Elizabeth Warren: 'End Electoral College'

[Synthaholic]

0vomit was, is, and forever will be a TREASONOUS RAT.

Another dumbass to add to my ignore list.

This site has gone way downhill. Sad!

 

[Pogo]

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).

PA also didn't show a majority of votes for anybody.

Along with Wisconsin... Michigan.... North Cackalackee.... AridZona.... Florida.... even Utah. Every one of 'em sent 100% of their EVs to a klown who couldn't score 50% of their state. Somebody say "tyranny of the minority"?

And just like that --- back on topic. Thank me later.

So what? The EC votes went to the candidate that got the most votes. Who should they go to, the one with the least?

At the very least they should go proportionally. When you only pull 47% you don't deserve to call it "100".

If you're buying a house and the seller wants $100,000 do you hand him $47k and tell him the deal is done?

A unanimous vote in anything else means "absolutely, no doubt about it, we all agree on X". Obviously if a given state is so split that nobody is the choice of everybody or even a majority, it's dishonest to go to Congress and go "oh wow man, it's amazing, literally everybody in our state voted for X". That's absolute bullshit and it insults the voters of that state and tosses 53% of their votes directly into the crapper. The end result is that more people in that state could agree that their votes were tossed into the crapper than the number who agreed to vote for X.

Yes, it's called being a sore loser.

When you vote for your Governor, the people that cast their vote against him or her had their vote tossed out. That's the way contests work. This isn't a foot race or baseball where you have second best, third best and so forth. If you vote for a candidate and your candidate loses, then you lose too because the other people won.

Actually no, they go into a runoff. That's a way of ensuring nobody squeaks in without the consent of the governed.

Oooooops.

Meanwhile you didn't address the point. Again. You asked, "who should they go to", I answered with astute and detailed reasoning, and you have no response.

 

[Synthaholic]

Electoral College gave us Donald J Trump

Do we need any more proof it does not work?

Kept us from being saddled with Hillary...

Proof it DOES work

Will it still work in 2020 when Mich Penn Wicon that voted for the moron trump by a total of 72000 votes repeat?

probably

Think you're wrong A candidate like Biden won't be making mistakes in campaigning like Clinton did

what are you talking about?

your post was asking if the Electoral College would still work in 2020.

it probably will.

after 2016, I have little doubt whoever the candidate is will do more campaigning than Hillary did.

They couldn't do worse

It’s a stupid subject to argue about. It’s not getting changed anytime soon. Better to concentrate on voter registration and being ready to get people to the polls, whether it’s renting buses across the country, or Beyoncé holding a free concert in St. Louis for all who voted (I have ideas!).

Whatever it takes.

 

[Likkmee]

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

The US is a 100% fascist nation by Hitlers definition of fascism. Corporations own you and everything within your borders. All of your politicos are SELECTED, not elected.

 

[Auld Phart]

Kept us from being saddled with Hillary...

Proof it DOES work

Will it still work in 2020 when Mich Penn Wicon that voted for the moron trump by a total of 72000 votes repeat?

probably

Think you're wrong A candidate like Biden won't be making mistakes in campaigning like Clinton did

what are you talking about?

your post was asking if the Electoral College would still work in 2020.

it probably will.

after 2016, I have little doubt whoever the candidate is will do more campaigning than Hillary did.

They couldn't do worse

It’s a stupid subject to argue about. It’s not getting changed anytime soon. Better to concentrate on voter registration and being ready to get people to the polls, whether it’s renting buses across the country, or Beyoncé holding a free concert in St. Louis for all who voted (I have ideas!).

Whatever it takes.

I agree....

but, why tell me?

I'm not the one whining about getting rid of it.

 

[Synthaholic]

but, why tell me?

Because you’re one of the few “conservatives” on this site who can string a coherent sentence together?

 

[Pogo]

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

The US is a 100% fascist nation by Hitlers definition of fascism. Corporations own you and everything within your borders. All of your politicos are SELECTED, not elected.

In effect, yup. When the entire shitstem is controlled by a Duopoly in a position to limit the rabble to two choices, "Bad" and "Worse", and it's in turn held up by an EC system that ensures there'll be no challenge to that Duopoly, the end result is the voter is what's colloquially known as "fucked".

It's instructive to find out in a thread like this, who actually likes that position.

 

[bripat9643]

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).

PA also didn't show a majority of votes for anybody.

Along with Wisconsin... Michigan.... North Cackalackee.... AridZona.... Florida.... even Utah. Every one of 'em sent 100% of their EVs to a klown who couldn't score 50% of their state. Somebody say "tyranny of the minority"?

And just like that --- back on topic. Thank me later.

So what? The EC votes went to the candidate that got the most votes. Who should they go to, the one with the least?

At the very least they should go proportionally. When you only pull 47% you don't deserve to call it "100".

If you're buying a house and the seller wants $100,000 do you hand him $47k and tell him the deal is done?

A unanimous vote in anything else means "absolutely, no doubt about it, we all agree on X". Obviously if a given state is so split that nobody is the choice of everybody or even a majority, it's dishonest to go to Congress and go "oh wow man, it's amazing, literally everybody in our state voted for X". That's absolute bullshit and it insults the voters of that state and tosses 53% of their votes directly into the crapper. The end result is that more people in that state could agree that their votes were tossed into the crapper than the number who agreed to vote for X.

The United States was created by the states to be a federated republic of the states. It was never intended to be run by majority rule. The EC and the Senate were created to protect the rights of every state. That means not all decisions are based solely on population.

I know you leftwing dumbasses can't stand knowing that fact. That's why you insert your fingers into your ears whenever anyone tells it to you.

 

[Ambivalent1]

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).

PA also didn't show a majority of votes for anybody.

Along with Wisconsin... Michigan.... North Cackalackee.... AridZona.... Florida.... even Utah. Every one of 'em sent 100% of their EVs to a klown who couldn't score 50% of their state. Somebody say "tyranny of the minority"?

And just like that --- back on topic. Thank me later.

So what? The EC votes went to the candidate that got the most votes. Who should they go to, the one with the least?

At the very least they should go proportionally. When you only pull 47% you don't deserve to call it "100".

If you're buying a house and the seller wants $100,000 do you hand him $47k and tell him the deal is done?

A unanimous vote in anything else means "absolutely, no doubt about it, we all agree on X". Obviously if a given state is so split that nobody is the choice of everybody or even a majority, it's dishonest to go to Congress and go "oh wow man, it's amazing, literally everybody in our state voted for X". That's absolute bullshit and it insults the voters of that state and tosses 53% of their votes directly into the crapper. The end result is that more people in that state could agree that their votes were tossed into the crapper than the number who agreed to vote for X.

The United States was created by the states to be federated Republic of the states. It was never intended to be run by majority rule. The EC and the Senate were created to protect the rights of every state. That means not all decisions are based solely on population.

I know you leftwing dumbasses can't stand knowing that fact. That's why you insert your fingers into your ears whenever anyone tells it to you.

Careful, he'll bring up Madison again....

 

[bripat9643]

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

The US is a 100% fascist nation by Hitlers definition of fascism. Corporations own you and everything within your borders. All of your politicos are SELECTED, not elected.

In effect, yup. When the entire shitstem is controlled by a Duopoly in a position to limit the rabble to two choices, "Bad" and "Worse", and it's in turn held up by an EC system that ensures there'll be no challenge to that Duopoly, the end result is the voter is what's colloquially known as "fucked".

It's instructive to find out in a thread like this, who actually likes that position.

You're fucked by any system that gives other people control over your life. That's one of the fundamental flaws of democracy. More democracy doesn't make the problem go away.

 

[Pogo]

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).

PA also didn't show a majority of votes for anybody.

Along with Wisconsin... Michigan.... North Cackalackee.... AridZona.... Florida.... even Utah. Every one of 'em sent 100% of their EVs to a klown who couldn't score 50% of their state. Somebody say "tyranny of the minority"?

And just like that --- back on topic. Thank me later.

So what? The EC votes went to the candidate that got the most votes. Who should they go to, the one with the least?

At the very least they should go proportionally. When you only pull 47% you don't deserve to call it "100".

If you're buying a house and the seller wants $100,000 do you hand him $47k and tell him the deal is done?

A unanimous vote in anything else means "absolutely, no doubt about it, we all agree on X". Obviously if a given state is so split that nobody is the choice of everybody or even a majority, it's dishonest to go to Congress and go "oh wow man, it's amazing, literally everybody in our state voted for X". That's absolute bullshit and it insults the voters of that state and tosses 53% of their votes directly into the crapper. The end result is that more people in that state could agree that their votes were tossed into the crapper than the number who agreed to vote for X.

The United States was created by the states to be federated Republic of the states. It was never intended to be run by majority rule. The EC and the Senate were created to protect the rights of every state. That means not all decisions are based solely on population.

I know you leftwing dumbasses can't stand knowing that fact. That's why you insert your fingers into your ears whenever anyone tells it to you.

Didn't address the point at all, Fingerfuck.

Skeered?

 

[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.

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.

The only reason that there are currently "locked states" is because of the current political dynamics of the past two decades. That is not the fault of the electoral college. Prior to 1992 or at least 2000, every state was up for grabs. In 1964, nearly every state swung towards Johnson and the Democrats. 8 years later nearly every state swung towards Nixon and the Republicans.
The reason third party's have failed, is because none of them have been able to come anywhere close to the popularity of the Republican and Democratic Party's. That's not the fault of the electoral college either.

The electoral college also does not depress national voter turnout. Just look at California in the last election. A solid Blue state with record levels of people voting.

The electoral college was a compromise between the big states and the small states in order to form that union. Over 90% of the time, the popular vote winner is the winner of the electoral college. The system works and its not going to change, because most small states and medium sized states do not want to throw away their ability to impact the election. Given how much more urban the country is today, the smaller states are going to hold on to the electoral college now even more so than in the past.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Kept us from being saddled with Hillary...

Proof it DOES work

Will it still work in 2020 when Mich Penn Wicon that voted for the moron trump by a total of 72000 votes repeat?

probably

Think you're wrong A candidate like Biden won't be making mistakes in campaigning like Clinton did

what are you talking about?

your post was asking if the Electoral College would still work in 2020.

it probably will.

after 2016, I have little doubt whoever the candidate is will do more campaigning than Hillary did.

They couldn't do worse

It’s a stupid subject to argue about. It’s not getting changed anytime soon. Better to concentrate on voter registration and being ready to get people to the polls, whether it’s renting buses across the country, or Beyoncé holding a free concert in St. Louis for all who voted (I have ideas!).

Whatever it takes.

In other words drag people to the polls that are uninterested in voting and don't know crap about politics or policies. Yep, that's the Democrat way.

 

[U2Edge]

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)​

Most states will continue to award their electors based on the popular vote within the state, not the national popular vote. Most states do not want to give up the rights of their voters and their ability to impact the national election based on how the people in their state voted. Can you imagine what would happen if North Carolina gave their electors to the winner of the national popular vote when the majority of the people in the state voted for the other candidate?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

My party???

edit: (also - PA went to Trump).

PA also didn't show a majority of votes for anybody.

Along with Wisconsin... Michigan.... North Cackalackee.... AridZona.... Florida.... even Utah. Every one of 'em sent 100% of their EVs to a klown who couldn't score 50% of their state. Somebody say "tyranny of the minority"?

And just like that --- back on topic. Thank me later.

So what? The EC votes went to the candidate that got the most votes. Who should they go to, the one with the least?

At the very least they should go proportionally. When you only pull 47% you don't deserve to call it "100".

If you're buying a house and the seller wants $100,000 do you hand him $47k and tell him the deal is done?

A unanimous vote in anything else means "absolutely, no doubt about it, we all agree on X". Obviously if a given state is so split that nobody is the choice of everybody or even a majority, it's dishonest to go to Congress and go "oh wow man, it's amazing, literally everybody in our state voted for X". That's absolute bullshit and it insults the voters of that state and tosses 53% of their votes directly into the crapper. The end result is that more people in that state could agree that their votes were tossed into the crapper than the number who agreed to vote for X.

Yes, it's called being a sore loser.

When you vote for your Governor, the people that cast their vote against him or her had their vote tossed out. That's the way contests work. This isn't a foot race or baseball where you have second best, third best and so forth. If you vote for a candidate and your candidate loses, then you lose too because the other people won.

Actually no, they go into a runoff. That's a way of ensuring nobody squeaks in without the consent of the governed.

Oooooops.

Meanwhile you didn't address the point. Again. You asked, "who should they go to", I answered with astute and detailed reasoning, and you have no response.

Sure I had a response. The candidate with the most votes wins the state. It's that simple.

 

[Pogo]

PA also didn't show a majority of votes for anybody.

Along with Wisconsin... Michigan.... North Cackalackee.... AridZona.... Florida.... even Utah. Every one of 'em sent 100% of their EVs to a klown who couldn't score 50% of their state. Somebody say "tyranny of the minority"?

And just like that --- back on topic. Thank me later.

So what? The EC votes went to the candidate that got the most votes. Who should they go to, the one with the least?

At the very least they should go proportionally. When you only pull 47% you don't deserve to call it "100".

If you're buying a house and the seller wants $100,000 do you hand him $47k and tell him the deal is done?

A unanimous vote in anything else means "absolutely, no doubt about it, we all agree on X". Obviously if a given state is so split that nobody is the choice of everybody or even a majority, it's dishonest to go to Congress and go "oh wow man, it's amazing, literally everybody in our state voted for X". That's absolute bullshit and it insults the voters of that state and tosses 53% of their votes directly into the crapper. The end result is that more people in that state could agree that their votes were tossed into the crapper than the number who agreed to vote for X.

Yes, it's called being a sore loser.

When you vote for your Governor, the people that cast their vote against him or her had their vote tossed out. That's the way contests work. This isn't a foot race or baseball where you have second best, third best and so forth. If you vote for a candidate and your candidate loses, then you lose too because the other people won.

Actually no, they go into a runoff. That's a way of ensuring nobody squeaks in without the consent of the governed.

Oooooops.

Meanwhile you didn't address the point. Again. You asked, "who should they go to", I answered with astute and detailed reasoning, and you have no response.

Sure I had a response. The candidate with the most votes wins the state. It's that simple.

Once AGAIN --- you asked "who SHOULD". And I told you, and you have no counterargument.

Let us know when you buy that $100k house for $47k.

 

[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)​

Most states will continue to award their electors based on the popular vote within the state, not the national popular vote. Most states do not want to give up the rights of their voters and their ability to impact the national election based on how the people in their state voted. Can you imagine what would happen if North Carolina gave their electors to the winner of the national popular vote when the majority of the people in the state voted for the other candidate?

No, what?

State law is state law. HOW a state's electors vote is entirely up to that state, and the NPV would be another way to do that. As far as the Constitution is concerned the state could make that decision by throwing darts at candidates' pictures.

As it is now up to half (in 2016 MORE than half) of this state's voters already got disenfranchised, so how could it possibly be any worse?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So what? The EC votes went to the candidate that got the most votes. Who should they go to, the one with the least?

At the very least they should go proportionally. When you only pull 47% you don't deserve to call it "100".

If you're buying a house and the seller wants $100,000 do you hand him $47k and tell him the deal is done?

A unanimous vote in anything else means "absolutely, no doubt about it, we all agree on X". Obviously if a given state is so split that nobody is the choice of everybody or even a majority, it's dishonest to go to Congress and go "oh wow man, it's amazing, literally everybody in our state voted for X". That's absolute bullshit and it insults the voters of that state and tosses 53% of their votes directly into the crapper. The end result is that more people in that state could agree that their votes were tossed into the crapper than the number who agreed to vote for X.

Yes, it's called being a sore loser.

When you vote for your Governor, the people that cast their vote against him or her had their vote tossed out. That's the way contests work. This isn't a foot race or baseball where you have second best, third best and so forth. If you vote for a candidate and your candidate loses, then you lose too because the other people won.

Actually no, they go into a runoff. That's a way of ensuring nobody squeaks in without the consent of the governed.

Oooooops.

Meanwhile you didn't address the point. Again. You asked, "who should they go to", I answered with astute and detailed reasoning, and you have no response.

Sure I had a response. The candidate with the most votes wins the state. It's that simple.

Once AGAIN --- you asked "who SHOULD". And I told you, and you have no counterargument.

Let us know when you buy that $100k house for $47k.

If the 47K offer is the best offer, that's who gets the house.

 

[Pogo]

At the very least they should go proportionally. When you only pull 47% you don't deserve to call it "100".

If you're buying a house and the seller wants $100,000 do you hand him $47k and tell him the deal is done?

A unanimous vote in anything else means "absolutely, no doubt about it, we all agree on X". Obviously if a given state is so split that nobody is the choice of everybody or even a majority, it's dishonest to go to Congress and go "oh wow man, it's amazing, literally everybody in our state voted for X". That's absolute bullshit and it insults the voters of that state and tosses 53% of their votes directly into the crapper. The end result is that more people in that state could agree that their votes were tossed into the crapper than the number who agreed to vote for X.

Yes, it's called being a sore loser.

When you vote for your Governor, the people that cast their vote against him or her had their vote tossed out. That's the way contests work. This isn't a foot race or baseball where you have second best, third best and so forth. If you vote for a candidate and your candidate loses, then you lose too because the other people won.

Actually no, they go into a runoff. That's a way of ensuring nobody squeaks in without the consent of the governed.

Oooooops.

Meanwhile you didn't address the point. Again. You asked, "who should they go to", I answered with astute and detailed reasoning, and you have no response.

Sure I had a response. The candidate with the most votes wins the state. It's that simple.

Once AGAIN --- you asked "who SHOULD". And I told you, and you have no counterargument.

Let us know when you buy that $100k house for $47k.

If the 47K offer is the best offer, that's who gets the house.

If my price is 100, no it isn't.

Bad analogy perhaps. Your task is to make the case that when a state gives a candy 47% of its vote, its electors SHOULD go to Congress and lie through their teeth claiming 100%, thereby completely disenfranchising 53%.

aaaaaaaaand GO.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes, it's called being a sore loser.

When you vote for your Governor, the people that cast their vote against him or her had their vote tossed out. That's the way contests work. This isn't a foot race or baseball where you have second best, third best and so forth. If you vote for a candidate and your candidate loses, then you lose too because the other people won.

Actually no, they go into a runoff. That's a way of ensuring nobody squeaks in without the consent of the governed.

Oooooops.

Meanwhile you didn't address the point. Again. You asked, "who should they go to", I answered with astute and detailed reasoning, and you have no response.

Sure I had a response. The candidate with the most votes wins the state. It's that simple.

Once AGAIN --- you asked "who SHOULD". And I told you, and you have no counterargument.

Let us know when you buy that $100k house for $47k.

If the 47K offer is the best offer, that's who gets the house.

If my price is 100, no it isn't.

Bad analogy perhaps. Your task is to make the case that when a state gives a candy 47% of its vote, its electors SHOULD go to Congress and lie through their teeth claiming 100%, thereby completely disenfranchising 53%.

aaaaaaaaand GO.

What does Candy and Congress have to do with this?

Our presidential system is that states have electors that vote in proportion to the popular vote of that state. It can't be much fairer than that.