Elizabeth Warren: 'End Electoral College'

[U2Edge]

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

It was designed specifically so the smaller states WOULD have the advantage In the Senate. It balances out the fact that the Big States have the advantage in the HOUSE. That is where the impact is largest with the Senate. The impact on the electoral college is much smaller than the impact on the Senate.

The popular vote DOES equate VERY closely to the population. Over 90% of the time, the winner of the popular vote is the winner of the electoral college. Its only in very close elections where there is any chance that the winner of the popular vote does not win the electoral college.

The current political dynamics of the country are simply a moment in time that won't last forever. Its great that the some of the least populated states were finally able to decide a Presidential election. It does not usually happen that way, and the fact that it finally did after a while shows how the system is well balanced.

The electoral college is not at fault for their current type of partisanship seen in the country. This type of partisanship will not last indefinitely. The founders WANTED smaller states to have an equal vote in deciding Supreme Court justices. It was the only way the states would agree to the union and smaller states are not going to give up that power.

Again, the system was DESIGNED to give some power back to the smaller states. That's not a problem, it was designed that way so the country could EXIST!

In Pennsylvania, the courts changed the House districts prior to the 2018 election because they felt they had been unfairly drawn previously. That's part of the reason why Democrats did so well in Pennsylvania in the 2018 vote. It wasn't just the greater turnout.

The system has worked for over 200 years. Without it, the country would not even exist. Its about balance, and it creates that balance. Partisanship and the political dynamics of a certain time period may cause some to question the system, but it works. Sometimes smaller states and minority powers will have more power than people think they should. Sometimes they will not. That is what the founders wanted, and that is how it has been.

The United States is a pretty good country. Powerful and stable since the Civil War. Peaceful transitions of power. High standard of living. A place where many people around the world want to move to. The system works well.

 

[Pogo]

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.

So you have zero argument for morphing 47 into 100.

Guess that's settled then. Welcome aboard.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

So you have zero argument for morphing 47 into 100.

Guess that's settled then. Welcome aboard.

I have no idea where you get this 47 into a hundred thing or what it's supposed to mean. It's totally irrelevant and will remain that way in a presidential election. What is relevant is that the electors of a state cast their vote according to the majority of how the public voted. That's what's important.

 

[U2Edge]

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?

They were close elections in a deeply divided country. They were moments in time. Its great to see smaller states exercising their power. That is how the system was designed.

 

[Pogo]

The electoral college is not at fault for their current type of partisanship seen in the country. This type of partisanship will not last indefinitely. The founders WANTED smaller states to have an equal vote in deciding Supreme Court justices. It was the only way the states would agree to the union and smaller states are not going to give up that power.

Again, the system was DESIGNED to give some power back to the smaller states. That's not a problem, it was designed that way so the country could EXIST!

Think so huh?

Here's the result of the first 20 years of that system:

1. Washington - Virginia - two terms
2. Adams - Massachusetts - one term
3. Jefferson - Virginia - two terms
4. Madison - Virginia - two terms
5. Monroe - Virginia - two terms

See a pattern? You'll note that Virginia, THE largest and most populated state, runs the country for 16 of the first 20 years. If this is a system designed to assist the Rhode Islands and the New Jerseys and the Delawares get into play it seems to have failed miserably. And the fact that Virginia was also propped up by the Slave Power Compromise, it would seem that that "small state" mythology was not the intention at all.

The current political dynamics of the country are simply a moment in time that won't last forever. Its great that the some of the least populated states were finally able to decide a Presidential election. It does not usually happen that way, and the fact that it finally did after a while shows how the system is well balanced.

Nope. It was not the "least populated states that were finally able to decide" at all --- those states did what they always do. RATHER, it was the Wisonsins and Michigans and Pennsylvanias and Floridas, ALL of which as a whole voted for somebody other than who their electors cast 100% of their votes for.

And North Carolina was in that same bag --- I notice no response to post 1397.

 

[Ambivalent1]

The electoral college is not at fault for their current type of partisanship seen in the country. This type of partisanship will not last indefinitely. The founders WANTED smaller states to have an equal vote in deciding Supreme Court justices. It was the only way the states would agree to the union and smaller states are not going to give up that power.

Again, the system was DESIGNED to give some power back to the smaller states. That's not a problem, it was designed that way so the country could EXIST!

Think so huh?

Here's the result of the first 20 years of that system:

1. Washington - Virginia - two terms
2. Adams - Massachusetts - one term
3. Jefferson - Virginia - two terms
4. Madison - Virginia - two terms
5. Monroe - Virginia - two terms

See a pattern? You'll note that Virginia, THE largest and most populated state, runs the country for 16 of the first 20 years. If this is a system designed to assist the Rhode Islands and the New Jerseys and the Delawares get into play it seems to have failed miserably.

The current political dynamics of the country are simply a moment in time that won't last forever. Its great that the some of the least populated states were finally able to decide a Presidential election. It does not usually happen that way, and the fact that it finally did after a while shows how the system is well balanced.

Nope. It was not the "least populated states that were finally able to decide" at all --- those states did what they always do. RATHER, it was the Wisonsins and Michigans and Pennsylvanias and Floridas, ALL of which as a whole voted for somebody other than who their electors cast 100% of their votes for.

And North Carolina was in that same bag --- I notice no response to post 1397.

"
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"

Any questions?

 

[U2Edge]

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.

Bill Clinton never got 50% of the popular vote, but he was elected President twice. Do you consider that to be "tyranny of the minority"?

 

[Auld Phart]

The electoral college is not at fault for their current type of partisanship seen in the country. This type of partisanship will not last indefinitely. The founders WANTED smaller states to have an equal vote in deciding Supreme Court justices. It was the only way the states would agree to the union and smaller states are not going to give up that power.

Again, the system was DESIGNED to give some power back to the smaller states. That's not a problem, it was designed that way so the country could EXIST!

Think so huh?

Here's the result of the first 20 years of that system:

1. Washington - Virginia - two terms
2. Adams - Massachusetts - one term
3. Jefferson - Virginia - two terms
4. Madison - Virginia - two terms
5. Monroe - Virginia - two terms

See a pattern? You'll note that Virginia, THE largest and most populated state, runs the country for 16 of the first 20 years. If this is a system designed to assist the Rhode Islands and the New Jerseys and the Delawares get into play it seems to have failed miserably. And the fact that Virginia was also propped up by the Slave Power Compromise, it would seem that that was not the intention at all.

The current political dynamics of the country are simply a moment in time that won't last forever. Its great that the some of the least populated states were finally able to decide a Presidential election. It does not usually happen that way, and the fact that it finally did after a while shows how the system is well balanced.

Nope. It was not the "least populated states that were finally able to decide" at all --- those states did what they always do. RATHER, it was the Wisonsins and Michigans and Pennsylvanias and Floridas, ALL of which as a whole voted for somebody other than who their electors cast 100% of their votes for.

And North Carolina was in that same bag --- I notice no response to post 1397.

I'm a little confused here...

Did Virginia win the Presidency, or did Washington?

U. S. Electoral College: Historical Election Results 1789-1996

Election 1789
President George Washington [F]
Main Opponent John Adams [F]
Electoral Vote Winner: 69 Main Opponent: 34 Total/Majority: 69/35


Did Virginia have 69 EV?

 

[Pogo]

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.

So you have zero argument for morphing 47 into 100.

Guess that's settled then. Welcome aboard.

I have no idea where you get this 47 into a hundred thing or what it's supposed to mean. It's totally irrelevant and will remain that way in a presidential election. What is relevant is that the electors of a state cast their vote according to the majority of how the public voted. That's what's important.

That's taking for example the vote count of Michigan or Wisconsin, where Rump pulled a 47% showing, and yet their electors went to Congress and awarded him 100% of their votes.

You DO understand the difference between 47% of the people making a specific choice and 100% of the people choosing something, do you not?

 

[U2Edge]

The electoral college is not at fault for their current type of partisanship seen in the country. This type of partisanship will not last indefinitely. The founders WANTED smaller states to have an equal vote in deciding Supreme Court justices. It was the only way the states would agree to the union and smaller states are not going to give up that power.

Again, the system was DESIGNED to give some power back to the smaller states. That's not a problem, it was designed that way so the country could EXIST!

Think so huh?

Here's the result of the first 20 years of that system:

1. Washington - Virginia - two terms
2. Adams - Massachusetts - one term
3. Jefferson - Virginia - two terms
4. Madison - Virginia - two terms
5. Monroe - Virginia - two terms

See a pattern? You'll note that Virginia, THE largest and most populated state, runs the country for 16 of the first 20 years. If this is a system designed to assist the Rhode Islands and the New Jerseys and the Delawares get into play it seems to have failed miserably. And the fact that Virginia was also propped up by the Slave Power Compromise, it would seem that that "small state" mythology was not the intention at all.

The current political dynamics of the country are simply a moment in time that won't last forever. Its great that the some of the least populated states were finally able to decide a Presidential election. It does not usually happen that way, and the fact that it finally did after a while shows how the system is well balanced.

Nope. It was not the "least populated states that were finally able to decide" at all --- those states did what they always do. RATHER, it was the Wisonsins and Michigans and Pennsylvanias and Floridas, ALL of which as a whole voted for somebody other than who their electors cast 100% of their votes for.

And North Carolina was in that same bag --- I notice no response to post 1397.

You forget New Hampshire in the year 2000. If New Hampshire had gone for Al Gore, Al Gore would have been President.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Bill Clinton never got 50% of the popular vote, but he was elected President twice. Do you consider that to be "tyranny of the minority"?

I didn't employ that term but if you want it, have at it.

 

[Ambivalent1]

The electoral college is not at fault for their current type of partisanship seen in the country. This type of partisanship will not last indefinitely. The founders WANTED smaller states to have an equal vote in deciding Supreme Court justices. It was the only way the states would agree to the union and smaller states are not going to give up that power.

Again, the system was DESIGNED to give some power back to the smaller states. That's not a problem, it was designed that way so the country could EXIST!

Think so huh?

Here's the result of the first 20 years of that system:

1. Washington - Virginia - two terms
2. Adams - Massachusetts - one term
3. Jefferson - Virginia - two terms
4. Madison - Virginia - two terms
5. Monroe - Virginia - two terms

See a pattern? You'll note that Virginia, THE largest and most populated state, runs the country for 16 of the first 20 years. If this is a system designed to assist the Rhode Islands and the New Jerseys and the Delawares get into play it seems to have failed miserably. And the fact that Virginia was also propped up by the Slave Power Compromise, it would seem that that "small state" mythology was not the intention at all.

The current political dynamics of the country are simply a moment in time that won't last forever. Its great that the some of the least populated states were finally able to decide a Presidential election. It does not usually happen that way, and the fact that it finally did after a while shows how the system is well balanced.

Nope. It was not the "least populated states that were finally able to decide" at all --- those states did what they always do. RATHER, it was the Wisonsins and Michigans and Pennsylvanias and Floridas, ALL of which as a whole voted for somebody other than who their electors cast 100% of their votes for.

And North Carolina was in that same bag --- I notice no response to post 1397.

You forget New Hampshire in the year 2000. If New Hampshire had gone for Al Gore, Al Gore would have been President.

Let's not forget his own State....TN

 

[Auld Phart]

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.

So you have zero argument for morphing 47 into 100.

Guess that's settled then. Welcome aboard.

I have no idea where you get this 47 into a hundred thing or what it's supposed to mean. It's totally irrelevant and will remain that way in a presidential election. What is relevant is that the electors of a state cast their vote according to the majority of how the public voted. That's what's important.

That's taking for example the vote count of Michigan or Wisconsin, where Rump pulled a 47% showing, and yet their electors went to Congress and awarded him 100% of their votes.

You DO understand the difference between 47% of the people making a specific choice and 100% of the people choosing something, do you not?

That's taking for example the vote count of Michigan or Wisconsin, where Rump pulled a 47% showing, and yet their electors went to Congress and awarded him 100% of their votes.

What percent did Hillary pull?

 

[Pogo]

The electoral college is not at fault for their current type of partisanship seen in the country. This type of partisanship will not last indefinitely. The founders WANTED smaller states to have an equal vote in deciding Supreme Court justices. It was the only way the states would agree to the union and smaller states are not going to give up that power.

Again, the system was DESIGNED to give some power back to the smaller states. That's not a problem, it was designed that way so the country could EXIST!

Think so huh?

Here's the result of the first 20 years of that system:

1. Washington - Virginia - two terms
2. Adams - Massachusetts - one term
3. Jefferson - Virginia - two terms
4. Madison - Virginia - two terms
5. Monroe - Virginia - two terms

See a pattern? You'll note that Virginia, THE largest and most populated state, runs the country for 16 of the first 20 years. If this is a system designed to assist the Rhode Islands and the New Jerseys and the Delawares get into play it seems to have failed miserably. And the fact that Virginia was also propped up by the Slave Power Compromise, it would seem that that "small state" mythology was not the intention at all.

The current political dynamics of the country are simply a moment in time that won't last forever. Its great that the some of the least populated states were finally able to decide a Presidential election. It does not usually happen that way, and the fact that it finally did after a while shows how the system is well balanced.

Nope. It was not the "least populated states that were finally able to decide" at all --- those states did what they always do. RATHER, it was the Wisonsins and Michigans and Pennsylvanias and Floridas, ALL of which as a whole voted for somebody other than who their electors cast 100% of their votes for.

And North Carolina was in that same bag --- I notice no response to post 1397.

You forget New Hampshire in the year 2000. If New Hampshire had gone for Al Gore, Al Gore would have been President.

I "forget" nothing. "If only our team had scored 14 runs in the 9th we would have won the game". Irrelevant to the point.

Back TO the point, Wisconsin and Michigan and Pennsylvania and Florida and North Cackalackee are not by any measure "the least populated states". You're abandoning your own point to shift to another example sixteen years prior.

 

[Ambivalent1]

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.

So you have zero argument for morphing 47 into 100.

Guess that's settled then. Welcome aboard.

I have no idea where you get this 47 into a hundred thing or what it's supposed to mean. It's totally irrelevant and will remain that way in a presidential election. What is relevant is that the electors of a state cast their vote according to the majority of how the public voted. That's what's important.

That's taking for example the vote count of Michigan or Wisconsin, where Rump pulled a 47% showing, and yet their electors went to Congress and awarded him 100% of their votes.

You DO understand the difference between 47% of the people making a specific choice and 100% of the people choosing something, do you not?

That's taking for example the vote count of Michigan or Wisconsin, where Rump pulled a 47% showing, and yet their electors went to Congress and awarded him 100% of their votes.

What percent did Hillary pull?

Now you've done it, made him contradict himself

 

[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.

So you believe we should accept the opinion of Elizabeth Warren, the woman who lied about her ancestry for decades?

Having done the math it turns out that red states get MORE EC votes (per capita) than blue states. I have no doubt that if blue states had the same advantage conservatives would have already started that civil war they dream of.

The whole red state vs. blue state thing is temporary sing of the times. It didn't really exist prior to 2000, and it won't exist indefinitely into the future. The electoral college is not responsible for the current political dynamics and partisanship. Its a sign of the times and won't last forever.

 

[Pogo]

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.

So you have zero argument for morphing 47 into 100.

Guess that's settled then. Welcome aboard.

I have no idea where you get this 47 into a hundred thing or what it's supposed to mean. It's totally irrelevant and will remain that way in a presidential election. What is relevant is that the electors of a state cast their vote according to the majority of how the public voted. That's what's important.

That's taking for example the vote count of Michigan or Wisconsin, where Rump pulled a 47% showing, and yet their electors went to Congress and awarded him 100% of their votes.

You DO understand the difference between 47% of the people making a specific choice and 100% of the people choosing something, do you not?

That's taking for example the vote count of Michigan or Wisconsin, where Rump pulled a 47% showing, and yet their electors went to Congress and awarded him 100% of their votes.

What percent did Hillary pull?

Even less. Nice attempt to change the subject, you owe me a nickel for "b-but but Hillary". The point REMAINS, 47% of those states' votes (44 in Utah) got 100% of their EVs. There ain't no way around that disparity. Not even by crowing "b-but but Hillary".

There were in total 13 states (not counting ME/NE) that cast 100% of their EVs for a candidate (either one) who failed to achieve even 50% of that state's vote. Seven went to Rump for a total of 107 EVs, six went to Clinton for 47.

I didn't count Maine and Nebraska in that because those two (the only two) apportion their electors by Congressional district rather than the state vote as a whole. But in both of those cases they too awarded 100% of a district vote to a candy who couldn't score as much as 50%.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

So you have zero argument for morphing 47 into 100.

Guess that's settled then. Welcome aboard.

I have no idea where you get this 47 into a hundred thing or what it's supposed to mean. It's totally irrelevant and will remain that way in a presidential election. What is relevant is that the electors of a state cast their vote according to the majority of how the public voted. That's what's important.

That's taking for example the vote count of Michigan or Wisconsin, where Rump pulled a 47% showing, and yet their electors went to Congress and awarded him 100% of their votes.

You DO understand the difference between 47% of the people making a specific choice and 100% of the people choosing something, do you not?

It wouldn't matter if he pulled 30%. As long as he was the most popular he gets the votes.

 

[Auld Phart]

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.

So you have zero argument for morphing 47 into 100.

Guess that's settled then. Welcome aboard.

I have no idea where you get this 47 into a hundred thing or what it's supposed to mean. It's totally irrelevant and will remain that way in a presidential election. What is relevant is that the electors of a state cast their vote according to the majority of how the public voted. That's what's important.

That's taking for example the vote count of Michigan or Wisconsin, where Rump pulled a 47% showing, and yet their electors went to Congress and awarded him 100% of their votes.

You DO understand the difference between 47% of the people making a specific choice and 100% of the people choosing something, do you not?

That's taking for example the vote count of Michigan or Wisconsin, where Rump pulled a 47% showing, and yet their electors went to Congress and awarded him 100% of their votes.

What percent did Hillary pull?

Even less. Nice attempt to change the subject, you owe me a nickel for "b-but but Hillary". The point REMAINS, 47% of those states' votes (44 in Utah) got 100% of their EVs. There ain't no way around that disparity. Not even by crowing "b-but but Hillary".

NO

you are claiming Trump shouldn't have receive the EVs, because he only had 47% of the vote.

How many did his opponent get?

50%?

48%?

More?

Less?

 

[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.

So you believe we should accept the opinion of Elizabeth Warren, the woman who lied about her ancestry for decades?

Having done the math it turns out that red states get MORE EC votes (per capita) than blue states. I have no doubt that if blue states had the same advantage conservatives would have already started that civil war they dream of.

The whole red state vs. blue state thing is temporary sing of the times. It didn't really exist prior to 2000, and it won't exist indefinitely into the future. The electoral college is not responsible for the current political dynamics and partisanship. Its a sign of the times and won't last forever.

Holy shit, the density....

"Red" states and "blue" states, entirely bullshit artificial and divisive concepts, are completely a product of the WTA/EC. Without that system there's no such thing. There are only voters. That bullshit concept has been with us as long as WTA has. That's why James Madison, one of the architects of the Electoral College, wanted to ban that practice.