Elizabeth Warren: 'End Electoral College'

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

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

Illegals can't vote.

Illegals can't drink and drive, steal or commit murder. But that doesn't stop some of them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

No, we can and will discuss Hillary whenever we like, and we certainly don't need to "earn" your permission to do so. Which is good, since "earning" your permission by agreeing with your asinine worldview ain't ever gonna happen.

 

[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"

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.

i cant and i'm letting you know

 

[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.

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.

Exactly right

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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 .

That is the reason for the electoral college, So Rural America Is represented in the executive branch.

With a pure popular vote, It is impossible for rural America to be representatived by the Executive branch of the government… the numbers just aren’t there.
Over 80% of the nations population is in urban America... The founders knew this to be true that is the reason why the electoral college was implemented, this is a republic not a shit eating democracy.

Quit Falling down the well...

Except the EC IS population based .

Do you choose your govenor via an electoral college?

You could but it wouldn't change much.

 

[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.

i cant and i'm letting you know

AK ID MT ND SD UT NE KS OK AR AZ LA MS
What % of the US population do these states contain?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Maybe YOU should stop believing everything that confirms your worldview, just because someone on the Internet says so.

Also, I'm not a leftist simpleton, so I don't feel the need to throw out everything that's more than five minutes old on the grounds of "People back then weren't perfect, so that makes everything automatically WRONG!" I realize that critical thinking, logic, and discernment are way above your capabilities. Just know that those of us who CAN do those things value the ability.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

No, we can and will discuss Hillary whenever we like, and we certainly don't need to "earn" your permission to do so. Which is good, since "earning" your permission by agreeing with your asinine worldview ain't ever gonna happen.

Since I see that you have waved the leftist white flag of surrender to this post, Lakhota, I will assume that you concede defeat on the subject of silencing Hillary criticism.

 

[Timmy]

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.

Illegals can't drink and drive, steal or commit murder. But that doesn't stop some of them.

By there nature illegals look to stay off the radar. Why risk a stupid ass felony like illegally voting ? Makes no sense . That’s why there’s no problem with it .

 

[iamwhatiseem]

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.

MAKE EVERY VOTE COUNT!!!!
Except for votes in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Washington, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansa, Missiiisppi, Alabama, Tenessee, Kentucky, Indiana, Wisconisn, West Virginia, Maine, Vermont, Connecticut, Alaska, Hawaii.
Except them... EVERY VOTE MATTERS!!!!!!!!
As long as you live within 200 miles of either Ocean, in a major city.... YOUR VOTE IS IMPORTANT!!!!

 

[bripat9643]

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.

These idiots continually accuse Trump of being a criminal, but they get all Huffy when you accuse Hillary of being a criminal and argue that she's never been convicted of anything.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

People do have a voice with a Republic, Democracy not as much. The Electoral College helps for all to have a voice, even minorities. All voices from all over the nation get a voice, it matters not the flavor of the day, it equalizes the might of the majority to protect the rights of the minority.

Not an equal voice. It's disproportionate.

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.

But that's not what this is about. This is about changing the rules until Democrats can win every election.

Here is a history of changes Democrats have suggested or had done in the past years.

* Get rid of punchcard ballots and go to electronic voting.
* Get rid of Diebold machines and replace them with another brand.
* Votes counted in exit polls (after John Kerry's loss) should be the decider of President.
* Illegals be allowed to vote.
* Prisoners be allowed to vote.
* Ex cons be allowed to vote.
* Children be allowed to vote.
* People with no identification be allowed to vote.

Do you see a pattern here? If you're honest with yourself, every suggestion was to try and favor the Democrat candidate.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Illegals can't drink and drive, steal or commit murder. But that doesn't stop some of them.

By there nature illegals look to stay off the radar. Why risk a stupid ass felony like illegally voting ? Makes no sense . That’s why there’s no problem with it .

There is a problem with it. That's why we on the right want Voter ID so badly.

An illegal goes to vote. If turned down, he leaves the voting place and goes home. If they let him or her vote, they vote and nobody is the wiser.

What risk are you talking about here?

Poll: 13% of Illegal Aliens ADMIT They Vote - California Political Review

 

[22lcidw]

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 .

That is the reason for the electoral college, So Rural America Is represented in the executive branch.

With a pure popular vote, It is impossible for rural America to be representatived by the Executive branch of the government… the numbers just aren’t there.
Over 80% of the nations population is in urban America... The founders knew this to be true that is the reason why the electoral college was implemented, this is a republic not a shit eating democracy.

Quit Falling down the well...

Except the EC IS population based .

Do you choose your govenor via an electoral college?

Can you also say the square miles of the state in your attack? New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Delaware, Rhode Island are all small states and all Progressive Socialist senators and can be reliably Progressive Socialist in elections. Its almost a given.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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

No it wasn’t. That’s a myth drummed up by far left extremists like you in order to try and get people on board with a radical change in the way we do our presidential elections because every time the Democrats lose an election they think it’s because the rules need to change, not because their ideas were rejected

Actually that's historical fact (see "Three Fifths Compromise"), and you seem to be treading down the same path as easyt65 here obsessed with "Hillary" and "2016". The fact is the Electoral College system as practiced has been under fire for two hundred years going all the way back to its own architect James Madison who wanted to ban the WTA practice. Numerous serious attempts to address the issue have generated, most recently the Every Vote Counts Amendment (2005), the FairVote project (1992) and the Bayh-Celler Amendment (1969), *ALL* of which had and still have both support and opposition from both sides of the aisle, so this obsession with "Hillary" as if it's some kind of new thingie is just dishonest.

The EC had nothing to do with the 3/5 Compromise. Madison and Hamilton explained in the Federalist Papers exactly why it was created. From Federalist 39

"The immediate election of the President is to be made by the States in their political characters. The votes allotted to them are in a compound ratio, which considers them partly as distinct and coequal societies, partly as unequal members of the same society. The eventual election, again, is to be made by that branch of the legislature which consists of the national representatives; but in this particular act they are to be thrown into the form of individual delegations, from so many distinct and coequal bodies politic. From this aspect of the government it appears to be of a mixed character, presenting at least as many FEDERAL as NATIONAL features."

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 39

 

[Timmy]

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 .

That is the reason for the electoral college, So Rural America Is represented in the executive branch.

With a pure popular vote, It is impossible for rural America to be representatived by the Executive branch of the government… the numbers just aren’t there.
Over 80% of the nations population is in urban America... The founders knew this to be true that is the reason why the electoral college was implemented, this is a republic not a shit eating democracy.

Quit Falling down the well...

Except the EC IS population based .

Do you choose your govenor via an electoral college?

Can you also say the square miles of the state in your attack? New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Delaware, Rhode Island are all small states and all Progressive Socialist senators and can be reliably Progressive Socialist in elections. Its almost a given.

I live in Mass. some consider it a liberal flagship.

We have a republican govenor .

 

[dudmuck]

Its going because only a few states actually pick the president (swing states).
And wyoming residents have 43x voting power than california resident.

Without the skewing of the process to focus on the so-called “battleground” states where the balance can be tipped in the Electoral College, candidates would be freed to make appeals to voters in every part of the country

I love how leftists discover something literally decades after their peers do, promptly misunderstand it thoroughly, and then wander around pronouncing on it as though they're experts.

Then point out my mistake.

Your entire post, and the premise you're operating from. I just told you that.

You're not getting any swifter on the uptake, Sparkles.

Are you familiar with the concept of swing states?
Presidential candidates only care about swing states, largely because of electoral college.
Take care of electoral college, and everybody in the USA will get to pick the president, not just those who live in swing states. This much I know is true, is it not?

Wow, I'm so glad you shared your "wisdom" with me. Too bad it was neither wise nor required.

Everyone ALREADY picks the President, you short-sighted, illogical twerp. The fact that some states vary, or "swing", between following one party or another doesn't mean that the states which solidly follow one party aren't still having an effect on the election. Cripes, how do you manage to walk and breathe at the same time?

"Take care of" the Electoral College, and it will be those non-swing stateS that pick the President, and everyone else can just go fuck themselves. This much IS true, whatever it is you think you "know".

Everybody has varying voting power to pick the president depending on where they live. Electoral college is affirmative action for rural america. Wyoming resident has 43 times the voting power than California resident. Voting for president in a solid blue or solid red state is like farting in the wind; presidential candidates dont put much effort into those solid states because thats not what will win them the election. Efforts into purple states is required under the electoral college system.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

These idiots continually accuse Trump of being a criminal, but they get all Huffy when you accuse Hillary of being a criminal and argue that she's never been convicted of anything.

I never expect logic, consistency, or honesty from leftists.

 

[22lcidw]

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 .

That is the reason for the electoral college, So Rural America Is represented in the executive branch.

With a pure popular vote, It is impossible for rural America to be representatived by the Executive branch of the government… the numbers just aren’t there.
Over 80% of the nations population is in urban America... The founders knew this to be true that is the reason why the electoral college was implemented, this is a republic not a shit eating democracy.

Quit Falling down the well...

Except the EC IS population based .

Do you choose your govenor via an electoral college?

Can you also say the square miles of the state in your attack? New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Delaware, Rhode Island are all small states and all Progressive Socialist senators and can be reliably Progressive Socialist in elections. Its almost a given.

I live in Mass. some consider it a liberal flagship.

We have a republican govenor .

Did the states I mention all vote Progressive Socialist in the 2016 Presidential election?

 

[my2¢]

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.

The new trend is the "clever" Democrats trying to use states' rights to do an end run around the Constitution AND individual voting rights by having states declare that they will ignore the vote outcomes of their own population, and give their electors to whomever OTHER states vote for.

I expect to see a court challenge against state legislatures disenfranchising their own constituents any day now.

There is nothing in the Constitution that requires how states must choose their electors and so it would be quite legal for each of the states in their wisdom to decide they'll allow you or I to select their electors for them. We already have Maine and Nebraska going the congressional district route as opposed to winner-take-all. Plus in 2016 we had 7 electors from other states that took it upon themselves to cast votes not in accordance with their state's vote. I was able to vote back in 1972 only because of the Constitution amendment lowering the voting age to 18. I looked up the amendment this week and saw that while it gave me the right to vote in any election, it did not require the state to actually hold an election.

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
​

Basically I believe you're stuck talking common sense about how things should be. I'm just cautioning that those that wish not to be disenfranchised best be proactive and not assume the courts will handle it.