Elizabeth Warren: 'End Electoral College'

[Lakhota]

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?

Since when does the definition of "criminal" include the word "convicted"?

This English language thing really isn't your forte.

When NaziCons start calling Trump a "criminal" - then we can discuss Hillary.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why should a vote in Montana be worth more than a vote in Pennsylvania?

The nations elections should not be decided by America's urban centres, run by party hacks.

They are the ones who make this nation great, rural farmers live off the subsidies paid by the urban hard working, open minded diverse citizens....the fucks who are sitting in their farm receiving our money don't like us minorities and whites who are open minded.
disclaimer: not all farmers but most.

I just heard, "Fuck all those hicks. I think I'm better than them, so I should be in control, and they should shut up and get back to work like good peons!"

In what way are you "diverse urban" assholes making anything great? Those farmers you so despise produce the food on everyone's tables. I forget, what is it you produce that's of use to anyone outside your own narcissistic bubble?

You missed the part I said not all farmers...I'm talking about the racist assholes that get our money and hate on us minorities. They voted in a racist asshole to represent their hate and ignorance...cut the subsidies they need to earn it, nothing for free...isnt that you cons Moto ?

"I'm talking about the ones I have never met, because I would never condescend to speak to hicks, but I just KNOW exist somewhere, because I need an excuse to believe I'm better than someone!"

Thanks for sharing.

 

[Lakhota]

Time to end the racist Electoral College. It was created by racists for racist reasons.

Time to end the racist posts by the racist Lakhota, posted for racist reasons.

Maybe you should Google the racist origins of the Electoral College.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Our beloved orange suprem leader said this about the electoral college:

Conversation Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy. 8:45 PM · Nov 6, 2012 · Twitter Web Client

Do you stupid trumpanzees know better than your leader?

"But TTTTRRRRRUUUUMMMMPPPPP!!!!!"

The battle cry of all utterly lost and ignorant arguments.

 

[Papageorgio]

Look you keep claiming every vote counts and should be weighed the same but then keep claiming the Senate is fine. The Founders made the Senate to equalize the State voices in the Senate. Either you want to get rid of the Senate too or you are blowing smoke about equal voice. By the way the Electoral college GIVES equal voice to the States.

I want equal voice for the people when it comes to picking the president. Equal voice for the states comes from the Senate.

I want to protect all in the vote, the rural voter and the suburban voter, both have different needs and all needs need to be accounted for. That is why we are a republic. If we started to eliminate the minority voice it would be regressing back to the 1800's. I'm for keeping the Republic and all voices heard and acknowledged. With a country as big as the United States is, different areas need different needs and the needs will contrast vastly. With both parties giving increasing power to the Executive Office, we need to make sure all are heard and all have a voice. A popular vote would not allow for the small voice to be acknowledged, let alone be heard.

Right now, the "small voice" carries more weight than it should. I want it to be equal. No one's vote should count more than anyone elses.

With pure popular vote Rural America would lose every presidential election... fact

We are a nation of states . Not rural vs city. Every state has both .

You are correct, and the states are counted separately, then the votes are given to the Electoral College and then they cast the states votes. This insures that all voices are heard and needs are addressed.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Time to end the racist Electoral College. It was created by racists for racist reasons.

Thank you for continuing to demonstrate the fact that you can't fix stupid, especially when 'stupid' does not want to change'...and proving you certainly can recite a fake news liberal talking point.


The Electoral College has everything to do with EQUAL REPRESENTATION of everyone, to equally represent the concerns of those Americans living in 'fly-over states' as well as densely populated population centers like New York and California.

If the Electoral College is abandoned there will be no need to visit, campaign in, listen to, pay any attention to those smaller states. They will be able to do what Hillary ignorantly did in 2016 - completely ignore and avoid campaigning in some states.

The United States Senate EXITS as it does basically because of the same exact reason as the electoral college - EQUAL REPRESENTATION.

Why do you think EVERY state has 2 Representatives in the US Senate instead of states like California having more, as is how it is in the House, or did you simply not give it any thought?
-- The Founding Fathers wanted a branch of government in which every state had equal 'footing' / representation.


This drive from the Leftist Extremists is another knee-jerk reaction / tantrum-throwing session after losing an election in which their corrupt criminal candidate was supposed to win in a landslide....

When Democrats do not get their way / lose their answer is not to try harder next time and play within the Rules. Their response it to cheat more / change the rules.

Hillary could not win a rigged election in a well-known process established / defined in the Constitution by our Founding Fathers.
-- DEMOCRAT SOLUTION: Change the Rules / Constitution, Abolish the Electoral College

Trump, not Hillary became President.
DEMOCRAT SOLUTION: The Obama administration Agency Directors (DOJ, NSA, CIA, & FBI), Hillary. Leftists attempted / are attempting a 'soft coup d'etat'.

Democrats did not hold the WH, and Trump got to appoint a USSC Justice...and perhaps more
-- DEMOCRAT SOLUTION: Change the Rules - expand the court and fill the vacancies to reach a liberal extremist majority THAT way.


SSDD....

listen to your messiah

"But TTTTRRRRRUUUUMMMPPPPP!!!!"

Your surrender is duly noted, and utterly unsurprising.

 

[Papageorgio]

Look you keep claiming every vote counts and should be weighed the same but then keep claiming the Senate is fine. The Founders made the Senate to equalize the State voices in the Senate. Either you want to get rid of the Senate too or you are blowing smoke about equal voice. By the way the Electoral college GIVES equal voice to the States.

I want equal voice for the people when it comes to picking the president. Equal voice for the states comes from the Senate.

I want to protect all in the vote, the rural voter and the suburban voter, both have different needs and all needs need to be accounted for. That is why we are a republic. If we started to eliminate the minority voice it would be regressing back to the 1800's. I'm for keeping the Republic and all voices heard and acknowledged. With a country as big as the United States is, different areas need different needs and the needs will contrast vastly. With both parties giving increasing power to the Executive Office, we need to make sure all are heard and all have a voice. A popular vote would not allow for the small voice to be acknowledged, let alone be heard.

Right now, the "small voice" carries more weight than it should. I want it to be equal. No one's vote should count more than anyone elses.

Great, how about starting with states that have all electoral votes going to a single candidate.

Agreed, it should be divided up based upon the population and how they vote. Not a winner take all.

I can agree with that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Time to end the racist Electoral College. It was created by racists for racist reasons.

Thank you for continuing to demonstrate the fact that you can't fix stupid, especially when 'stupid' does not want to change'...and proving you certainly can recite a fake news liberal talking point.


The Electoral College has everything to do with EQUAL REPRESENTATION of everyone, to equally represent the concerns of those Americans living in 'fly-over states' as well as densely populated population centers like New York and California.

If the Electoral College is abandoned there will be no need to visit, campaign in, listen to, pay any attention to those smaller states. They will be able to do what Hillary ignorantly did in 2016 - completely ignore and avoid campaigning in some states.

The United States Senate EXITS as it does basically because of the same exact reason as the electoral college - EQUAL REPRESENTATION.

Why do you think EVERY state has 2 Representatives in the US Senate instead of states like California having more, as is how it is in the House, or did you simply not give it any thought?
-- The Founding Fathers wanted a branch of government in which every state had equal 'footing' / representation.


This drive from the Leftist Extremists is another knee-jerk reaction / tantrum-throwing session after losing an election in which their corrupt criminal candidate was supposed to win in a landslide....

When Democrats do not get their way / lose their answer is not to try harder next time and play within the Rules. Their response it to cheat more / change the rules.

Hillary could not win a rigged election in a well-known process established / defined in the Constitution by our Founding Fathers.
-- DEMOCRAT SOLUTION: Change the Rules / Constitution, Abolish the Electoral College

Trump, not Hillary became President.
DEMOCRAT SOLUTION: The Obama administration Agency Directors (DOJ, NSA, CIA, & FBI), Hillary. Leftists attempted / are attempting a 'soft coup d'etat'.

Democrats did not hold the WH, and Trump got to appoint a USSC Justice...and perhaps more
-- DEMOCRAT SOLUTION: Change the Rules - expand the court and fill the vacancies to reach a liberal extremist majority THAT way.


SSDD....

I wonder how many D voters actually fall for this transparent effort to stack the deck, in favor of the D Party.

Even if they're dumb enough to buy it now, it's going to take one election where their states' vote count is thrown in the trash in favor of what "everyone else" voted for to have them wake up and realize they've disenfranchised themselves.

 

[hunarcy]

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?

Why should some hillbilly have two Senators when he lives in a state with a fifth of California's population and they only get two Senators as well?

Every state has two senators. But, the edge goes to the larger states that have more representatives. Each state gets electors for each Senator and each Representative.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The reason California is opposed to a census question about citizenship is because they will lose millions of population when illegals don't do the census or admit they are illegal.

 

[RDD_1210]

Right now, the "small voice" carries more weight than it should. I want it to be equal. No one's vote should count more than anyone elses.

Great, how about starting with states that have all electoral votes going to a single candidate.

Agreed, it should be divided up based upon the population and how they vote. Not a winner take all.

Just as soon as California agrees not to count the MILLIONS of illegals as their population.

Illegals can't vote.

They COUNT as population you loon.

So let's make it based on popular vote then, good point.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Great, how about starting with states that have all electoral votes going to a single candidate.

Agreed, it should be divided up based upon the population and how they vote. Not a winner take all.

Just as soon as California agrees not to count the MILLIONS of illegals as their population.

Illegals can't vote.

They COUNT as population you loon.

So let's make it based on popular vote then, good point.

Wrong as usual, Illegals vote all the time it is estimated a whole lot voted in the last election and places like California make it easy for them to vote.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Elizabeth Warren goes to Mississippi and campaigns against the Electoral College. Just let that sink in.

Never underestimate either the pure evil of Elizabeth Warren and the rest of the Democrat field pushing this.........or the stupidity of a Mississippi Democrat voter.

What's your point here?

Point being that if EW had her way there would be no need for any POTUS candidate to ever bother campaigning in MS because the socialist one-party status of California would prevail across the nation. Mississippians should be horrified by her.

You ever even BEEN TO Mississippi? I doubt it. In any case is it not one of the United States? As such is it not affected by how this country elects its chief executive?

If there were no EC everybody's vote would start counting, whereas the current system systematically tosses millions of votes directly into the shitcan. For most states, certainly including Mississippi, there's no reason to even get out of bed on election day; the outcome is predetermined like a Saddam Hussein 99% tally. So what's the point? Removing the EC would at least give them a chance, so no I don't think they'd be "horrified" by that at all. That's just absurd.

Why the fuck do you think we have a national turnout rate dozens of points BELOW other "first-world" countries? Think about it.

.In the real world nobody campaigns in Mississippi. The red guy knows he has a gimme and the blue guy knows he has no shot. But that's entirely the fault of the WTA system, which also means any voter who wants the blue guy has no vote. The only POTUS candy I can think of who went to Mississippi as an actual nominee was Reagan, and that was only because he was there to address the South as a region to appeal to the racists. Third partiers like Thurmond and Wallace did, but their strategy was entirely regional. And it's also worth noting that that strategy was to siphon off enough votes from the South so as to deny an electoral majority to any candidate, thus tossing the whole election into the House of Reps where anything can happen ---- in other words to undermine the entire election itself --- yet another argument against the system as it is.

In your example no one would still campaign in Mississippi. In fact, candidates wouldn't campaign in New Hampshire, Michigan, Iowa, Ohio and the list goes on. New York and LA would decide everything for the entire country.

I'm not sure that candidates showing up in a state to eat their hoagies or drink their coffee at diners is crucial anymore. Maybe in 1880 candidates needed to ride the rails to get their message out to the folks who didn't read newspapers much, but with social media, television and radio, plus excellent newspapers, there is not really a great need for candidates to show up. I don't know if Clinton really lost those states because she was taking a vacation in August--I think there was actually a lot more to it than that.

Most of the people who go to see a candidate when they visit already support that candidate. They have seen and read all they need to. Sitting in the top of a crowded football stadium and watching a wee figure on the stage is no better --not as good really-- as sitting home and watching an interview on tv.

It's not what they do there or who sees them that really matters. It's the acknowledgement that those places matter and need to be considered, at least as much as voters ever ARE considered.

 

[toobfreak]

ma·jor·i·ty 1.the greater number.
mob 1.a large crowd

The intentionally obtuse jackass speaks. The ultimate weasel. He has eyes but know not how to use them.

ALT-MEANING: Spin doctor.

And yet you too have no counterargument. Seems to be a pattern.

Not ONLY do you have no rebuttal, you even edited my quote to remove the inconvenient parts you have no argument against, for which I'll proceed to report you.

No, jackass. Maybe you are that obtuse. I removed the irrelevant bits to MAKE my counter argument plain and obvious, you simply refuse to see it.

Ummm..... NO Sprinkles, *YOU* removed *MY* content (which is why your post got wiped out) because YOU couldn't handle the point.

That content was, again:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ma·jor·i·ty
/məˈjôrədē,məˈjärədē/
noun

1. 1.
   the greater number.
   "in the majority of cases all will go smoothly"
   synonyms: larger part/number, greater part/number, major part, best/better part, main part, most, more than half

mob
/mäb/
noun

1. 1.
   a large crowd of people, especially one that is disorderly and intent on causing trouble or violence.
   "a mob of protesters"
   synonyms: crowd, horde, multitude, rabble, mass, body, throng

Doesn't look like a pair of "synonyms" to me Fingerboy. Looks like weasel wording.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Those are English language dictionary definitions, they're not going away, and there's nothing you can do about that, stomp your feet and hold you breath 'til you turn blue all you like.

[
When the term 'Mob Rule' was coined, it was referring to a mob (larger group, or majority) against the one (the individual). That the majority got their way and outcomes were decided based on populism, not rights.

The Rule Of Law created by our Founders decided that LAWS would decide things so that individuals would be protected from a mob mentality, even the government, and things would be decided through courts and a legal process.

The Electoral College isn't perfect, it has its flaws, but it has been our way since the founding of this country and shall not change as it would require most of the smaller states to go along with it which they will never do as they were the ones who primarily put it in place in the first place so they would have as voice in our federal government.

That Pocahontas Warren comes along now trying to make this a new referendum tells me two things:

A). It is yet just one more diversion from something else the DNC is interested in as she knows she'll never get it.

B). That the democrats are worried they will lose some/many elections increasingly unable to get many of the central states as they increasingly move towards polarization and radicalization as the party of freaks, weirdos, and illegal foreigners! Doing away with the EC would make that rather easy.

Again for the obsessed ------ nothing in this topic is about "Hillary". This issue has been with us for TWO HUNDRED YEARS. K?

You understand what "two hundred years" means? Or do you need to cut that out of the post too so you can pretend it's not there again?

Hm?

The fact that you have to REMOVE my content rather than address it tells me ONE thing:

View attachment 251201

Sorry Little Man, are you just playing stupid or are you actually obtuse? Or are you simply bad very bad loser.

Again, I merely reduced the irrelevancies down to the actual pertinent points of the case as I do in nearly every post to both save server space as well as make it easier for readers to follow: the question is whether mob rule is interchangeable with majority rule in the context of how the Left would eliminate the Electoral College, and it is. Both terms have been used interchangeable for AGES in the parlance of political discussion---- the Left wants mob rule so that their strategically manipulated high-density democratic strongholds in LA Country and NYC can dictate to the whole nation who gets put into the White House.

View attachment 251213


View attachment 251214

The only difference being that in the majority, the minority acquiesce peacefully to the majority's power whereas typically in mob rule, they do not and succumb to their force and violence. Therefore, they achieve EXACTLY the same ends through EXACTLY the same means, the only difference being to what degree they use force in order to achieve it! (determined by the degree of resistance put up by their opposition).

During the Obama years there were a lot of people threatened and attacked by rioters. You must think your immune to that. And by your own voters. Your party is a disgrace. And many people who ended up voting for Trump vote your party a lot. Mindless violence against innocent people wises them up. We will return to that for the total transformation of our nation. And you won't like it when the resources are rationed and the blame game is instituted.

Yeah. Sure. Anything you say.

 

[22lcidw]

And yet you too have no counterargument. Seems to be a pattern.

Not ONLY do you have no rebuttal, you even edited my quote to remove the inconvenient parts you have no argument against, for which I'll proceed to report you.

No, jackass. Maybe you are that obtuse. I removed the irrelevant bits to MAKE my counter argument plain and obvious, you simply refuse to see it.

Ummm..... NO Sprinkles, *YOU* removed *MY* content (which is why your post got wiped out) because YOU couldn't handle the point.

That content was, again:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ma·jor·i·ty
/məˈjôrədē,məˈjärədē/
noun

1. 1.
   the greater number.
   "in the majority of cases all will go smoothly"
   synonyms: larger part/number, greater part/number, major part, best/better part, main part, most, more than half

mob
/mäb/
noun

1. 1.
   a large crowd of people, especially one that is disorderly and intent on causing trouble or violence.
   "a mob of protesters"
   synonyms: crowd, horde, multitude, rabble, mass, body, throng

Doesn't look like a pair of "synonyms" to me Fingerboy. Looks like weasel wording.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Those are English language dictionary definitions, they're not going away, and there's nothing you can do about that, stomp your feet and hold you breath 'til you turn blue all you like.

[
When the term 'Mob Rule' was coined, it was referring to a mob (larger group, or majority) against the one (the individual). That the majority got their way and outcomes were decided based on populism, not rights.

The Rule Of Law created by our Founders decided that LAWS would decide things so that individuals would be protected from a mob mentality, even the government, and things would be decided through courts and a legal process.

The Electoral College isn't perfect, it has its flaws, but it has been our way since the founding of this country and shall not change as it would require most of the smaller states to go along with it which they will never do as they were the ones who primarily put it in place in the first place so they would have as voice in our federal government.

That Pocahontas Warren comes along now trying to make this a new referendum tells me two things:

A). It is yet just one more diversion from something else the DNC is interested in as she knows she'll never get it.

B). That the democrats are worried they will lose some/many elections increasingly unable to get many of the central states as they increasingly move towards polarization and radicalization as the party of freaks, weirdos, and illegal foreigners! Doing away with the EC would make that rather easy.

Again for the obsessed ------ nothing in this topic is about "Hillary". This issue has been with us for TWO HUNDRED YEARS. K?

You understand what "two hundred years" means? Or do you need to cut that out of the post too so you can pretend it's not there again?

Hm?

The fact that you have to REMOVE my content rather than address it tells me ONE thing:

View attachment 251201

Sorry Little Man, are you just playing stupid or are you actually obtuse? Or are you simply bad very bad loser.

Again, I merely reduced the irrelevancies down to the actual pertinent points of the case as I do in nearly every post to both save server space as well as make it easier for readers to follow: the question is whether mob rule is interchangeable with majority rule in the context of how the Left would eliminate the Electoral College, and it is. Both terms have been used interchangeable for AGES in the parlance of political discussion---- the Left wants mob rule so that their strategically manipulated high-density democratic strongholds in LA Country and NYC can dictate to the whole nation who gets put into the White House.

View attachment 251213


View attachment 251214

The only difference being that in the majority, the minority acquiesce peacefully to the majority's power whereas typically in mob rule, they do not and succumb to their force and violence. Therefore, they achieve EXACTLY the same ends through EXACTLY the same means, the only difference being to what degree they use force in order to achieve it! (determined by the degree of resistance put up by their opposition).

During the Obama years there were a lot of people threatened and attacked by rioters. You must think your immune to that. And by your own voters. Your party is a disgrace. And many people who ended up voting for Trump vote your party a lot. Mindless violence against innocent people wises them up. We will return to that for the total transformation of our nation. And you won't like it when the resources are rationed and the blame game is instituted.

Yeah. Sure. Anything you say.

View attachment 251253

You must have missed it.

 

[basquebromance]

Washington Post:

"A Pew Research Center poll last year found a 55 percent majority support picking presidents by popular vote, compared to 41 percent who prefer keeping the electoral college"

 

[Cecilie1200]

Among the petulant screeds that, in some circles, pass as meaningful arguments for its replacement, I don't ever see anyone in favor of replacing the EC address a basic reality of the issue:

It takes just 13 states to stop the amendment necessary to eliminate the EC and replace it with something else. If you cannot name 13 states that will never vote for such a thing let me know and I'll do your thinking for you.

How do you plan to do to convince these states to vote for the repeal?
If you don't have a plan, why do you waste your time whining and crying about something you know you can do noting to change?

I don't know if they'll answer you, but I know the answer.

They want to tell the Big Lie often enough and long enough that people start to accept it without ever actually thinking about it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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?

Why should some hillbilly have two Senators when he lives in a state with a fifth of California's population and they only get two Senators as well?

Every state has two senators. But, the edge goes to the larger states that have more representatives. Each state gets electors for each Senator and each Representative.

It's kind of a mixture between the popular vote and an EC. You get house members based on population, but no matter what your population, you only get two Senators.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Washington Post:
"A Pew Research Center poll last year found a 55 percent majority support picking presidents by popular vote, compared to 41 percent who prefer keeping the electoral college"

It takes just 13 states to stop the amendment necessary to replace the EC.
Let me know if you can't think of 13 states that will vote no.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I don't know if they'll answer you, but I know the answer.
They want to tell the Big Lie often enough and long enough that people start to accept it without ever actually thinking about it.

As they do with everything else.