Elizabeth Warren: 'End Electoral College'

[Pogo]

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?

Firstly, "repealing the EC" is not at all the only approach to address the disparity. However in the event of such an Amendment to do just that, the argument for said 13 states would be exactly the same argument as in the other 44 --- that the current system already disenfranchises half that state's voters and in the case of any so-called 'red' or 'blue' state, makes the entire election day process pointless.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Indeed, residents of a "red" state or a "blue" state have no reason to vote at all. It's already predetermined for them.

Which also means it's impossible to assess how many of that 45% who didn't bother to vote last round (which was a typical showing) WOULD bother to show up if they knew their vote actually meant something.

When you win the 45% is never mentioned.

That makes no sense at all.

45% of eligible voters not bothering to show up is an embarrassment in any nation with a direct vote.

 

[my2¢]

Excuse me, I just mistakenly gave you credit for understanding that if a state declares they're going to select electors based on the national, not state's, popular vote then nobody is losing their voting rights or being disenfranchised.

Excuse me, I mistakenly gave you credit for reading posts before responding to them. And then I realized I overestimated you and corrected it.

Now, did you have a response to what I actually said, or did you just want to pussyache at me that I didn't give you the respect you thought you deserved but didn't actually earn?

No, I don't have a response that puts it in any simpler terms that it has nothing at all to do with the Constitution nor voting rights.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

Firstly, "repealing the EC" is not at all the only approach to address the disparity.

If the EC is to "end", then it must be repealed and replaced.
Else, it remains in force.
To repeal and replace it, you need... an amendment.

Why would those 13 states vote to marginalize themselves?

 

[Pogo]

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.

Nothing is fabricated. Democrats at one time or another proposed those things. As for the change over of voting machines, that was all by the Democrats and their constant whining about losing elections.

Oh I know about Diebold and Wally the CEO pledging to do whatever needed to be done to ensure Bush got elected. That's a no-brainer although nobody needs to be a "Democrat" to get that. Not even Wally.

What I don't know about is anyone anywhere ever advocating children, illegals, exit polls or electronic voting. If you could, you know, go ahead and try to link any of that, that'd be great.

You must not watch the news that much.

You must not read your posts that much. You said "children".
You also said "electronic voting", "illegals" and "exit polls".

 

[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.

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.

Excuse me, I just mistakenly gave you credit for understanding that if a state declares they're going to select electors based on the national, not state's, popular vote then nobody is losing their voting rights or being disenfranchised.

Yes they are the State loses its vote if that State in fact voted for the other guy.

Here's why that doesn't work:

NO state votes for EITHER guy. It's never happened ever in history that a state votes unanimously for anybody. And yet, here's the Electrical College short-circuiting their own states' votes by claiming "wow it's amazing, literally everybody in our state voted for X". Which is a damn lie and disenfranchises everybody in that state who didn't vote for X.

This is not exactly rocket surgery here. Cecile's pseudoargument about "being disenfranchised" is inoperative because voters are *ALREADY* disenfranchised. In my state that happened (last round) to literally MOST of the voters. More than half the state's votes were tossed right into the shitcan.

There is literally no argument to defend that.

 

[Pogo]

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.

View attachment 251302

Ironic Googly Image meme is ironic in bringing up "honesty" after listing a stack of lame lies.

 

[M14 Shooter]

NO state votes for EITHER guy. It's never happened ever in history that a state votes unanimously for anybody. And yet, here's the Electrical College short-circuiting their own states' votes by claiming "wow it's amazing, literally everybody in our state voted for X". Which is a damn lie and disenfranchises everybody in that state who didn't vote for X.

Interesting.
Why don't states like CA and IL and NY award the electors by proportion of the popular vote in the state?

 

[Papageorgio]

Yes let's have Mexifornia elect Democratic Presidents for the next 50 years. That is the Liberal wet dream of abolishing the E.C.

Why are you against the rule of the majority ?
We used that method in the Senate, Congress supreme court the X factor you name it.
And btw California is the biggest economy and best state of the union, Alabama, Mississippi, north Dakota, etc....are is less states.

Our corrupt and dying cities are rife with voter fraud and intimidation. The healthy part of our country doesn't want to be ruled by the diseased part and that's exactly what abolishing the electoral college would do.

California had it's hay day when Ronald Reagan was Governor and California has been downhill ever since.

How is that ? California has the biggest e onomy and outpaced the national GDP .

California is the most populous state, so they should have the largest economy in the United States, California has the largest debt of any state. California has the largest welfare payout at $98.5 billion. California has more people on SNAP than any other state at 4.1 million.

It's really all for not because it seems money is your primary motivation for most everything. We do know that you do not know how American government works. You also have no respect for Americans unless they agree with your greedy myopic view.

 

[Cecilie1200]

NO state votes for EITHER guy. It's never happened ever in history that a state votes unanimously for anybody. And yet, here's the Electrical College short-circuiting their own states' votes by claiming "wow it's amazing, literally everybody in our state voted for X". Which is a damn lie and disenfranchises everybody in that state who didn't vote for X.

Interesting.
Why don't states like CA and IL and NY award the electors by proportion of the popular vote in the state?

Because leftists don't like giving up power, and see no reason why "the little people" should expect to have any say in or control over their lives.

 

[Pogo]

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?

Firstly, "repealing the EC" is not at all the only approach to address the disparity.

If the EC is to "end", then it must be repealed and replaced.
Else, it remains in force.
To repeal and replace it, you need... an amendment.

Why would those 13 states vote to marginalize themselves?

Once AGAIN you're ass-uming the remedy is a Constitutional Amendment to abolish the EC. That may be an uphill climb but it's (again) far from the only remedy to the current clusterfuck. There's no need to limit discussion to ONLY that avenue.

Again, one major argument against the EC as currently practiced is that it disenfranchises up to half, or more than half, of any state's voters. And that's true of any 13 states because it's true of EVERY state with the exceptions of Maine and Nebraska, in which case it disenfranchises up to half or more than half of any district's voters, amounting to a smaller version of the same thing.

One remedy thereto is to simply prohibit the WTA practice, as James Madison himself advocated. Doing so would immediately eliminate all of the disenfranchisement described above. So the incentive for ANY state would be that it would discontinue that immediate shitcanning of half or more of a state's votes.

For example (2016) 52.5% of Michigan voters had their votes immediately ground into the garbage disposal. 53.5% of Minnesotans had their votes set alight and burned to ashes. >53% of votes in New Hamster were beaten to a pulp and left for dead. 52.8% of Wisconsin votes where torn up, made into paper airplanes and cast to the winds. Zero of any of those aforementioned votes were ever considered.

THAT's disenfranchisement.

 

[Pogo]

NO state votes for EITHER guy. It's never happened ever in history that a state votes unanimously for anybody. And yet, here's the Electrical College short-circuiting their own states' votes by claiming "wow it's amazing, literally everybody in our state voted for X". Which is a damn lie and disenfranchises everybody in that state who didn't vote for X.

Interesting.
Why don't states like CA and IL and NY award the electors by proportion of the popular vote in the state?

That's where it gets interesting. They all cave in to WTA out of ..... wait for it..... "mob mentality". Which is ironic given the EC-clingers want to engage this Doublethinkian phrase "mob rule" yet where it actually applies is to their own status quo.

States started caving in to this mentality to protect their own power; if say California awarded proportionally and New York stayed WTA, that gives New York more impact. What's left out of that mentality is that that greater impact comes at the price of disenfranchising half its electorate. Therefore its greater power is dishonestly achieved. Now multiply that by 48 states that work that way and 2 states that do a smaller version of it, and you have the swamp of the sham election process we've all inherited since birth.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Once AGAIN you're ass-uming the remedy is a Constitutional Amendment to abolish the EC.

I don''t understand why yo don't understand that until the EC is replaced by amendment, it remains in place.

 

[Pogo]

Once AGAIN you're ass-uming the remedy is a Constitutional Amendment to abolish the EC.

I don''t understand why yo don't understand that until the EC is replaced by amendment, it remains in place.

Just answered that. Read up ↑

 

[M14 Shooter]

Interesting.
Why don't states like CA and IL and NY award the electors by proportion of the popular vote in the state?

That's where it gets interesting. They all cave in to WTA out of ..... wait for it..... "mob mentality". Which is ironic given the EC-clingers want to engage this Doublethinkian phrase "mob rule" yet where it actually applies is to their own status quo.

What you REALLY mean to say is the Democrats know they have to the full EV form each of those states to win, and therefore are more than happy to disenfranchise Republicans with WTA.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Once AGAIN you're ass-uming the remedy is a Constitutional Amendment to abolish the EC.

I don''t understand why yo don't understand that until the EC is replaced by amendment, it remains in place.

Of course, the Democrats have plans to treat it just like they treat the rest of the Constitution: meaningless paper they completely ignore unless they want to falsely claim it backs whatever their cause du jour is.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Once AGAIN you're ass-uming the remedy is a Constitutional Amendment to abolish the EC.

I don''t understand why yo don't understand that until the EC is replaced by amendment, it remains in place.

Just answered that. Read up ↑

No. You didn't. You prattled on about something unrelated.
To "end" the EC, there must be an amendment.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Once AGAIN you're ass-uming the remedy is a Constitutional Amendment to abolish the EC.

I don''t understand why yo don't understand that until the EC is replaced by amendment, it remains in place.

Of course, the Democrats have plans to treat it just like they treat the rest of the Constitution: meaningless paper they completely ignore unless they want to falsely claim it backs whatever their cause du jour is.

90% of the time, when the Democrats want to do something, it is a means to expand their political power.
the other 10% is because they're batshit crazy.

 

[Pogo]

Interesting.
Why don't states like CA and IL and NY award the electors by proportion of the popular vote in the state?

That's where it gets interesting. They all cave in to WTA out of ..... wait for it..... "mob mentality". Which is ironic given the EC-clingers want to engage this Doublethinkian phrase "mob rule" yet where it actually applies is to their own status quo.

What you REALLY mean to say is the Democrats know they have to the full EV form each of those states to win, and therefore are more than happy to disenfranchise Republicans with WTA.

No, I mentioned nothing about political party interests. I mentioned voter interests. Know the difference.

I detailed the disenfranchised portion of four states. Two of those four voted for Rump.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Interesting.
Why don't states like CA and IL and NY award the electors by proportion of the popular vote in the state?

That's where it gets interesting. They all cave in to WTA out of ..... wait for it..... "mob mentality". Which is ironic given the EC-clingers want to engage this Doublethinkian phrase "mob rule" yet where it actually applies is to their own status quo.

What you REALLY mean to say is the Democrats know they have to the full EV form each of those states to win, and therefore are more than happy to disenfranchise Republicans with WTA.

No, I mentioned nothing about political party interests. I mentioned voter interests. Know the difference.

Do the republican voters in CA IL and NY not have an interest in their franchise?
Why don't the Democrats in those states want Republican votes to count?