Elizabeth Warren: 'End Electoral College'

[Issa]

That is your mistake because UNITED States of America has never been a Democracy and the President has been elected with the Electoral College all this time.

Funny how no one complained when Clinton and Obama won it twice but when Gore and Hillary lost all of a sudden it is a bad system.

No matter what my opinion of Trump the fact is the Electoral College is a great system that allow the smaller states in our REPUBLIC to have a voice...

They point being dumbass...that Clinton and Obama won BOTH the popular vote and the electoral vote.

Bush the Lesser and Trump both LOST the popular vote...negating the will of the people.

"No matter what my opinion of Trump the fact is the Electoral College is a great system that allow the smaller states in our REPUBLIC to have a voice"

The fact is the EC is a FLAWED system that allowed smaller states an OUTSIZED voice in our NATION'S Presidential election and Supreme Court as a result

No, that's not true.

If you add NY and Cali together, they had (in the 2016 election) 84 electoral votes.

https://state.1keydata.com/state-electoral-votes.php

The lowest 9 populated states collectively had 28 electoral votes.

So how do you feel these lower populated states are overpowering the most populated states? Do you know how many lower populated states it would take to equal just NY and Cali yet alone overpower them? I don't have time right now to do all the math, but here is a list of states according to population, and combine that with the electoral votes those states get with the link above. If you have the time to add all this up, let me know how many of the lower populated states it takes to equal the two most populated. Edit: I count 19. To exceed their combined EC votes by just one, I count 20 states.

List of states and territories of the United States by population - Wikipedia

I'd say states have a s

Interesting concept...you want the US...with one of the longest standing democracies in world history to change the system that's given us that stability to mirror the rest of the world that sees coups and civil unrest as a matter of course? I'm guessing you don't have the faintest idea WHY the Electoral College was instituted in the first place...do you, Issa?

The US is not a democracy.

The US is a democracy...we choose to operate that democracy as a constitutional republic...which is a blend of power derived from democratic processes...power held by elected officials...and power held by a court system.

My point remains...do you really think the US should scrap a system that has worked for hundreds of years simply because the candidate you wanted didn't get elected in a Presidential race?

Worked likes shit, with the likes of Bush and trump two crazies voted in by the dumbest minority.

It was "dumb" to prefer Trump over Hillary Clinton? I hate to point out the obvious here, Issa but the left ran an odious candidate who managed to be corrupt, incompetent and seemed to feel entitled to the Oval Office simply because she was a woman. Trump wasn't elected because voters were dumb...he was elected because he was a better candidate than the other person on the ballot!

Issa never voted, then he bitches, the dumb one is Issa. He has no valid complaint,

The EC is why most Americans dont vote because in ultra blue or red states , what's the point? Abolish the EC and you'll have every vote count. .

 

[Ame®icano]

The other way to fix the electoral college system is to tie the number of electoral votes each state gets to it's actual population.

Why not, as soon you kick out every single illegal out of country.

 

[RDD_1210]

The other way to fix the electoral college system is to tie the number of electoral votes each state gets to it's actual population.

Why not, as soon you kick out every single illegal out of country.

What does that have to do with the topic? Stay focused.

 

[Ame®icano]

and the number of votes cast in 8 states was still smaller than Los Angeles County, in the last national election.

Imagine how many states it would take to cancel out California entirely.

Irrelevant. Votes are not for "cancelling out".

You wanna talk "cancel out", address all the Rump votes in California (New York, Massachusetts, etc) that were cancelled out by the WTA-EC. Along with who-knows-how-many-more who didn't bother to leave the house because what would be the point.

Get it?

If they get rid of the EC, and go to mob rule, what reason would Montana, north and south Dakota, Kansas, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Kansas and Iowa have to go to the polls?

First of all "mob rule" is a completely bullshitious Doublethink term. If there are fifteen votes and eight of them vote one way, that's called a "majority", not a "mob". Drop the bullshitiousness.

Second, Montanta, Dakotas, etc etc would go to the polls for the same reason anybody else would --- because their votes count. And they'd count MORE since half of them wouldn't immediately be flushed down the electoral toilet, which, in the reverse scenario of what I just explained above, tons of voters didn't bother because their state was voting red regardless what they wanted, ergo what's the point?

A voter in a locked-red or locked-blue state has four choices: Vote with the state, vote against the state, vote third party, or stay home and bake cookies. ALL FOUR of those options bring the same result, with the exception that in the fourth scenario you actually get some cookies. That's not an election ---- that's a state-by-state LOCKOUT.

This appears to be the elephant in the room y'all can't touch. You're not interested in protecting state votes; you're interested in preserving RED votes. Now you'll mark this post "Funny" because you have no argument against it.

It’s always amusing how the far left tries to spin reality to fit its twisted world view. The Democrat Party has skewed increasingly left. Abortion up to birth, every sort of gun ban, property regulation down to, literally, puddles. Taxation, business regulation, thoughtless defense of radical Islam and illegal aliens, weaponizing government agencies against citizens, etc.

Yes, the left, and California and New York in particular, have marginalized themselves. The rest of us are still where we have always been, and we’re still carrying your debt-burdened, fear-driven, hate mongering selves along in spite of your best efforts to immolate the entire Republic.

We’ll continue to carry you, until it becomes more effective to deal with you in other ways. What we will not allow you to do is destroy the rest of us with your inanity and ignorance and outright stupidity. if you dislike that so much then, by all means, feel free to leave.

ZERO of that incoherent drooling has anything to do with the post quoted.
Skeered?

It explains you lefties are ALWAYS on the wrong side of the issue. Today that is EC, but look at the past.

If only you could connect the dots. Reticent?

 

[Cecilie1200]

But that has no bearing on the actual merits of the EC. The EC was designed to prevent the "Clinton Archipelago". It pushes parties to maintain a diverse base. The Democrats forgot this and figured they could rely exclusively on the urban centers to keep them in power. They were wrong.

Bullshit. It was designed to entice slave states to join the Union (along with the 3/5ths clause for choosing House representation based on slavery)

As it stands...less populous rural states have an outsized amount of influence over both the Executive and because of that the Judiciary

There's nothing "diverse" about that

It was designed to entice slave states to join the Union

It was designed to entice small states to join the Union.

I seriously hate to even dignify this pathetic and ignorant attempt by the left to play the race card on everything, but let's clear this up.

Contrary to the "history learned from the op-ed page" that every leftist in America applies, the simplistic picture of North-South, slave-free that they assume reflects all of American history before the Civil War was not actually the case in the late 1700s, when the Constitution came to be.

"By the time of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, slavery in the United States was a grim reality. In the census of 1790, there were slaves counted in nearly every state, with only Massachusetts and the "districts" of Vermont and Maine, being the only exceptions."

https://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_slav.html

So no, slavery was not a consideration in the creation of the Electoral College.

 

[Lesh]

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.

Why should the vote of a farmer from Wyoming have more impact than the vote of a shop owner from the Bronx?

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

I'm replying to posts as I read them, and my yesterdays reply is to post from Tuesday, so please forgive me I couldn't foresee the future before I pressed the "reply" button.

Doesn't seem to wash, since you just tried to pull the same boner AGAIN and I whupped it into shape again. Post 1184.

My replies were to posts in 600 range. I still didn't get that far, although I did made an exception for the needy you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Why should the vote of a farmer from Wyoming have more impact than the vote of a shop owner from the Bronx?

Look at you and your begging the question fallacy.
No such condition exists, so there's no "why" to be asked.

 

[Lesh]

Look at you and your begging the question fallacy.
No such condition exists, so there's no "why" to be asked.

The whole POINT of keeping the EC is to make that farmer's vote more impactful than that shopkeeper'ss

 

[M14 Shooter]

Look at you and your begging the question fallacy.
No such condition exists, so there's no "why" to be asked.

The whole POINT of keeping the EC is to make that farmer's vote more impactful than that shopkeeper'ss

Only if you do not understand the electoral college, which you apparently do not.
Their votes, in their respective elections, are equal..

 

[Papageorgio]

Without the EC the Republicans in NJ and the Democrats in Tennessee will have a reason to vote. As it is now why should they bother?

I live in a solid blue state and I vote third party, my voice still counts and I have every reason to vote. If you are not that patriotic and don't want to exercise your right to vote, that's on you. Also state and local elections also matter not just national elections.

I've done that before and it's unsatisfying but more to the point your 3P vote had no meaning at all. Your state took your vote, laughed in your face and said "bwahaha thanks for playin' that's going right in the trash can" and waddled off to Washington to lie through its Electoral teeth "wow, it's amazing, for the umpteenth time in a row EVERYBODY in (your state here) voted for the same candidate". My state did the same thing.

And that's a MAJOR part of the problem. First, scores of voters in your state stayed home because as you noted the outcome was predetermined, so what's the point. And second, the only way your 3P candy (or any 3P candy) was ever going to win the office was by siphoning off enough D and R votes nationally that nobody gets a majority which then tosses the entire decision into the House of Reps, thereby nullifying 100 million-plus votes and starting over. And that wasn't going to happen with input from a "blue" or "red" state anyway.

You voted for your conscience but that's all it amounts to. You could have stayed home and learned useful phrases in Turkish and it would have been more productive. So no, your vote DIDN'T count. Thank the system for that. And while you're at it thank those of us who take the initiative to figure these things out and say they ARE a problem.

Interesting opinion, I don't agree with you. My vote had just as much meaning as the person that took second, I can live with that, I am not going to vote for the lesser of two evils, it is moronic thinking like that that gives us a Clinton Trump election. Screw that!

Your vote for Hlllary didn't count either, neither did my vote for Romney in 2012, in fact whether it is the EC or the popular vote, if you vote for the loser, it didn't count.

Again, if your state is locked-blue as you describe, your vote literally means nothing, even if you also vote blue. The outcome is predetermined. If you get hit by a bus on the way to the poll, it makes exactly the same impact as if you get hit by a bus on the way home from it, which is zero. You can vote with the state, vote against the state, vote third party or stay home, and all four produce exactly the same result. The state doesn't need your vote because it's (again) predetermined, and it's not going to consider anything but the herd vote --- everybody else's vote gets immediately tossed in the crapper.

Wouldn’t mean shit in a popular vote either.

 

[Papageorgio]

They point being dumbass...that Clinton and Obama won BOTH the popular vote and the electoral vote.

Bush the Lesser and Trump both LOST the popular vote...negating the will of the people.

"No matter what my opinion of Trump the fact is the Electoral College is a great system that allow the smaller states in our REPUBLIC to have a voice"

The fact is the EC is a FLAWED system that allowed smaller states an OUTSIZED voice in our NATION'S Presidential election and Supreme Court as a result

No, that's not true.

If you add NY and Cali together, they had (in the 2016 election) 84 electoral votes.

https://state.1keydata.com/state-electoral-votes.php

The lowest 9 populated states collectively had 28 electoral votes.

So how do you feel these lower populated states are overpowering the most populated states? Do you know how many lower populated states it would take to equal just NY and Cali yet alone overpower them? I don't have time right now to do all the math, but here is a list of states according to population, and combine that with the electoral votes those states get with the link above. If you have the time to add all this up, let me know how many of the lower populated states it takes to equal the two most populated. Edit: I count 19. To exceed their combined EC votes by just one, I count 20 states.

List of states and territories of the United States by population - Wikipedia

I'd say states have a s

The US is not a democracy.

The US is a democracy...we choose to operate that democracy as a constitutional republic...which is a blend of power derived from democratic processes...power held by elected officials...and power held by a court system.

My point remains...do you really think the US should scrap a system that has worked for hundreds of years simply because the candidate you wanted didn't get elected in a Presidential race?

Worked likes shit, with the likes of Bush and trump two crazies voted in by the dumbest minority.

It was "dumb" to prefer Trump over Hillary Clinton? I hate to point out the obvious here, Issa but the left ran an odious candidate who managed to be corrupt, incompetent and seemed to feel entitled to the Oval Office simply because she was a woman. Trump wasn't elected because voters were dumb...he was elected because he was a better candidate than the other person on the ballot!

Issa never voted, then he bitches, the dumb one is Issa. He has no valid complaint,

The EC is why most Americans dont vote because in ultra blue or red states , what's the point? Abolish the EC and you'll have every vote count. .

BS! You have proof that he EC is why most Americans don’t vote? Again you show your ignorance and lack of understanding America.

 

[Cecilie1200]

But that has no bearing on the actual merits of the EC. The EC was designed to prevent the "Clinton Archipelago". It pushes parties to maintain a diverse base. The Democrats forgot this and figured they could rely exclusively on the urban centers to keep them in power. They were wrong.

Bullshit. It was designed to entice slave states to join the Union (along with the 3/5ths clause for choosing House representation based on slavery)

As it stands...less populous rural states have an outsized amount of influence over both the Executive and because of that the Judiciary

There's nothing "diverse" about that

It was designed to entice slave states to join the Union

It was designed to entice small states to join the Union.

The usual equivocation. It was both.

No. All states except Massachusetts were "slave states" at that time. Delaware was one of the pre-eminent states voicing concern about states with smaller populations being ignored in favor of more populous states, such as NY and Virginia. Many of the Southern states at that time actually favored a more population-based plan, because at the time they were experiencing a surge in population and they thought it would give them more power in the future.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Without the EC the Republicans in NJ and the Democrats in Tennessee will have a reason to vote. As it is now why should they bother?

No, without the EC, that problem would just be spread to the entire country. You'll excuse us all if we don't want to see most of the country become voiceless serfs to NYC and LA just so that a handful of "Republicans" in NJ and Democrats in Tennessee can feel better about themselves . . . for the exactly one election it takes for them to realize they just sold the entire country into slavery to a couple of mega-cities.

 

[Markle]

LAKHOTA, with his underlings, has managed to keep a totally senseless thread alive for over 1,200 posts of repetition.

 

[dblack]

LAKHOTA, with his underlings, has managed to keep a totally senseless thread alive for over 1,200 posts of repetition.

Bullshit. No one is "under" Lakhota.

 

[Pogo]

LAKHOTA, with his underlings, has managed to keep a totally senseless thread alive for over 1,200 posts of repetition.

Is that Rump in high school being told what his SAT scores were?

 

[Pogo]

Without the EC the Republicans in NJ and the Democrats in Tennessee will have a reason to vote. As it is now why should they bother?

I live in a solid blue state and I vote third party, my voice still counts and I have every reason to vote. If you are not that patriotic and don't want to exercise your right to vote, that's on you. Also state and local elections also matter not just national elections.

I've done that before and it's unsatisfying but more to the point your 3P vote had no meaning at all. Your state took your vote, laughed in your face and said "bwahaha thanks for playin' that's going right in the trash can" and waddled off to Washington to lie through its Electoral teeth "wow, it's amazing, for the umpteenth time in a row EVERYBODY in (your state here) voted for the same candidate". My state did the same thing.

And that's a MAJOR part of the problem. First, scores of voters in your state stayed home because as you noted the outcome was predetermined, so what's the point. And second, the only way your 3P candy (or any 3P candy) was ever going to win the office was by siphoning off enough D and R votes nationally that nobody gets a majority which then tosses the entire decision into the House of Reps, thereby nullifying 100 million-plus votes and starting over. And that wasn't going to happen with input from a "blue" or "red" state anyway.

You voted for your conscience but that's all it amounts to. You could have stayed home and learned useful phrases in Turkish and it would have been more productive. So no, your vote DIDN'T count. Thank the system for that. And while you're at it thank those of us who take the initiative to figure these things out and say they ARE a problem.

Interesting opinion, I don't agree with you. My vote had just as much meaning as the person that took second, I can live with that, I am not going to vote for the lesser of two evils, it is moronic thinking like that that gives us a Clinton Trump election. Screw that!

Your vote for Hlllary didn't count either, neither did my vote for Romney in 2012, in fact whether it is the EC or the popular vote, if you vote for the loser, it didn't count.

Again, if your state is locked-blue as you describe, your vote literally means nothing, even if you also vote blue. The outcome is predetermined. If you get hit by a bus on the way to the poll, it makes exactly the same impact as if you get hit by a bus on the way home from it, which is zero. You can vote with the state, vote against the state, vote third party or stay home, and all four produce exactly the same result. The state doesn't need your vote because it's (again) predetermined, and it's not going to consider anything but the herd vote --- everybody else's vote gets immediately tossed in the crapper.

Wouldn’t mean shit in a popular vote either.

It ABSOLUTELY would because as it is now with a miserable turnout rate of around HALF the electorate, nobody can even guess how many millions more would go out to vote if they knew their vote wasn't going immediately in the shitcan, moreover they would have more than two real choices to do so.

AGAIN --- this ain't rocket surgery --- in most states there's literally no reason to vote at all. That "red" or "blue" state is going to vote red or blue REGARDLESS what any individual does about it. Therefore there's no incentive. Add the incentive, and all bets are off. You might find those New Yorks or Californias going "red" in the final total, the only difference being there wouldn't be a proxy filter sitting there throwing every second, third, fourth-place vote directly into the garbage ---- which is exactly what they do now.

In other other words it would mean your third party vote would actually go somewhere. And plenty of others would feel they don't HAVE TO vote red to block blue or blue to block red, that they actually have an alternative. And that also means the final total would be a complete unknown that we can't begin to project here. It would be an entirely new ball game, rather than a rigged one. You might even have a shot at electing that third party.

This is what I keep saying about how the EC perpetuates the Duopoly. As long as the status remains quo, so does the Duopoly and we go nowhere. And again there is no argument that can possibly be made for perpetuating the Duopoly.

 

[M14 Shooter]

LAKHOTA, with his underlings, has managed to keep a totally senseless thread alive for over 1,200 posts of repetition.

Bullshit. No one is "under" Lakhota.

In front of, or, more likely, behind, but you;re right.

 

[Pogo]

Irrelevant. Votes are not for "cancelling out".

You wanna talk "cancel out", address all the Rump votes in California (New York, Massachusetts, etc) that were cancelled out by the WTA-EC. Along with who-knows-how-many-more who didn't bother to leave the house because what would be the point.

Get it?

If they get rid of the EC, and go to mob rule, what reason would Montana, north and south Dakota, Kansas, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Kansas and Iowa have to go to the polls?

First of all "mob rule" is a completely bullshitious Doublethink term. If there are fifteen votes and eight of them vote one way, that's called a "majority", not a "mob". Drop the bullshitiousness.

Second, Montanta, Dakotas, etc etc would go to the polls for the same reason anybody else would --- because their votes count. And they'd count MORE since half of them wouldn't immediately be flushed down the electoral toilet, which, in the reverse scenario of what I just explained above, tons of voters didn't bother because their state was voting red regardless what they wanted, ergo what's the point?

A voter in a locked-red or locked-blue state has four choices: Vote with the state, vote against the state, vote third party, or stay home and bake cookies. ALL FOUR of those options bring the same result, with the exception that in the fourth scenario you actually get some cookies. That's not an election ---- that's a state-by-state LOCKOUT.

This appears to be the elephant in the room y'all can't touch. You're not interested in protecting state votes; you're interested in preserving RED votes. Now you'll mark this post "Funny" because you have no argument against it.

It’s always amusing how the far left tries to spin reality to fit its twisted world view. The Democrat Party has skewed increasingly left. Abortion up to birth, every sort of gun ban, property regulation down to, literally, puddles. Taxation, business regulation, thoughtless defense of radical Islam and illegal aliens, weaponizing government agencies against citizens, etc.

Yes, the left, and California and New York in particular, have marginalized themselves. The rest of us are still where we have always been, and we’re still carrying your debt-burdened, fear-driven, hate mongering selves along in spite of your best efforts to immolate the entire Republic.

We’ll continue to carry you, until it becomes more effective to deal with you in other ways. What we will not allow you to do is destroy the rest of us with your inanity and ignorance and outright stupidity. if you dislike that so much then, by all means, feel free to leave.

ZERO of that incoherent drooling has anything to do with the post quoted.
Skeered?

It explains you lefties are ALWAYS on the wrong side of the issue. Today that is EC, but look at the past.

If only you could connect the dots. Reticent?

What in the fuck does that mean? I've been citing "the past" all the way back to Madison. Read much?