Elizabeth Warren: 'End Electoral College'

[BluesLegend]

One quick fix would be get rid of the winner takes all in the states.

If you didn’t win the congressional district you shouldn't get to claim it as yours. Then whoever won the most, or let's say 2/3 districts in a state, they would get the two senatorial votes. This would more align the popular vote with the winner of the Electoral College.

It would only work if Democrats won all elections from that point on. If they continue to lose elections, the next thing they'll be complaining about is the Senate.

This isn't about fairness or improving the system. What they want is a way to win each and every presidential election hands down.

Every time somebody analyzes this EC operation, you want to change it into "b-but the Democrats this" and "b-but Hillary that". That's just dishonest bullshit.

Sorry, but I've been around a long time and took note how Democrats operate.

I remember when they just wanted lead out of gas. That's all they wanted. Look at us today and the trillions we've spent on pollution.

I remember when they just wanted no smoking in movie theaters. It's all they wanted. Today, you can't even have a cigarette outdoors at some places.

I remember when they wanted gays to come out of the closet. That's all they wanted. Today, states are forced to accept gay marriage and they even adopt children.

So don't tell me what not to change it to. I know exactly what they're up to. It's like Limbaugh said so many times before "I know liberals like I know my own glorious naked body."

You're afraid of the issue. Looking for fake skirts to hide behind. We've already established that, and now you cower even more.

Wow, you're the most formidable opponent on this board....just ask you.

Ouch, you owned that poster

 

[Pogo]

“I’m not going to change my mind just because I won,” Trump said. “But I would rather see it where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes and somebody else gets 90 million votes and you win. There’s a reason for doing this because it brings all the states into play" --- Rump, interviewed on Sixty Minutes, 11/14/16

 

[BluesLegend]

Oh honey, I'm quite proficient at getting you to run away. We both know it. Why do you Dems want to do away with it? Because it doesn't let you have your way. The EC was great for more than 200 years , right up until Bitchlary was slapped down.

If Dem's can't win an election plan B is to rig them.

 

[Pogo]

You're afraid of the issue. Looking for fake skirts to hide behind. We've already established that, and now you cower even more.

Wow, you're the most formidable opponent on this board....just ask you.

Have you in fact posted anything addressing the issue at all in this thread? Or just all these excuses not to?

Hey, I just keep the score --- y'all are the ones committing the errors.

You're afraid of the issue. Looking for fake skirts to hide behind. We've already established that, and now you cower even more.

Wow, you're the most formidable opponent on this board....just ask you.

Have you in fact posted anything addressing the issue at all in this thread? Or just all these excuses not to?

Hey, I just keep the score --- y'all are the ones committing the errors.

Like I said, just ask you. The EC will not go anywhere in your lifetime. What you think about this matters not son, you're simply a contrarian who simply like to play word games. Invariably when you get cornered you resort to games and word salads.

I take it the answer is no, you have not posted anything on the issue.

Once AGAIN the question is not "what are the chances". You're running away from the nuts and bolts because you too cannot handle it. When your strategy consists of "will never work so throw up your hands and quit", you have no point and apparently are just here to see your name on the internets.

Oh honey, I'm quite proficient at getting you to run away. We both know it. Why do you Dems want to do away with it? Because it doesn't let you have your way. The EC was great for more than 200 years , right up until Bitchlary was slapped down.

Amazing. I already buried this false cherrypicking in 1307 above (among other times) and yet here you are running out the same shit expecting different results.

Are you just stupid?

I'm not a "Dem", "honey". Political parties are for joiners. You know, sheep like yourself. I can see why you want to morph the question into "Dems", into "2016", into "Hillaries", into changing my political party affiliation from "none" and even now trying to snuggle up to me to cop a feel,.ALL deflections to try to whisk away a topic you can't handle, and ALL of it just exposes your posting as dishonest.

 

[Ambivalent1]

Wow, you're the most formidable opponent on this board....just ask you.

Have you in fact posted anything addressing the issue at all in this thread? Or just all these excuses not to?

Hey, I just keep the score --- y'all are the ones committing the errors.

Wow, you're the most formidable opponent on this board....just ask you.

Have you in fact posted anything addressing the issue at all in this thread? Or just all these excuses not to?

Hey, I just keep the score --- y'all are the ones committing the errors.

Like I said, just ask you. The EC will not go anywhere in your lifetime. What you think about this matters not son, you're simply a contrarian who simply like to play word games. Invariably when you get cornered you resort to games and word salads.

I take it the answer is no, you have not posted anything on the issue.

Once AGAIN the question is not "what are the chances". You're running away from the nuts and bolts because you too cannot handle it. When your strategy consists of "will never work so throw up your hands and quit", you have no point and apparently are just here to see your name on the internets.

Oh honey, I'm quite proficient at getting you to run away. We both know it. Why do you Dems want to do away with it? Because it doesn't let you have your way. The EC was great for more than 200 years , right up until Bitchlary was slapped down.

Amazing. I already buried this false cherrypicking in 1307 above (among other times) and yet here you are running out the same shit expecting different results.

Are you just stupid?

I'm not a "Dem", "honey". Political parties are for joiners. You know, sheep like yourself. I can see why you want to morph the question into "Dems", into "2016", into "Hillaries", into changing my political party affiliation from "none" and even now trying to snuggle up to me to cop a feel,.ALL deflections to try to whisk away a topic you can't handle, and ALL of it just exposes your posting as dishonest.

LOL, you didn't "bury" anything kid. You just keeping making my point, you're "right" because you're you. That is the EXTENT of your "discussions". Tell me honey, how did Hamilton feel about the EC?

 

[Pogo]

Have you in fact posted anything addressing the issue at all in this thread? Or just all these excuses not to?

Hey, I just keep the score --- y'all are the ones committing the errors.

Have you in fact posted anything addressing the issue at all in this thread? Or just all these excuses not to?

Hey, I just keep the score --- y'all are the ones committing the errors.

Like I said, just ask you. The EC will not go anywhere in your lifetime. What you think about this matters not son, you're simply a contrarian who simply like to play word games. Invariably when you get cornered you resort to games and word salads.

I take it the answer is no, you have not posted anything on the issue.

Once AGAIN the question is not "what are the chances". You're running away from the nuts and bolts because you too cannot handle it. When your strategy consists of "will never work so throw up your hands and quit", you have no point and apparently are just here to see your name on the internets.

Oh honey, I'm quite proficient at getting you to run away. We both know it. Why do you Dems want to do away with it? Because it doesn't let you have your way. The EC was great for more than 200 years , right up until Bitchlary was slapped down.

Amazing. I already buried this false cherrypicking in 1307 above (among other times) and yet here you are running out the same shit expecting different results.

Are you just stupid?

I'm not a "Dem", "honey". Political parties are for joiners. You know, sheep like yourself. I can see why you want to morph the question into "Dems", into "2016", into "Hillaries", into changing my political party affiliation from "none" and even now trying to snuggle up to me to cop a feel,.ALL deflections to try to whisk away a topic you can't handle, and ALL of it just exposes your posting as dishonest.

LOL, you didn't "bury" anything kid. You just keeping making my point, you're "right" because you're you. That is the EXTENT of your "discussions". Tell me honey, how did Hamilton feel about the EC?

Being "curiously curious" I scrolled back to answer my own question and put a number on it.

This post above is the 23rd one you've made in this thread, *ZERO* of which have addressed the topic at all.

Wanna see some highlights? Roll 'em.

"WWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAA WE CAN'T WIN LET'S CHANGE THE RULES"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Your ignorance knows no bounds.

You're stuck with it little boy.

Your ignorance (despite your ego) is astounding.

You smarter than the founders lil man?

As I said --- you can't handle it.

 

[Ambivalent1]

Like I said, just ask you. The EC will not go anywhere in your lifetime. What you think about this matters not son, you're simply a contrarian who simply like to play word games. Invariably when you get cornered you resort to games and word salads.

I take it the answer is no, you have not posted anything on the issue.

Once AGAIN the question is not "what are the chances". You're running away from the nuts and bolts because you too cannot handle it. When your strategy consists of "will never work so throw up your hands and quit", you have no point and apparently are just here to see your name on the internets.

Oh honey, I'm quite proficient at getting you to run away. We both know it. Why do you Dems want to do away with it? Because it doesn't let you have your way. The EC was great for more than 200 years , right up until Bitchlary was slapped down.

Amazing. I already buried this false cherrypicking in 1307 above (among other times) and yet here you are running out the same shit expecting different results.

Are you just stupid?

I'm not a "Dem", "honey". Political parties are for joiners. You know, sheep like yourself. I can see why you want to morph the question into "Dems", into "2016", into "Hillaries", into changing my political party affiliation from "none" and even now trying to snuggle up to me to cop a feel,.ALL deflections to try to whisk away a topic you can't handle, and ALL of it just exposes your posting as dishonest.

LOL, you didn't "bury" anything kid. You just keeping making my point, you're "right" because you're you. That is the EXTENT of your "discussions". Tell me honey, how did Hamilton feel about the EC?

Being "curiously curious" I scrolled back to answer my own question and put a number on it.

This post above is the 23rd one you've made in this thread, *ZERO* of which have addressed the topic at all.

Wanna see some highlights? Roll 'em.

"WWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAA WE CAN'T WIN LET'S CHANGE THE RULES"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Your ignorance knows no bounds.

You're stuck with it little boy.

Your ignorance (despite your ego) is astounding.

You smarter than the founders lil man?

As I said --- you can't handle it.

Just as I said, you get cornered and out comes the deflection and word salads. As I also said I have an uncanny knack of getting onto your head....as the above post shows

I asked you what Hamilton thought of the EC.

 

[my2¢]

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 far as federal laws go, the Voting Rights Bill of 1965 was passed to eliminate discriminatory provisions that kept blacks from voting. Constitutional amendments have dealt with extending the voting franchise to specific groups. In 19th amendment gave the franchise to women, the 26th does not permit states to deny the vote because of age to anyone that's at least 18.

And none of that is relevant to the discussion.

Au contraire, Elizabeth Warren is in favor of getting rid of the Elector College in order to decide the presidency based on the nation's popular vote. However the quickest way to achieve the end goal would be to leave the U.S. Constitution alone and have states enact the National Popular Vote law, which 13 states with a total of 181 electoral votes have already done. That's two-thirds the way there in terms of the 270 electoral votes needed to select a president.

 

[Ambivalent1]

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 far as federal laws go, the Voting Rights Bill of 1965 was passed to eliminate discriminatory provisions that kept blacks from voting. Constitutional amendments have dealt with extending the voting franchise to specific groups. In 19th amendment gave the franchise to women, the 26th does not permit states to deny the vote because of age to anyone that's at least 18.

And none of that is relevant to the discussion.

Au contraire, Elizabeth Warren is in favor of getting rid of the Elector College in order to decide the presidency based on the nation's popular vote. However the quickest way to achieve the end goal would be to leave the U.S. Constitution alone and have states enact the National Popular Vote law, which 13 states with a total of 181 electoral votes have already done. That's two-thirds the way there in terms of the 270 electoral votes needed to select a president.

Not going to happen, it will be tied up in the Courts forever.

 

[Pogo]

I take it the answer is no, you have not posted anything on the issue.

Once AGAIN the question is not "what are the chances". You're running away from the nuts and bolts because you too cannot handle it. When your strategy consists of "will never work so throw up your hands and quit", you have no point and apparently are just here to see your name on the internets.

Oh honey, I'm quite proficient at getting you to run away. We both know it. Why do you Dems want to do away with it? Because it doesn't let you have your way. The EC was great for more than 200 years , right up until Bitchlary was slapped down.

Amazing. I already buried this false cherrypicking in 1307 above (among other times) and yet here you are running out the same shit expecting different results.

Are you just stupid?

I'm not a "Dem", "honey". Political parties are for joiners. You know, sheep like yourself. I can see why you want to morph the question into "Dems", into "2016", into "Hillaries", into changing my political party affiliation from "none" and even now trying to snuggle up to me to cop a feel,.ALL deflections to try to whisk away a topic you can't handle, and ALL of it just exposes your posting as dishonest.

LOL, you didn't "bury" anything kid. You just keeping making my point, you're "right" because you're you. That is the EXTENT of your "discussions". Tell me honey, how did Hamilton feel about the EC?

Being "curiously curious" I scrolled back to answer my own question and put a number on it.

This post above is the 23rd one you've made in this thread, *ZERO* of which have addressed the topic at all.

Wanna see some highlights? Roll 'em.

"WWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAA WE CAN'T WIN LET'S CHANGE THE RULES"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Your ignorance knows no bounds.

You're stuck with it little boy.

Your ignorance (despite your ego) is astounding.

You smarter than the founders lil man?

As I said --- you can't handle it.

Just as I said, you get cornered and out comes the deflection and word salads. As I also said I have an uncanny knack of getting onto your head....as the above post shows

I asked you what Hamilton thought of the EC.

I don't know and I don't care. Hamilton died in 1804 LONG before WTA got started. What I just pointed out is that YOU have no evidence you've thought anything about it at all. Your entire post history --- the ENTIRE history --- consists of "will never work" and "you're wrong" and "you're a stupid idiot". I doubt you have any clue how the fucking system works at all, let alone any germ of an idea why it works or doesn't work. You're a troll and literally nothing more.

Not going to happen, it will be tied up in the Courts forever.

See what I mean? You just did it AGAIN. The above is your ENTIRE post --- as were all the ones I quoted above. Nothing there.

 

[U2Edge]

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 electoral college is about balancing the power of big states with those of small states. Every state gets two Senators equal to two electoral votes regardless of the population of the state. Every state gets at least one Representative in the House regardless of the population of the state, equal to one electoral vote. Then the anymore electoral votes a state gets is decided by population. Even with the Electoral College, the big states still have the advantaged, but it prevents the small states from being totally irrelevant. If you do away with the electoral college, then the coastal states and their issues will automatically trump the smaller populated areas in the interior of the country. We want a balance where everyone feels they have a stake in things. You get more of that with the 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 electoral college is about balancing the power of big states with those of small states. Every state gets two Senators equal to two electoral votes regardless of the population of the state. Every state gets at least one Representative in the House regardless of the population of the state, equal to one electoral vote. Then the anymore electoral votes a state gets is decided by population. Even with the Electoral College, the big states still have the advantaged, but it prevents the small states from being totally irrelevant. If you do away with the electoral college, then the coastal states and their issues will automatically trump the smaller populated areas in the interior of the country. We want a balance where everyone feels they have a stake in things. You get more of that with the electoral college.

That might almost work -------- except you deliberately left out the WTA part of the equation.
----- which is the only way "the big states will have the advantage" and which disenfranchises literally millions, depresses national voter turnout, keeps the candidates from engaging in "locked" states, perpetuates the Duopoly forever and ensures that no third party ever has a shot.

There's no argument for that.

 

[my2¢]

Au contraire, Elizabeth Warren is in favor of getting rid of the Elector College in order to decide the presidency based on the nation's popular vote. However the quickest way to achieve the end goal would be to leave the U.S. Constitution alone and have states enact the National Popular Vote law, which 13 states with a total of 181 electoral votes have already done. That's two-thirds the way there in terms of the 270 electoral votes needed to select a president.

Not going to happen, it will be tied up in the Courts forever.

I'll disagree based on my belief that the Supreme Court won't view the Constitution any differently than they did in 1952 when it confirmed that states have authority in regards to setting rules for their electors:

Presidential Electors exercise a federal function in balloting for President and Vice-President, but they are not federal officers. They act by authority of the state, which, in turn, receives its authority from the Federal Constitution.
Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214 (1952)​

 

[Ambivalent1]

Au contraire, Elizabeth Warren is in favor of getting rid of the Elector College in order to decide the presidency based on the nation's popular vote. However the quickest way to achieve the end goal would be to leave the U.S. Constitution alone and have states enact the National Popular Vote law, which 13 states with a total of 181 electoral votes have already done. That's two-thirds the way there in terms of the 270 electoral votes needed to select a president.

Not going to happen, it will be tied up in the Courts forever.

I'll disagree based on my belief that the Supreme Court won't view the Constitution any differently than they did in 1952 when it confirmed that states have authority in regards to setting rules for their electors:

Presidential Electors exercise a federal function in balloting for President and Vice-President, but they are not federal officers. They act by authority of the state, which, in turn, receives its authority from the Federal Constitution.
Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214 (1952)​

We'll see.

 

[Pogo]

Au contraire, Elizabeth Warren is in favor of getting rid of the Elector College in order to decide the presidency based on the nation's popular vote. However the quickest way to achieve the end goal would be to leave the U.S. Constitution alone and have states enact the National Popular Vote law, which 13 states with a total of 181 electoral votes have already done. That's two-thirds the way there in terms of the 270 electoral votes needed to select a president.

Not going to happen, it will be tied up in the Courts forever.

I'll disagree based on my belief that the Supreme Court won't view the Constitution any differently than they did in 1952 when it confirmed that states have authority in regards to setting rules for their electors:

Presidential Electors exercise a federal function in balloting for President and Vice-President, but they are not federal officers. They act by authority of the state, which, in turn, receives its authority from the Federal Constitution.
Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214 (1952)​

We'll see.

Deep.

 

[toobfreak]

Please put me on ignore and you won't have to be embarrassed every time you show your ass!

I suspect half the people here already have you on ignore.

Now, STFU, and go away. Anyone with a third grade math education knows you fucked up. Suck it up and move on, dumbass!

You would obviously know since you have about a 3rd grade math education. Shall I prove it? You keep SAYING I fucked up but I'm still waiting for you to SHOW US WHERE. Show us ONE OTHER PERSON who agrees with you!

WHERE? PROVE IT, TOUGH GUY. Talk is cheap, especially coming out of your mouth.

Or can't you even prove a 3rd grade math error wrong?

Rockhead Tory, tackling all of the truly tough and important issues of the day.

Please just go away! You are making start to feel sorry for your pathetic little brain.

Where should I go "Admiral?" We were all talking about the electoral college until YOU inserted your fat fuck of a face into the topic trying to claim I made an addition error, and 23 posts later after having been proven a liar and dead wrong again every way come Sunday, you're still trying to save face with more bullshit and lies! I'm not going anywhere, assclown! Next, I will c&p the original post you attacked and dare you for the 11th time to show me where the math error was, "teacher!" Funny, you're the only one who seems to see it! Must be that "new math" you teach. What a total head case you are.

 

[Ambivalent1]

Au contraire, Elizabeth Warren is in favor of getting rid of the Elector College in order to decide the presidency based on the nation's popular vote. However the quickest way to achieve the end goal would be to leave the U.S. Constitution alone and have states enact the National Popular Vote law, which 13 states with a total of 181 electoral votes have already done. That's two-thirds the way there in terms of the 270 electoral votes needed to select a president.

Not going to happen, it will be tied up in the Courts forever.

I'll disagree based on my belief that the Supreme Court won't view the Constitution any differently than they did in 1952 when it confirmed that states have authority in regards to setting rules for their electors:

Presidential Electors exercise a federal function in balloting for President and Vice-President, but they are not federal officers. They act by authority of the state, which, in turn, receives its authority from the Federal Constitution.
Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214 (1952)​

We'll see.

Deep.

True.

Unlike yourself I have no need to pretend I'm anything more than what I am. Your ego writes checks your intellect can't cash.

 

[Lesh]

The electoral college is about balancing the power of big states with those of small states. Every state gets two Senators equal to two electoral votes regardless of the population of the state. Every state gets at least one Representative in the House regardless of the population of the state, equal to one electoral vote. Then the anymore electoral votes a state gets is decided by population. Even with the Electoral College, the big states still have the advantaged, but it prevents the small states from being totally irrelevant. If you do away with the electoral college, then the coastal states and their issues will automatically trump the smaller populated areas in the interior of the country. We want a balance where everyone feels they have a stake in things. You get more of that with the electoral college.

That was my original thought but it is not balanced. It heavily skews towards less populated states. Less populated states tend to be Republican which means that states with less people are over represented in the Senate. They have that advantage built in.

If the popular vote doesn't equate more closely to population then it should be adjusted or eliminated.

As Previously noted...two of the last 3 first term Presidents were decided by those less populated states and because of that and blatant partisanship...they sat FOUR Supreme Court Justices...

The system is heavily skewed towards those less populated states. THAT is a problem.

The only reason (because of gerrymandering) that Dems won the House was because of MASSIVE votes. If an equal number of people from both sides vote in House elections (again because of gerrymandering) Republicans end up with a majority even there...a large majority.

That's a minority party running every branch of the government.

Nope. That don't fly

 

[Ambivalent1]

The electoral college is about balancing the power of big states with those of small states. Every state gets two Senators equal to two electoral votes regardless of the population of the state. Every state gets at least one Representative in the House regardless of the population of the state, equal to one electoral vote. Then the anymore electoral votes a state gets is decided by population. Even with the Electoral College, the big states still have the advantaged, but it prevents the small states from being totally irrelevant. If you do away with the electoral college, then the coastal states and their issues will automatically trump the smaller populated areas in the interior of the country. We want a balance where everyone feels they have a stake in things. You get more of that with the electoral college.

That was my original thought but it is not balanced. It heavily skews towards less populated states. Less populated states tend to be REpublican which means that states with less people are over represented in the Senate. They have that advantage built in.

If the popular vote doesn't equate more closely to population then it should be adjusted or eliminated.

As Previously noted...two of the last 3 first term Presidents were decided by those less populated states and because of that and blatant partisanship...they sat FOUR Supreme Court Justices...

The system is heavily skewed towards those less populated states. THAT is a problem.

The only reason (because of gerrymandering) that Dems won the House was because of MASSIVE votes. If an equal number of people from both sides vote in House elections (again because of gerrymandering) Republicans end up with a majority even there...a large majority.

That's a minority party running every branch of the government.

Nope. That don't fly

The facts don't bare your opinion out.

Barry 8 years
GW 8 years
Billy 8 years
Bush 1 4 years
Reagan 8 years
Carter 4 years

Pubs 20 years
Dems 20 years

 

[Lesh]

You have to realize...that because of the Depression the Republican Party was DEAD for decades. The elected only one Republican to the Presidency from 1932 till 1968. That's 36 years. That meant liberal SCOTUS Justices. Brown v Board, Roe V Wade,Civil RIghts. All things they hated.

On top of that they lost Congress for the most part all the way until the 90s. That's a lot of grievance stored up and they are doing everything possible to make this a one party system...a MINORITY one party system.

And the Depression killed them not so much because they caused it, but rather because thy had no response to it. That New Deal worked. It worked so well that it took nearly 40 years for people to forget how vacuous and callous the Republican Party is.

And Republicans have been working REALLY hard to dismantle the New Deal ever since Reagan. Look what's happened to the middle class since then...