Elizabeth Warren: 'End Electoral College'

[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.

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.

So how do you feel about Bill Clinton's 43% win in 1992 and 49% win in 1996 in becoming President?

 

[Ambivalent1]

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".

So you're perfectly fine disenfranchising Trumps 46% with her 48%. How very consistent you are.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

Your "point" is irrelevant. Only morons who buy into the notion that there's something intrinsically moral about majority rule give a shit about your theory of democracy.

 

[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?

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

Once AGAIN your task was to make the case why it SHOULD work that way. "Should" was your term when you asked the question. I answered that question and gave my reasoning. All you have in response is "well that's the way it works", which is not an answer to "should".

I can only conclude that you CAN'T make that case, which is actually the correct answer. So just admit it.

 

[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.

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.

Both the year 2000 and year 2016 are apart of this discussion about the electoral college. You claimed no small states were able to decide an election recently. I just pointed out to you that was incorrect. If New Hampshire had voted for Al Gore, Al Gore would have been President in 2000. That's a fact. Small state had a huge impact on the turnout of the election. You claimed NO small states had any impact. That was wrong.

Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania may not be among the least populated states, but New Hampshire is among the least populated states.

 

[Pogo]

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?

NO. I made no such claim that Rump "shouldn't have receive [sic]" anything. I said that he got (in that case) 47% of the actual vote yet 100% of the Electoral. That's a fact, you could look it up.

The example I've often cited here and in past threads is that my state's 15 EVs could have been apportioned 8-7 (or 7-6-1-1), and that would not have disenfranchised over half the state's voters.

Prove me wrong.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Once AGAIN your task was to make the case why it SHOULD work that way. "Should" was your term when you asked the question. I answered that question and gave my reasoning. All you have in response is "well that's the way it works", which is not an answer to "should".

I can only conclude that you CAN'T make that case, which is actually the correct answer. So just admit it.

I think I made my case pretty clear. The electors cast their vote according to how the people collectively voted in the state. If Trump got 35% of the vote, and Hillary got 33%, and the rest of the votes were divided up among a few third parties, it's irrelevant. Trump still had the most votes out of anybody and therefore awarded the state.

 

[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.

Both the year 2000 and year 2016 are apart of this discussion about the electoral college. You claimed no small states were able to decide an election recently. I just pointed out to you that was incorrect. If New Hampshire had voted for Al Gore, Al Gore would have been President in 2000. That's a fact. Small state had a huge impact on the turnout of the election. You claimed NO small states had any impact. That was wrong.

Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania may not be among the least populated states, but New Hampshire is among the least populated states.

NO Sparkles, *you* claimed that the least populated stated "decided" 2016, and that was nowhere near accurate, and I told you exactly why it wasn't, with examples.

Roll tape.

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.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Once AGAIN your task was to make the case why it SHOULD work that way. "Should" was your term when you asked the question. I answered that question and gave my reasoning. All you have in response is "well that's the way it works", which is not an answer to "should".

I can only conclude that you CAN'T make that case, which is actually the correct answer. So just admit it.

I think I made my case pretty clear. The electors cast their vote according to how the people collectively voted in the state. If Trump got 35% of the vote, and Hillary got 33%, and the rest of the votes were divided up among a few third parties, it's irrelevant. Trump still had the most votes out of anybody and therefore awarded the state.

You're still avoiding the same question in the same way with different words.

 

[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.

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.

Yes it can happen, but over time it typically does not. A much better system than the popular vote system where candidates focus only on the concerns of big cities. That wouldn't be balanced. That is why the founders ultimately rejected it. The system has worked well for over 200 years and is not going to change.

 

[Auld Phart]

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?

NO. I made no such claim that Rump "shouldn't have receive [sic]" anything. I said that he got (in that case) 47% of the actual vote yet 100% of the Electoral. That's a fact, you could look it up.

The example I've often cited here and in past threads is that my state's 15 EVs could have been apportioned 8-7 (or 7-6-1-1), and that would not have disenfranchised over half the state's voters.

Prove me wrong.

isn't that up to the states?

or does it only matter if it's a slim margin

 

[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.

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.

Both the year 2000 and year 2016 are apart of this discussion about the electoral college. You claimed no small states were able to decide an election recently. I just pointed out to you that was incorrect. If New Hampshire had voted for Al Gore, Al Gore would have been President in 2000. That's a fact. Small state had a huge impact on the turnout of the election. You claimed NO small states had any impact. That was wrong.

Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania may not be among the least populated states, but New Hampshire is among the least populated states.

NO Sparkles, *you* claimed that the least populated stated "decided" 2016, and that was nowhere near accurate, and I told you exactly why it wasn't, with examples.

Roll tape.

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.

I didn't say 2016 name caller. Try again.

 

[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.

Yes it can happen, but over time it typically does not. A much better system than the popular vote system where candidates focus only on the concerns of big cities. That wouldn't be balanced. That is why the founders ultimately rejected it. The system has worked well for over 200 years and is not going to change.

Already debunked this fantasy in 1405. Look for the word "Virginia".

By the way "will never work" has never been cogent argument.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Once AGAIN your task was to make the case why it SHOULD work that way. "Should" was your term when you asked the question. I answered that question and gave my reasoning. All you have in response is "well that's the way it works", which is not an answer to "should".

I can only conclude that you CAN'T make that case, which is actually the correct answer. So just admit it.

I think I made my case pretty clear. The electors cast their vote according to how the people collectively voted in the state. If Trump got 35% of the vote, and Hillary got 33%, and the rest of the votes were divided up among a few third parties, it's irrelevant. Trump still had the most votes out of anybody and therefore awarded the state.

You're still avoiding the same question in the same way with different words.

No I am not. I'm pointing out to you how it works and should work.

If we started this nonsense of dividing electors, then it defeats the purpose of the EC. At that point, we might as well go to a national popular vote because that's what it would virtually be.

We don't want that.

 

[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.

So how do you feel about Bill Clinton's 43% win in 1992 and 49% win in 1996 in becoming President?

I've never been a fan of Bull Clinton so your tribalism tactic fails.

 

[U2Edge]

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 can challenge the dominance of the two parties, but it means being strong enough to replace one of the two parties at the top. The Republican party did not exist until the 1850s. But hey, if you think the system is that bad, move to Italy.

 

[U2Edge]

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.

So how do you feel about Bill Clinton's 43% win in 1992 and 49% win in 1996 in becoming President?

I've never been a fan of Bull Clinton so your tribalism tactic fails.

I never asked whether you were a fan of Bill Clinton. I'm asking about what you think about his becoming President despite not winning 50% of the vote?

 

[Pogo]

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?

NO. I made no such claim that Rump "shouldn't have receive [sic]" anything. I said that he got (in that case) 47% of the actual vote yet 100% of the Electoral. That's a fact, you could look it up.

The example I've often cited here and in past threads is that my state's 15 EVs could have been apportioned 8-7 (or 7-6-1-1), and that would not have disenfranchised over half the state's voters.

Prove me wrong.

isn't that up to the states?

or does it only matter if it's a slim margin

It is entirely up to each state ------ which means nobody is required to do it.

Once again the question was how the state's electors "should be" awarded. "That's the way it is" is not any kind of answer to that question.

 

[U2Edge]

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.

Wow, so under your system, a President has to get 100% of the vote. We'll never elect another President again.

 

[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.

Wow, so under your system, a President has to get 100% of the vote. We'll never elect another President again.

Yyyyyyeah sure, Sparky. That's what I said, isn't it.

You know you've lost the point when you have to invent a new argument that nobody made because you can't deal with the one on the table.