it, the EC question has been gurgling for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS. Including the year of 1992.

HHillary, again, ran the worst campaign in US history. The 2 states she refused to visit and lost made up the difference in her loss.

The Electoral College was / is not the problem.

This crooked criminal bitch couldn't even win a rigged election.

Criminal? What was she ever convicted of - after umpteen NaziCon investigations?

 

[Slade3200]

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.

You are assuming that the popular votes and campaigning would remain the same if the system were changed. That isn’t the case

 

[my2¢]

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

​

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.

​

​

I'm unclear on your viewpoint. The two points seem contradictory whether the Electoral College should be or not be?

My point was to keep it and for 3rd parties and independents to unify every 4 years which you say impossible, but I feel they must eventually come to an understanding of Einstein's definition of insanity, that is, doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

 

[peach174]

Then kiss rural America good bye.

Hardly. The Senate and House will be there to ensure every area is spoken for regardless of who is president.

The Senate and House are not elected by the EC.

Exactly. Which is why we know rural areas will never be left behind.

Then kiss rural America good bye.

Hardly. The Senate and House will be there to ensure every area is spoken for regardless of who is president.

The Senate and House are not elected by the EC.

Exactly. Which is why we know rural areas will never be left behind.

Then kiss rural America good bye.

Hardly. The Senate and House will be there to ensure every area is spoken for regardless of who is president.

The Senate and House are not elected by the EC.

Exactly. Which is why we know rural areas will never be left behind.

Trump got elected because rural Americans were being left behind.

Trump got elected because he sold a bunch of snake oil and Hillary was a terrible candidate.

Funny.

Truth is rural America was being left behind.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

'In 1992, Bill Clinton did not get a majority of the popular vote (only 43 percent) but he received 70 percent of the electoral votes.'

Where was the Democratic Party's tantrum and call to abolish the Electoral College in 1992 when Bill Clinton LOST the 'Popular Vote' Presidential Election?

Why We Shouldn’t Scrap the Electoral College | myHeritage

The frickin' "Democratic Party" has nothing to do with the EC question, Dumbass. 1992 was in fact when the "FairVote" project was launched, as noted earlier, from both sides of politics.

Time to grow the fuck up and shed the binary-bot shit.

Bill Clinton, if snowflakes had had their way - no electoral college in '92, would have LOST!
Instead, he lost the 'popular vote' BS but won the Presidency with the Electoral College....NO TANTRUM.

Hillary ran the worst campaign in US history in 2016, did not even visit the states she list - which cost her the election....she did what Bill did not do - win the popular vote - and failed to do what he DID do - win the Presidency.

Hillary supporters openly wept, and for the last 2 years they have continued to throw a tantrum...and you laughably tell ME to 'grow up'...

Bwuhahahaha......

Once AGAIN moron, there is no "Hillary" in this question. And also AGAIN, just because you were too fucked up to notice or chose to ignore it, the EC question has been gurgling for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS. Including the year of 1992.

HHillary, again, ran the worst campaign in US history. The 2 states she refused to visit and lost made up the difference in her loss.

The Electoral College was / is not the problem.

This crooked criminal bitch couldn't even win a rigged election.

Criminal? What was she ever convicted of - after umpteen NaziCon investigations?

Sometimes you just need to use common sense and logic. OJ was found innocent too.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

We can eliminate the EC but then you allow me to vote on candidates like Omar and AOC too. Cannot have it both ways.

 

[Slade3200]

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.

Ray, welcome to politics. People do what they can to try and pass their agenda and gain an advantage. Nothing illegal is being proposed, an amendment would need to be passed, so what’s the harm in having a discussion about it? Personally I don’t like the popular vote idea because it gives more power to the people and I don’t trust the people. “The people” as a whole are largely uninformed idiots in my opinion so I like a type of electoral college system. But I also like healthy debate so I’m bringing up all angles for discussion.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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.

Ray, welcome to politics. People do what they can to try and pass their agenda and gain an advantage. Nothing illegal is being proposed, an amendment would need to be passed, so what’s the harm in having a discussion about it? Personally I don’t like the popular vote idea because it gives more power to the people and I don’t trust the people. “The people” as a whole are largely uninformed idiots in my opinion so I like a type of electoral college system. But I also like healthy debate so I’m bringing up all angles for discussion.

Correct most are uniformed idiots. Well put.

 

[RDD_1210]

Which of those states do you love in?

Love? I get you. I dont. I live in MA where my vote is useless. But I think only idiots would elect devout Muslim extremists to Congress. So if we open up the POTUS votes let’s open up all the votes?

The president oversees the country. Which is why each vote should be equal when selecting that person.

AOC represents her district which is why only people who live there should be able to decide who gets to represent them in the house.

This really isn't that complex.

Except AOC also sways many other voters in the country with her rhetoric and presence and especially on social media. Don’t play coy as you know this to be true. She also sits on numerous committees as do many of her fellow HORs

So since we re changing the rules let’s keep going. As AOC and her brood have started to overtake the party. Really not that difficult to see where I am coming from.

Actually you are really just rambling. But let me know when you have a coherent point you want to make that's relevant.

Bullshit. These reps have voting power as you saw in the Kav case. They don’t just represent their states and districts. Let me know when you want to be civil again. You have one more chance.

Let me know when you want to have a real discussion. Your "point" is borderline retarded. I don't know how else to put it. If you want a stronger voice representing you... Elect someone else. But you have no right to say who a different area has elected to represent them.

 

[RDD_1210]

We can eliminate the EC but then you allow me to vote on candidates like Omar and AOC too. Cannot have it both ways.

Don't be dumb.

 

[RDD_1210]

Hardly. The Senate and House will be there to ensure every area is spoken for regardless of who is president.

The Senate and House are not elected by the EC.

Exactly. Which is why we know rural areas will never be left behind.

Hardly. The Senate and House will be there to ensure every area is spoken for regardless of who is president.

The Senate and House are not elected by the EC.

Exactly. Which is why we know rural areas will never be left behind.

Hardly. The Senate and House will be there to ensure every area is spoken for regardless of who is president.

The Senate and House are not elected by the EC.

Exactly. Which is why we know rural areas will never be left behind.

Trump got elected because rural Americans were being left behind.

Trump got elected because he sold a bunch of snake oil and Hillary was a terrible candidate.

Funny.

Truth is rural America was being left behind.

And the billionaire real estate tycoon from New York City is just the one who knows what rural America needs. Like I said.. He sold a bunch of snake oil.