Elizabeth Warren: 'End Electoral College'

[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

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

TWO of the last THREE first term Presidents were elected while losing the popular vote. Both Republicans.

Do you dispute that moron?

 

[Ambivalent1]

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.

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

 

[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

TWO of the last THREE first term Presidents were elected while losing the popular vote. Both Republicans.

Do you dispute that moron?

Look kid
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

And just NOW it's "bad".

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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...

Correct, because it had nothing to do with the unions, nothing to do with automation, nothing to do with consumer priorities, nothing to do with foreign competition, it had to do with the Republicans.

 

[dblack]

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

TWO of the last THREE first term Presidents were elected while losing the popular vote. Both Republicans.

Do you dispute that moron?

Yep. And it highlights the most important "inconvenient fact" about the electoral landscape. Democrats have abandoned white, working class voters. These are people who were once a mainstay of the party. I grew up with these people and back in the day they were solidly Democrats. Now most of them are Trumpsters. How did that happen?

 

[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

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

TWO of the last THREE first term Presidents were elected while losing the popular vote. Both Republicans.

Do you dispute that moron?

Look kid
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

And just NOW it's "bad".

Dude...how many first term Presidents in this Century lost the popular vote and won the election.

That's right two out if three...both Republicans...accounting for FOUR Supreme Court seats out of nine.

And even THERE Mitch McConnell went brazenly nakedly partisan and held the Scalia seat open for as full year (claiming that elections should effect those seats and hoping to get a Republican elected in 2016) and THEN blew up the filibuster to get Gorsuch seated.

THEN he pushed Kavanaugh through BEFORE the 2018 election..because I guess elections weren't an important part of seating SCOTUS Justices any more...

 

[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

TWO of the last THREE first term Presidents were elected while losing the popular vote. Both Republicans.

Do you dispute that moron?

Look kid
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

And just NOW it's "bad".

Dude...how many first term Presidents in this Century lost the popular vote and won the election.

That's right two out if three...both Republicans...accounting for FOUR Supreme Court seats out of nine.

And even THERE Mitch McConnell went brazenly nakedly partisan and held the Scalia seat open for as full year (claiming that elections should effect those seats and hoping to get a Republican elected in 2016) and THEN blew up the filibuster to get Gorsuch seated.

THEN he pushed Kavanaugh through BEFORE the 2018 election..because I guess elections weren't an important part of seating SCOTUS Justices any more...

Sorry kid, it was just fine until Bitchlary lost. Pubs 20 years. Dems 20 years. Your "feelings" aside, it has always worked.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

Actually the Democrats and Republicans both had record turnouts for the midterms. So where was this gerrymandering you speak of? And you mean to tell me Democrats don't redistrict?

 

[Lesh]

Actually the Democrats and Republicans both had record turnouts for the midterms. So where was this gerrymandering you speak of

Dems won 40 seats because their turnout was HUGE...

Had there been no gerrymandering they would have won about 60.

When turnout is the same...Republicans win by a wide margin

 

[Lesh]

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

TWO of the last THREE first term Presidents were elected while losing the popular vote. Both Republicans.

Do you dispute that moron?

Look kid
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

And just NOW it's "bad".

Dude...how many first term Presidents in this Century lost the popular vote and won the election.

That's right two out if three...both Republicans...accounting for FOUR Supreme Court seats out of nine.

And even THERE Mitch McConnell went brazenly nakedly partisan and held the Scalia seat open for as full year (claiming that elections should effect those seats and hoping to get a Republican elected in 2016) and THEN blew up the filibuster to get Gorsuch seated.

THEN he pushed Kavanaugh through BEFORE the 2018 election..because I guess elections weren't an important part of seating SCOTUS Justices any more...

Sorry kid, it was just fine until Bitchlary lost. Pubs 20 years. Dems 20 years. Your "feelings" aside, it has always worked.

Awww...you so want to be relevant...but as usual...you're not

 

[Ambivalent1]

Actually the Democrats and Republicans both had record turnouts for the midterms. So where was this gerrymandering you speak of

Dems won 40 seats because their turnout was HUGE...

Had there been no gerrymandering they would have won about 60.

When turnout is the same...Republicans win by a wide margin

Do Dems gerrymander?

 

[Ambivalent1]

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

TWO of the last THREE first term Presidents were elected while losing the popular vote. Both Republicans.

Do you dispute that moron?

Look kid
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

And just NOW it's "bad".

Dude...how many first term Presidents in this Century lost the popular vote and won the election.

That's right two out if three...both Republicans...accounting for FOUR Supreme Court seats out of nine.

And even THERE Mitch McConnell went brazenly nakedly partisan and held the Scalia seat open for as full year (claiming that elections should effect those seats and hoping to get a Republican elected in 2016) and THEN blew up the filibuster to get Gorsuch seated.

THEN he pushed Kavanaugh through BEFORE the 2018 election..because I guess elections weren't an important part of seating SCOTUS Justices any more...

Sorry kid, it was just fine until Bitchlary lost. Pubs 20 years. Dems 20 years. Your "feelings" aside, it has always worked.

Awww...you so want to be relevant...but as usual...you're not

Projection. You are storming around screaming for all to hear that the EC is unjust and unfair. A I've shown, it isn't. It levels the playing field. It keeps you from telling me what I must do.

 

[Lesh]

Democrats have abandoned white, working class voters.

Bullshit...there's plenty of white working class voters in states like New York and California and Maryland and PA.

YOUR party abandoned them...making their vote worthless.

And your tax cuts slammed em pretty good

 

[Lesh]

Do Dems gerrymander?

You fuckers have it down to a brazen science.

But yea...let's do away with all of it. I'm sure you'd give that lip service until it actually came to a bill or Court ruling...because you WANT that one party minority rule you have now

 

[dblack]

Democrats have abandoned white, working class voters.

Bullshit...there's plenty of white working class voters in states like New York and California and Maryland and PA.

YOUR party abandoned them...making their vote worthless.

My party???

edit: (also - PA went to Trump).

 

[Meister]

Actually the Democrats and Republicans both had record turnouts for the midterms. So where was this gerrymandering you speak of

Dems won 40 seats because their turnout was HUGE...

Had there been no gerrymandering they would have won about 60.

When turnout is the same...Republicans win by a wide margin

Do Dems gerrymander?

There never is a problem with gerrymandering as long as a democrat is governor

Did you get the memo?

 

[Ambivalent1]

Do Dems gerrymander?

You fuckers have it down to a brazen science.

But yea...let's do away with all of it. I'm sure you'd give that lip service until it actually came to a bill or Court ruling...because you WANT that one party minority rule you have now

Now you're just losing it.
The EC works.

 

[Ambivalent1]

Do Dems gerrymander?

You fuckers have it down to a brazen science.

But yea...let's do away with all of it. I'm sure you'd give that lip service until it actually came to a bill or Court ruling...because you WANT that one party minority rule you have now

You hate Conservatives don't you?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Actually the Democrats and Republicans both had record turnouts for the midterms. So where was this gerrymandering you speak of

Dems won 40 seats because their turnout was HUGE...

Had there been no gerrymandering they would have won about 60.

When turnout is the same...Republicans win by a wide margin

Across the board, Democrats had 4 million more voters than Republicans, so there is no way it would have resulted in 60 seats. Both parties were energized, it's just that Democrats had a better turnout.

 

[Lesh]

I've looked at the numbers. Dems had to outvote Republicans by a million or more just to stay even. That's how well they have gerrymandered.