Elizabeth Warren: 'End Electoral College'

[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.

The Constitution has a purpose.
It's to keep fake Indians from stealing elections.

Doesn't seem to have worked then.

​

For an ironic twist ---- this President was endorsed by the Ku Klux Klan. That must have been before he did this photo.

 

[Pogo]

If the State declares they're going to select electors based on the national popular vote, but the state's voters had voted for the other candidate, how are they not losing their voting rights and being disenfranchised?

As long as the Democrat wins, they don't care.
If a state votes 75/25 for the Dem and the Republican got the EVs, they'd scream loud enough to be heard on the moon.

Link?






Yeah didn't think so.

 

[Pogo]

Republicans don't want the presidential election decided by popular vote because their ideas aren't popular.

Suppressing what the people want is the only way Republicans can maintain power.

You don't know what the popular vote would turn out because we never had one for a Presidential election. Remember during DumBama that we had most of the Governorships across the country not to mention the lead in Congress and eventually the Senate. That in addition to the statewide positions of power that turned Republican.

The idea that Hil-Liar won the popular vote is a stupid one. It's like saying I'm a better poker player than you are even though you won because I formed some great gin rummy hands.

Cute story.

Literally makes no sense.

Hillary won the popular vote because she had more total votes. I know this is difficult for you to understand but you should really try.

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, Hillary didn't win the popular vote.

Yeah actually she did. By a lot.
And unlike your claim, I can link this one.

 

[dblack]

Listen, nearly everyone here is approaching this from a purely partisan perspective. Republicans like EC because, currently, it favors their demographics. Democrats don't like it for the same reason. If the table were turned, nearly every partisan twit in this thread would do an immediate 180.

That ^^ analysis seems to ass-ume that arguments are made on the basis of "what's in it for Numero Uno".

Most of them are.

Doesn't do a thing to explain all the arguments made about millions of votes disenfranchised, perpetuating the Duopoly and shutting out third parties and making the entire electoral process a farce, does it.

It does not. But not many are genuinely making these arguments.

You have a speculation fallacy with nothing to back it up, and plenty to discredit it. So it would seem to be YOU approaching from a "partisan perspective". Wouldn't it.

Not really. In fact, the partisan results of the EC doing its job were deeply disappointing to me. Trump has forced me to see a side of our society I'd really rather not acknowledge. I'm arguing in favor of the EC here despite the impact on recent elections, not because of it.

 

[Pogo]

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, Hillary didn't win the popular vote.

Um yea...she did...by 3 million votes

Most people did not vote for Hillary.

What the poster said was "WIN the popular vote". That means 'got more than anybody else'..

What you're trying to morph this into is "GOT A MAJORITY of the popular vote". Nice try, no cigar.

But as long as we're making a point of not winning a majority let's go back to that post I showed you yesterday for which you had no response. Those 13 states you asked for:

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.

Those add up to IIRC 154 electoral votes in total. Rump got 107 of them. That's 107 votes from states who as a whole all voted for somebody else. Including the one I'm sitting in.

Still want to go down this road?

No, I guess not.

 

[Pogo]

Listen, nearly everyone here is approaching this from a purely partisan perspective. Republicans like EC because, currently, it favors their demographics. Democrats don't like it for the same reason. If the table were turned, nearly every partisan twit in this thread would do an immediate 180.

That ^^ analysis seems to ass-ume that arguments are made on the basis of "what's in it for Numero Uno".

Most of them are.

Doesn't do a thing to explain all the arguments made about millions of votes disenfranchised, perpetuating the Duopoly and shutting out third parties and making the entire electoral process a farce, does it.

It does not. But not many are genuinely making these arguments.

You have a speculation fallacy with nothing to back it up, and plenty to discredit it. So it would seem to be YOU approaching from a "partisan perspective". Wouldn't it.

Not really. In fact, the partisan results of the EC doing it's job were deeply disappointing to me. Trump has forced me to see a side of our society I'd really rather not acknowledge. I'm arguing in favor of the EC here despite the impact on recent elections, not because of it.

Its impact on "recent elections' --- or even long-past elections --- is immaterial except as examples of the system's failures.

The argument is about whether it works or not, and if not, why not. That has nothing to do with who comes out on the winning end of it.

I've pointed out for instance that millions of Rump voters in California, New York (et al) had their votes tossed in the scrap heap by that system. You think I want to see those votes add up? What I "want" is irrelevant; the question is what's the right thing to do for the voter.

 

[Pogo]

Here's the question I'd like democracy worshippers to answer. If it had been the other way around, would you be an enthusiastic supporter of Trump? Do the numbers really matter? Do they make a shitty leader a good one, or vice versa? If the majority votes for Hitler - are you down with that?

They're only whining because Hillary lost.
They don't realize that if the election were determined by popular vote, Hillary would have STILL lost because the election would have gone to the house.
Imaging the whining after THAT.

Again, that doesn't function. There is no Constitutional provision for sending the election to the House on the basis of having won the popular vote.

There was however a provision in the Bayh-Celler Amendment (1969, oops that's back in the era when Hillary was a Goldwater Girl) which awarded the Presidency to the winner of the PV provided the ticket got at least 40% (a figure reached by every POTUS winner except Lincoln and Quincy Adams) and if not would schedule a runoff election between the top two tickets ----- which is how such results are typically handled in any voting event.

 

[dblack]

Its impact on "recent elections' --- or even long-past elections --- is immaterial except as examples of the system's failures.

The argument is about whether it works or not, and if not, why not. That has nothing to do with who comes out on the winning end of it.

Totally agree. And it worked pretty much exactly as designed. The Democrats indulged the exact hubris the EC was designed to prevent - they convinced themselves they could hold power without taking into consideration the concerns of rural, white, working class voters. They paid the price.

I've pointed out for instance that millions of Rump voters in California, New York (et al) had their votes tossed in the scrap heap by that system. You think I want to see those votes add up? What I "want" is irrelevant; the question is what's the right thing to do for the voter.

Well, you're mixing two distinct issues with the way we do EC. The winner-take-all nature of the way most states do EC is a problem, one that I think should be addressed. But the imbalance of per-vote power between rural and urban states, an entirely different issue, is an important safeguard and shouldn't be dismissed in the name of misguided enthusiasm for pure majority rule.

 

[Pogo]

Most people did not vote for Hillary.

And even less for Trump. Hardly the issue

The double and triple votes and illegals of course affected the final tallies.

The rank inability of Rump to man up, grow a pair, put on the big boy pants and admit that not everybody likes him affected the existence of these fantasy "three million illegals" ------ which are strangely enough as elusive to find as are the "thousands and thousands dancing on rooftops" and the "three million Amish".

 

[Pogo]

Why do you refuse to understand the US government is set up specifically so the majority does not always get its way?

well it's currently being used by the MINORITY to get THEIR way

1: It doesn't bother you when it allows you to get your way

Once AGAIN ----- where's your link to that?

Nowhere, mon frere. That's why it's your speculation fantasy and as such, a fallacious argument. And as such, dismissed.

 

[toobfreak]

Jesus, dumbass. You're so blind drunk with stupidity, you couldn't handle a simple arithmetic problem even after I spelled it out in plain English twice! So damned stupid you can't even read english that my math was ONE HUNDRED FUCKING PERCENT RIGHT that you're still after me to admit I was wrong apparently claiming that 27 + 4 DOESN'T equal 31! Go! Moron, Go! Master fucking degree MY ASS. Master ass picker you are.

Wow! I am impressed! You are working so hard to prove to the rest of the board that you flunked elementary math!

Then to make matters worse, you try to defend the indefensible!

Got any more words of profanity or personal attacks to throw at me, while the rest of board laughs at your sorry excuses?

Sure, jackass! If you are so smart, PROVE IT. Talk is cheap, fuckhead. POST the fucking post where I made the math error including the post number so we can all go back and verify it. SHOW us where I'm wrong. LAY OUT YOUR EVIDENCE. I've already reprinted my statement in question in bold text and STILL you crawl like a dog with lots of talk and smarmy accusations but with no backing. Why is it you're the only one who apparently caught my great math error? So if you're right, if 27+4 doesn't equal 31, prove it. SHOW US the GREAT ERROR I made in math that is so damned important to you as a MASTERS IN EDUCATION that you've made it a big fucking issue for more than ten posts now! I'm waiting, shithead. Bet you any money that you never follow through, because we all know you're a fucking liar. Then I'll test YOUR math. BTW, moron, I used to tutor people in trig and calculus. Hope you're up to it.

I already posted it once. If you can't find it, you are either drunk, high, or just incredibly stupid. I'm going with the latter.

What did I just say? "Bet you any money that you never follow through, because we all know you're a fucking liar." Do I know my fucking turkeys or not. Bag of hot air like all armchair liberals. What's you lame excuse now, that I can't find my own post? You're a pathetic twat. I knew if I dared you to produce the evidence to back up your big mouth claims you'd fold.

STFU, moron! You want me to post YOUR post! That must mean you can't find it! t was your original post about states not voting red. I am sorry that you don't understand that subtraction proves you wrong. The irony, if you knew my real name, got many laughs over the years, as a math teacher because it is like my daughter's language arts teacher having the last name "English".

Not only you are a moron, you are an asshole about that little tidbit of information you apparently just learned.

Look you sick fuck, you're not stupid but obviously a mental case; your tiresome non-argument has long since stopped being funny to the readers here. You apparently don't even know when to quit making a total ass of yourself. You tried it once before and it blew up in your face. Now apparently your whole day hinges on catching me in a typo. I challenged you to PRINT whatever I said that was so wrong, and you ran like a little girl. I said Ca has been voting blue since 1992, FACT. Then I said it's been 31 years since they voted to elect a GOP president, FACT. I put up the maps to support it. I reprinted my statement to prove it again. You've produced NOTHING but 4th grade insults. Put up or shut up asshole. You've been caught with your foot in your mouth again. Now go away and play with your dolls or whatever you really do in real life and let us adults carry on with the topics.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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!!!

Hillary's loss is exactly the result the EC was designed to produce, when you think about it. She campaigned to the urban voters and utterly ignored the people of the rest of the country and their needs, and she lost because of it. That's what the EC is for: to force Presidential candidates to recognize the existence and needs of the entire, diverse nation.

Plus, she's a corrupt, miserable twat.

Well, yes. Hearing from the entire, diverse spectrum of opinions and viewpoints does give the nation a better chance at avoiding execrable politicians.

 

[Pogo]

Its impact on "recent elections' --- or even long-past elections --- is immaterial except as examples of the system's failures.

The argument is about whether it works or not, and if not, why not. That has nothing to do with who comes out on the winning end of it.

Totally agree. And it worked pretty much exactly as designed. The Democrats indulged the exact hubris the EC was designed to prevent - they convinced themselves they could hold power without taking into consideration the concerns of rural, white, working class voters. They paid the price.

I've pointed out for instance that millions of Rump voters in California, New York (et al) had their votes tossed in the scrap heap by that system. You think I want to see those votes add up? What I "want" is irrelevant; the question is what's the right thing to do for the voter.

Well, you're mixing two distinct issues with the way we do EC. The winner-take-all nature of the way most states do EC is a problem, one that I think should be addressed. But the imbalance of per-vote power between rural and urban states, an entirely different issue, is an important safeguard and shouldn't be dismissed in the name of misguided enthusiasm for pure majority rule.

The WTA is the major problem with the EC. That's why I've constantly referred to "the system as practiced" and the "WTA/EC". WTA bears a heavy responsibility for depressing voter turnout, requiring voters to consult polls to determine whether it's worth going to vote at all, candidates ignoring "locked" states, most of those arguments I delineated. If my state's 15 electoral votes had been apportioned 8/7 (or 7/6/1/1) MOST of those issues would at least be significantly softened if not eliminated.

But you can't just eliminate WTA wholesale, because it comes from a state mob mentality. One state going to WTA means its vote has more impact, meaning that state is more important. Its neighboring state isn't going to stand for that, so they parrot the same thing. In the interim the voters of those states get fucked.

That's why Madison, who was a primary architect OF the EC, wanted to ban the practice of WTA as I've noted 22 times. He could see where it would end up.

So that means if you don't have a Constitutional Amendment to abolish the EC altogether, you'd have to have another one to ban WTA and prescribe guidelines for how the states can handle it. And that too is a major Constitutional tweak, just as much work as the first. So the third alternative --- not great but the best workaround we have so far ---- is the National Popular Vote Compact.

(Which, I should add here for the benefit of all the speculation fallacists, was put together and supported since 2005 (LONG before the 2016 election) by both sides of the political "aisle".)

 

[Cecilie1200]

Our country was founded on the premise that the states elect the President. It is a great system.

If we were to change anything about national voting, repeal the 17th Amendment which would drastically reduce our out of control spending.

The states would still elect the president - by Popular Vote.

Yeah, uh, the two are mutually exclusive. MORON.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

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

In other words, our elections should not be decided by voters. Just say it man! "Party hacks", whatever the hell that`s supposed to be should have just as much say in who wins an election as the toothless redneck who cooks meth in his trailer in West Virginia.

"In other words, you must mean THIS asinine interpretation I believe!"

Our elections are already decided by voters. The fact that those votes are counted and applied in a way that you don't comprehend and that is more complex than your grade-school mindset prefers is no one's problem but yours.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

You also failed to mentioned that California employs more Americans more than any state.
California is home to not only immigrants from overseas but also from other states.
I've lived here for 20 years and I cant come across too many adults who were born in California.
People leave their failed states to make it in the state that you hate so much.
Calofornia like most liberal states keep the US relevant on world stage (tehomology, innovation, research, industry, higher education, mega companies, etc...)

O do love respectful Americans, I dont like the trump ******, the racists, the bigots and sorry if you have a problem with that.

California is popular for the same reason most states in the south are. You have the weather. Do you think people moved to California because they love to pay high taxes so much?

I'm glad California is there. It provides someplace to go for all the people I REALLY don't want to live near.

 

[Ame®icano]

'In 1992, Bill Clinton did not get a majority of the popular vote (only 43 percent) but he received 70 percent of the electoral votes.'

Where was the Democratic Party's tantrum and call to abolish the Electoral College in 1992 when Bill Clinton LOST the 'Popular Vote' Presidential Election?

Why We Shouldn’t Scrap the Electoral College | myHeritage

Funny. Bill Clinton did receive the most popular votes in 1992. Why did your NaziCon Heritage link leave that little fact out?

1992 Presidential Election

William J. Clinton Democratic 370 44,908,254
George Bush (I) Republican 168 39,102,343
Ross Perot Independent 0 19,743,821

Presidential Election of 1992

Most. Not majority.

You're all about majority, right?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Most. Not majority.
You're all about majority, right?

He doesn't understand the difference.

 

[dblack]

The WTA is the major problem with the EC. That's why I've constantly referred to "the system as practiced" and the "WTA/EC". WTA bears a heavy responsibility for depressing voter turnout, requiring voters to consult polls to determine whether it's worth going to vote at all, candidates ignoring "locked" states, most of those arguments I delineated. If my state's 15 electoral votes had been apportioned 8/7 (or 7/6/1/1) MOST of those issues would at least be significantly softened if not eliminated.

Alright. Well, I'm with you on that one. But most people I see attacking the EC are focusing on the fact that it gives voters from less populated states a greater "per-vote" voice. I'm fine with that - I think it's a good thing.

So that means if you don't have a Constitutional Amendment to abolish the EC altogether, you'd have to have another one to ban WTA and prescribe guidelines for how the states can handle it. And that too is a major Constitutional tweak, just as much work as the first. So the third alternative --- not great but the best workaround we have so far ---- is the National Popular Vote Compact.

And I think that is worse than simply leaving it alone.

The biggest problem I have with most of the critics of EC is their unquestioned presumption that majority rule is a universal good. Democracy's primary benefit is that it accommodates more stable government. People are less likely to revolt if they feel like they've approved the current leadership. But that's about all I can say for it. Democracy doesn't guarantee justice. It doesn't guarantee good leadership. And it's a genuine threat to individual liberty. It only works if it's strictly, constitutionally limited in scope and reach.

 

[Issa]

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.

You also failed to mentioned that California employs more Americans more than any state.
California is home to not only immigrants from overseas but also from other states.
I've lived here for 20 years and I cant come across too many adults who were born in California.
People leave their failed states to make it in the state that you hate so much.
Calofornia like most liberal states keep the US relevant on world stage (tehomology, innovation, research, industry, higher education, mega companies, etc...)

O do love respectful Americans, I dont like the trump ******, the racists, the bigots and sorry if you have a problem with that.

California is popular for the same reason most states in the south are. You have the weather. Do you think people moved to California because they love to pay high taxes so much?

Lol you trying so hard.