Elizabeth Warren: 'End Electoral College'

[Timmy]

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?

Yes those states voted Hillary . Not sure of the % . What’s your point ? There are plenty of counterparts in red states .

Most red states have large metro areas also . According to you those states should all be blue .

 

[Pogo]

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.

More bullshit. And no, the list doesn't "go on". It never started.

 

[Pogo]

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

It does not matter how many times you repeat your lie, it remains a lie.

Gainsaying doesn't change the fact that it was deliberately set up as a stacked deck in favor of the slaveholding states who got to apportion themselves counting three-fifths of their slaves while granting those slaves zero-fifths of a vote,.meaning they had disporportionate power compared to non-slaveholding states. That's just, again, historical fact.

Ever sit in school civics class and wonder why four of the first five POTUSes (and 8 of the first 9 terms) were guys from Virginia? Well, that's it. another mystery solved. And all four were slaveholders. African slavery could not exist without a pre-foundation of racism to justify it.

That's also why this hallucinatory post above:

The Electoral College has everything to do with EQUAL REPRESENTATION of everyone

--- is utter malarkey. It was anything BUT equal, not to mention the vote, where it existed at all, was limited to men, and limited to white men, and often limited to white men who owned property. There is no definition of "EVERYBODY" that can shoehorn in there.

Of course that's not the only reason the EC was contrived but it's one of the three that no longer apply.

You're using the 3/5 compromise and the electoral college interchangeably. The two have nothing to do with each other. However, douchebags find it useful to treat them as if they are the same thing.

They are not the same thing. But one was used to stack the other.
Guess what the biggest EC prize was at the beginning of this country. Virginia.
Guess what states benefitted from inflated apportionment carved out of counting slaves as 3/5 of a person. One was Virginia.
Guess what state 'sent' four of the first five POTUSes to the office. Virginia.

Now you know why.

 

[Pogo]

No I'm saying it because to eliminate the electoral college would result in a war.
The only reason you pieces of shit want to eliminate the electoral college is so you can remove the ability of those who live in the vast expanses that you call *fly over* to govern themselves. It's so you can rob and abuse the people who live in those areas, and overthrow our government that was created specifically to prevent that from taking place.

Fortunately, it only takes 13 of those states to vote no.

States don't "vote no". They ratify or they don't.

Truly amazing how many wags cling desperately to the EC yet have no clue how the system works.

 

[Pogo]

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.

One of the purposes of the EC system was the limitations of technology of the time, which meant a voter in say Georgia woudln't be likely to know much about a candidate from New Hampshire (or vice versa). Travel was prohibitively expensive and time-consuming, no radio/TV/internet, no cars/planes, not even trains existed yet. All of that shortcoming has long since been addressed, so that basis for the EC is also parked in the back lot of the history books.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Wow, you're just reaching for any and all buzzwords you can to try to convince people that we have to give NY and LA unhindered control over the entire nation, aren'tcha?

 

[Pogo]

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 your.

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?

Because they're trying to whip up the immigrant/crimina./student democratic base to a point where they just start mobbing. They are trying to create a wave of violent revolutionaries who will physically overthrow the government.

Doesn't seem to have worked over the last 200 years then, does it.
What a great "plan".

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I'm aware that the Constitution gives states the power to decide how their electors are allocated, but thank you so very much for "helpfully" providing me a long lecture on it anyway.

Perhaps if you had taken a moment to read and think about my post, rather than just kneejerking to "Aha, here's something I can condescend about!" you'd have noticed that my post mentioned voting rights and disenfranchisement. It's almost like THAT was what I was talking about, and not anything at all to do with "They don't have the power to allocate electors!"

Come back when you have response to my post that actually responds to my post.

 

[Pogo]

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?

BINGO. These klowns who want to babble the Doublethinkian "mob rule" are strangely silent on why gubernatorial elections are not "mob rule", why Senator elections are not "mob rule", why House elections are not "mob rule", why city council elections are not "mob rule", why elections for sheriff and clerk of court and dogcatcher are not "mob rule". If their position were viable at the very LEAST all states should have a state electoral college where each county sends electors. Zero do that. Same thing, works just fine.

 

[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.

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.

You should have expected that 200 years ago when states started shitcanning the votes of half their populations with the mindless WTA malarkey.

James Madison did. He advocated banning the practice. Even though it would cost his home state. Because it was the right thing to do. And yet it continues today.

 

[Pogo]

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.

HOW exactly does one become a criminal without being convicted?

Hm?

I'll give you three hours.

 

[Pogo]

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.

As long as those individual states toss half (or more) of their voters' votes directly into the shitcan, no, they definitely are not.

AGAIN --- here's my state. Nobody received as much as 50% of its vote in 2016. Yet the state went to Congress and gave 100% of our votes to a single candidate, who couldn't even draw half. In other words MOST of the state voted against him ----- yet he gets 100%.

That right there is BULLSHIT. And it clearly is not a case of "all voices are heard and needs are addressed" --- not even close.

The bizzaritude is that you yourself agree with that, as you said in your very next post. Fastest turnaround EVAH.

 

[Lakhota]

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.

HOW exactly does one become a criminal without being convicted?

Hm?

I'll give you three hours.

Guilty until proven innocent, I guess. The court of public opinion does not convict anyone as a criminal.

 

[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.

HOW exactly does one become a criminal without being convicted?

Hm?

I'll give you three hours.

Guilty until proven innocent, I guess. The court of public opinion does not convict anyone as a criminal.

Unless that person is Trump. I notice that you have none of the panties-wadding outrage about "not convicted" where he's concerned.

Oh, and just FYI to anyone who thinks they're "giving" me X amount of time to answer something: I'll take as long as I damned well want to, and as long as it takes me to finish everything else in my life that is vastly more important than you puswads - which is everything else in my life - and finally have time to waste on you.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Once AGAIN the post you quoted is working from a false premise, one which seems to be clung to for dear life by the dishonest.

And that is, there is no "political party" behind criticism of the WTA/EC system. There never has been. Acknowledgement of its failures date back to well before either political party existed. Inconvenient or not, them's the facts but the binary-bots will continue to cling to this tribalist bullshit, apparently in the belief that it's the only shot they have.

 

[Issa]

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.

Trump said the electoral college is a disaster...do you know better than him ?

 

[Pogo]

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.

HOW exactly does one become a criminal without being convicted?

Hm?

I'll give you three hours.

Guilty until proven innocent, I guess. The court of public opinion does not convict anyone as a criminal.

Unless that person is Trump. I notice that you have none of the panties-wadding outrage about "not convicted" where he's concerned.

Oh, and just FYI to anyone who thinks they're "giving" me X amount of time to answer something: I'll take as long as I damned well want to, and as long as it takes me to finish everything else in my life that is vastly more important than you puswads - which is everything else in my life - and finally have time to waste on you.

Hey, you certainly have been investing significant time in barraging this thread with your childish insults. I was being generous.

BESIDES WHICH, how long has it been since you accused me of using generalizations, whereupon I immediately challenged you to show any evidence thereof, whereupon you ran away to hide from that challenge forever? It's been several months by now. So don't come in here crying about "waah I don't have time". You certainly had time to harass everybody on this thread, dinchya?

Point remains, you have to be convicted to be a criminal. Unless you're willing to show the class examples of people who were NOT convicted, yet are "criminals". Rotsa ruck wit dat.

It matters because you yourself tried to cite the English language. Now you're hoist with your own petard.
Happy dangling.

 

[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.

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.

Again, "expect" anything you want but the Constitution already says each state shall pick its electors any way it wants to, so that's already covered. I'm pretty sure there's no clause about "unless you're butthurt about what somebody else's state is doing". But you go ahead and check me on that, K?

 

[Pogo]

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.

Yeah I see a pattern. I take it this is your entry for the "Can You Top This" list of fabrications.

And not a bad piece of work in that vein if I may say. Keep it going though. The key to good comedy is to stretch it beyond the absurd, and then keep on going.

 

[Pogo]

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

Looks like you've deliberately stated it backward. The EC had nothing to do with the 3/5 Compromise; the 3/5 Compromise had everything to do with how many warm bodies those slave states put into Congress, and thereby, with how many Electors they got.

It's not even math. It's simple counting.