Elizabeth Warren: 'End Electoral College'

[Pogo]

Here ya go M14 Shooter ----- you wanted a list of 13 states, here they are in alpha order:

1. AridZona
2. Colorado
3. Florida
4. Michigan
5. Minnesota
6. Nevada
7. New Hamster
8. New Mexico
9. North Cackalackee
10. Pennsylvania
11. Utah
12. Virginia
13. Wisconsin

What do those states all have in common?

In every one, literally more than half their Presidential votes were tossed into the crapper in December 2016 when their electors went to DC to lie about their state's vote. More than half the voters in every one, wanted somebody other than who their electors cast ALL their votes for.

And just to entertain your Dichotomy Obsession, they're evenly split between less-than-half the state voters electing the blue candy and less-than-half electing the orange one.

 

[Ame®icano]

Trump lost the popular vote - that means he is POTUS in name only to me. And his whore of a wife is not First Lady.

As lousy a candidate as I think she was - Hillary Clinton is the President of the United States as far as I am concerned. She just never got sworn in.

I don't follow laws I don't agree with (unless is is not worth the hassle to not) and I don't agree with the Electoral College laws.

If Trump told me to call him 'Mr. President'...I'd laugh in his face and tell him to 'shove it you fat, stupid, racist, xenophobic asshole with a whore for a wife'.

Amusing. Why would you be so proud of your ignorance?

Bliss.

 

[Ame®icano]

I agree. I always thought america was a democracy...but when Bush Jr got elected we the citizens of the world were shocked. And that's when we found about the electoral college. It really gives the power to the crazy minority and that's why we have trump and his crazies....the US should join the democratic countries and abolish the EC.

We are a Republic, not a Democracy.

We are more of a democracy than the founders originally intended.

They never intended it. All that "we are democracy" bullshit comes from the left who don't care about founders or the constitution.

 

[McRocket]

I agree. I always thought america was a democracy...but when Bush Jr got elected we the citizens of the world were shocked. And that's when we found about the electoral college. It really gives the power to the crazy minority and that's why we have trump and his crazies....the US should join the democratic countries and abolish the EC.

We are a Republic, not a Democracy.

We are more of a democracy than the founders originally intended.

They never intended it. All that "we are democracy" bullshit comes from the left who don't care about founders or the constitution.

Only an idiot or a wimp pretends to speak for millions of people whom he/she has never even met.

 

[Ame®icano]

Presidential elections should be based on people - not acres.

People of all states, not just few. State of California is greater than the combined populations of 23 small states plus the District of Columbia.

The Electoral College was created so that one state would NOT be able to dictate the policies for 23 other states just because it had more people. We are a diverse nation, and what may work in California may not work elsewhere, and certainly does’t work for almost half the states.

As long as it takes the consent of at least 75% of the states to make changes to the Constitution, the Electoral College is not going away any time soon. Since it's not going away, do you wanna make it work, yeah?

Splitting California in 3-5 smaller states would make them more equal to the other states. Until then, nobody from rural country gives a shit about what left wing SF clique that knows nothing about the rest of us, but dominates statewide, and attempting to do with nationwide offices.

 

[Pogo]

Presidential elections should be based on people - not acres.

People of all states, not just few. State of California is greater than the combined populations of 23 small states plus the District of Columbia.

The Electoral College was created so that one state would NOT be able to dictate the policies for 23 other states just because it had more people.

Clearly that's utter bullshit. When the EC was developed the largest electoral prize by far was Virginia, helped along by counting slaves as three-fifths of a person while granting those slaves zero-fifths of a vote.

Now take a look at the history that produced:

1, Washington (Virginia) -- two terms
2, Adams (Massachusetts) -- one term
3. Jefferson (Virginia) - two terms
4. Madison (Virginia) -- two terms
5. Monroe (Virginia) -- two terms


Find me any other time in history where one state dominated the Presidency over a twenty-year timeframe.

Matter o' fact no major political party candidate from Virginia has ever lost a Presidential election.

 

[Ame®icano]

Eliminate the Electoral College and disenfranchise 5/8th of the nation's voters.

Sounds like the Democrats have finally come up with a way to win back the White House.

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

If we went to a popular vote, the needs of Montana would be completely ignored by populist demagogues who would only campaign in urban centers.

That's why.

You're welcome.

Correct.

He's deluded… Electoral college was created to give smaller states at least some amount of influence in order not be overrun and abused by the tyranny of the majority. The issue today that makes the president being elected seem unfair to perhaps the majority vote, is that the fed has grown so much in size and usurped states rights that the presidential election means far more. Solution to that would be way smaller fed and return to states rights.

And California need to address the unconstitutional abuse of the assholes in Sacramento.

 

[Ame®icano]

It was also apparently weird that Florida had to certify its election returns by the deadline set by Florida law. Shocking!

florida Law demands a full recount. Republicans dragged that out as long as possible and only THEN demanded that the deadline be held. There was no pressing need to enforce that deadline. There WAS a pressing need to follow the law and do the full recount.

So we can all be on the same page...

The first recount requested by the Democrats was for only 4 Counties, not the entire state. (Dade, Broward, Palm Beach and Volusia).

After countless failures, the Florida Supreme Court gave Al Gore a statewide recount he didn't even ask for.

At the same time, the Florida Legislature announced that if the recount was not completed by a certain date, (I forget the date). They would
pick who got Florida's 25 electoral votes, in accordance with Florida Law, so as not to deprive the State of having their citizens not participate
in the election process.

The full recount began and it was SCOTUS that ordered a "stay." (Halting all voting)

SCOTUS had two rulings. The first was a 5-4 ruling that it was a violation of the equal protection clause, because Counties were not counting
the same way. The second ruling was, because of the Florida Legislature following Florida Law, there would not be enough time to complete
the hand recount and the counting had to stop.

In the end the State's newspapers sued under the Florida Sunshine Laws and they conducted their own recount and W won that one also.

Wrong. The first recount was a statewide mandatory machine recount, triggered because the election margin was less than half of one percent.

The Florida legislation did not state they would certify the election by a certain date. The person who said that was the Secretary of State of Florida who was appointed by George Bush’s brother. And it was her discretion whether or not to accept late filings. The law at the time read that returns had to be filed within a week after the election, otherwise “such returns may be ignored.” She decided securing her governor’s brother’s election was more important than an accurate count of the votes.

The Supreme Court ruling was a joke, as evidenced by them declaring that would be a “one-time” ruling, never to set any sort of precedence. And basically invalidated any form of recount in any state where multiple methods of voting are used; which is most states.

The first recount demanded by the Democrats was for four counties.

The State Legislature was in its rights to determine the outcome.

Here...read...What if the Supreme Court Had Turned Down Bush v. Gore? (Redux)

Again, it wasn’t the state’s legislature — it was Katherine Harris, Florida’s Secretary of State at the time. And it was up to her discretion whether or not to accept late returns...

The 2000 Florida Statutes

102.112 Deadline for submission of county returns to the Department

(1) The county canvassing board or a majority thereof shall file the county returns for the election of a federal or state officer with the Department of State immediately after certification of the election results. Returns must be filed by 5 p.m. on the 7th day following the first primary and general election and by 3 p.m. on the 3rd day following the second primary. If the returns are not received by the department by the time specified, such returns may be ignored and the results on file at that time may be certified by the department.​

Apparently, disenfranchising the electorate was more important than determining who was the rightful winner.

Apparently, you're not accepting that "may" can be used either way and still be legal. You could say there was "disenfranchising the electorate" if instead of "may" there was "shall not".

 

[Avatar4321]

Me: No!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Leftist only seek to change the rules when they can't win with playing by the rules.

This is actually good sign that points they don't believe they can win with electoral college.

Of course. What would sports look like if they changed the rules to benefit a certain team, or if government made laws to benefit certain companies?

Trump himself stated how much he disliked our electoral college system, but instead of insisting that we change it for him, he instead learned how to use it in his favor. If you can't beat em, join em.

The Democrats don't want to make any changes to their party to win, they want the rules of the game changed so that they will win without changing anything on their part.

 

[Ame®icano]

Well there seems to be the drumbeat of that again...

Getting rid of electoral college means rural America might as well not even vote, They would lose every single election.

States like California or Florida Texas and New York would dominate everything in this country…

There is a reason why they call this a republic not a shit eating democracy...

Uh-huh....You'd be singing a different tune if Hillary had won.
Stop being a hypocrite, it's bad enough with psycho-boy in office:



Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump

The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.

108K
11:45 PM - Nov 6, 2012
,
Donald J. Trump on Twitter
,
LOL! Love making you Trumpanzees look like the idiots you are.
.
.
.

What he said is true.

We're not democracy.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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".

You don't even get the children thing yet alone anything else. Yes, you are a child in this country until the age of 18. When you are 18, you are an adult in this country. Therefore anybody suggesting that kids 16 year olds should vote is saying they want children to vote.

Oh that's only half of it. I deliberately left the other half unsaid. But you said it, namely that "Democrats" advocate your laundry list, and then you cited "Nancy Pelosi". Nancy Pelosi is a singular, not a collective.

And back to the first thing, you didn't back up your ipse dixit declaration of what defines "children".

I think most Americans understand that children are people under the age of 18. Piglosi is one of the top leaders of the Democrat party. And given the fact Democrats will do anything to cheat an election, I'm sure most Democrats stand behind her idea.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Only if you're taking the complaint literally. It's not necessary to "abolish" something altogether in order to correct a major flaw of it. It's not a perfect solution but it goes a long way while preserving the original motif.

It's not necessary to "abolish" something altogether in order to correct a major flaw of it.

Ending Hillary's political career is a feature, not a flaw.

Thank you for the periodic reminder of why you're on Ignore. Inability to address the topic.

Your claim that Hillary's loss was due to a "flaw" is fucking hilarious!!!

 

[Pogo]

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".

You don't even get the children thing yet alone anything else. Yes, you are a child in this country until the age of 18. When you are 18, you are an adult in this country. Therefore anybody suggesting that kids 16 year olds should vote is saying they want children to vote.

Oh that's only half of it. I deliberately left the other half unsaid. But you said it, namely that "Democrats" advocate your laundry list, and then you cited "Nancy Pelosi". Nancy Pelosi is a singular, not a collective.

And back to the first thing, you didn't back up your ipse dixit declaration of what defines "children".

I think most Americans understand that children are people under the age of 18. Piglosi is one of the top leaders of the Democrat party. And given the fact Democrats will do anything to cheat an election, I'm sure most Democrats stand behind her idea.

What you're "sure of" is irrelevant. You affixed an entire group to your claim and you came up with an example of one (1) person, with your definition of "children" dependent on an "everybody knows" fallacy. And I notice you're not touching any of your other claims. Wonder why.

 

[Pogo]

Eliminate the Electoral College and disenfranchise 5/8th of the nation's voters.

Sounds like the Democrats have finally come up with a way to win back the White House.

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

If we went to a popular vote, the needs of Montana would be completely ignored by populist demagogues who would only campaign in urban centers.

That's why.

You're welcome.

Correct.

He's deluded… Electoral college was created to give smaller states at least some amount of influence in order not be overrun and abused by the tyranny of the majority. The issue today that makes the president being elected seem unfair to perhaps the majority vote, is that the fed has grown so much in size and usurped states rights that the presidential election means far more. Solution to that would be way smaller fed and return to states rights.

And California need to address the unconstitutional abuse of the assholes in Sacramento.

Amazing you could post this with a straight face after the previous post shot it down in flames six minutes before yours went up.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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".

You don't even get the children thing yet alone anything else. Yes, you are a child in this country until the age of 18. When you are 18, you are an adult in this country. Therefore anybody suggesting that kids 16 year olds should vote is saying they want children to vote.

Oh that's only half of it. I deliberately left the other half unsaid. But you said it, namely that "Democrats" advocate your laundry list, and then you cited "Nancy Pelosi". Nancy Pelosi is a singular, not a collective.

And back to the first thing, you didn't back up your ipse dixit declaration of what defines "children".

I think most Americans understand that children are people under the age of 18. Piglosi is one of the top leaders of the Democrat party. And given the fact Democrats will do anything to cheat an election, I'm sure most Democrats stand behind her idea.

What you're "sure of" is irrelevant. You affixed an entire group to your claim and you came up with an example of one (1) person, with your definition of "children" dependent on an "everybody knows" fallacy. And I notice you're not touching any of your other claims. Wonder why.

Because it's a lot of work and research which you wouldn't appreciate or admit to anyway. Look at how you are trying to muddy the waters just over the simple definition of children. If a human being is at the age of 17, and they are not an adult, then WTF are they????

 

[Avatar4321]

Me: No!

 

[basquebromance]

The Senate. The Electoral College. The First Amendment. The Second Amendment. The Supreme Court. Is there a part of our constitutional order that the Democrats have not pledged to destroy?

 

[Pogo]

The Senate. The Electoral College. The First Amendment. The Second Amendment. The Supreme Court. Is there a part of our constitutional order that the Democrats have not pledged to destroy?

Once AGAIN this thread has nothing to do with "Democrats" or political parties.

What the fuck don't you GET about that?

 

[Pogo]

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

You don't even get the children thing yet alone anything else. Yes, you are a child in this country until the age of 18. When you are 18, you are an adult in this country. Therefore anybody suggesting that kids 16 year olds should vote is saying they want children to vote.

Oh that's only half of it. I deliberately left the other half unsaid. But you said it, namely that "Democrats" advocate your laundry list, and then you cited "Nancy Pelosi". Nancy Pelosi is a singular, not a collective.

And back to the first thing, you didn't back up your ipse dixit declaration of what defines "children".

I think most Americans understand that children are people under the age of 18. Piglosi is one of the top leaders of the Democrat party. And given the fact Democrats will do anything to cheat an election, I'm sure most Democrats stand behind her idea.

What you're "sure of" is irrelevant. You affixed an entire group to your claim and you came up with an example of one (1) person, with your definition of "children" dependent on an "everybody knows" fallacy. And I notice you're not touching any of your other claims. Wonder why.

Because it's a lot of work and research which you wouldn't appreciate or admit to anyway. Look at how you are trying to muddy the waters just over the simple definition of children. If a human being is at the age of 17, and they are not an adult, then WTF are they????

Well then you shouldn't have spewed claims you can't back up, should you have.

I knew they were bullshit as soon as I saw them. My job --- pointing that out --- is a helluva lot easier than yours. The key is not to make shit up in the first place. Really takes the work load off.