Elizabeth Warren: 'End Electoral College'

[U2Edge]

Again, the whole thing of having a state locked up is a temporary feature of current political dynamics which won't last Forever. In 1964 almost all states went Democrat and voted Johnson. 8 years later they voted for Republicans and Nixon.

A third party can break into the system, but it has to be strong enough to replace one of the two parties dominating the system at the current time. Perot was not going to be President no matter what system was used. The Republican Party was not around before 1854, yet it successfully won and became one of the major two parties.

And we've had Duopoly virtually ever since. Which was not the case before 1854 (or in this case we should say 1860).

It's not "temporary" at all; it's a permanent fixture until it gets fixed. Your allusions to 1964 and 1972 just affirm that.

So does this:

ah, yes, good one. I wonder when the last time Tennessee went Blue.

Exactly. Tennessee is going red no matter what any individual voter does so they might as well stay home and bake cookies. That's why our election turnout is dozens of points behind the civilised world. Because for most people, what's the point?

Let's face it, the only way for a third party to make an incursion on the system is to siphon off enough Duopoly votes so that nobody gets a majority in the EC, which then throws the whole election to the House of Reps who can do whatever they want. In other words the only way a 3P can have a chance of winning is to negate the entire election itself. And that's because under the WTA system 100% of a state's vote is going to whoever gets the most even if the most is 33.4%. That's tantamount to telling 3P voters to stay home.

Again, the electoral college is not at fault for the current political dynamics in the country or the alleged duopoly. Any third party could break into the system just as the Republican party did in the 1850s. It just has to have enough support to replace one of the two dominate political parties.

"Alleged" Duopoly??

When's the last time we had a POTUS who was not a Democrat or Republican?

Save your Wiki click, it was Whig Zachary Taylor in 1848 ---- before the Duopoly existed. The Republican Party was years in the future and the Democrat Taylor defeated, van Buren, had himself organized that party just 15 years prior (and the Whigs were the same age).

The Republican Party was not a "third" party; it was another party in a time when multiple parties existed and two major ones --- Whigs and Know Nothings --- were taking their last gasps because neither one would address the elephant in the room of the era -- Slavery.

Duopoly means a closed system. It runs everything right down to the Presidential debates, and it's not about to allow any third party in on its racket. And the WTA/EC perpetuates that racket and ensures that we never get out of it.

As I said -- there's no argument to defend that.

The 1850s can occur again, so there is no hard Duopoly. Lots people like the current two parties, even more so today, but things change, and the electoral college won't stop things from changing. Teddy Roosevelt came close to unseating the two parties with his progressive run in 1912. He certainly sent Taft and the Republicans down into the gutter.

It's very much a "hard" Duopoly, I like the term. Again, the last non-Republican non-Democrat POTUS arrived 171 years ago at a time when both major parties were approximately fifteen years old. Today the major parties are 165, so they've had eleven times as much time to entrench Want to start a third party that gets enough attention to compete? Sure. All you have to do is deconstruct the monstrous two-headed system that runs the joint now, and rotsa ruck getting that Duopoly to let you into any debates, because they literally run it.

Which reminds of a quote by Al Gore's relative Gore Vidal:

"As far as a third party, we tried that in 1972, the People's Party. Unfortunately we hadn't remembered that in order to have a third party, you must first have two other parties". --- which just underscores that this entrenched Duopoly is not something I just discovered.


TR in 1912 siphoned off enough votes to come in second and push the Republican to third, which is the last time any 3P even achieved that much, but he was (a) a former POTUS well-known and (b) had come to the Republican convention with most of the primary delegates, so that was essentially the party deciding to go the corporate route and nix the progressive one, which cost them the election and enabled Wilson to take office with his 41% of the PV. But when Wilson left office, the next Republican challenger Harding won with the then-largest landslide ever, and barely had to campaign at all. So if the Duopoly was challenged by that, it sure shook it off with a quickness.

Just to put that in perspective.

I think if women had been allowed to vote, Teddy Roosevelt would have won in 1912. So again, the two dominate parties are not invincible. But, to the Republican and Democratic party's benefit, both have changed over time to survive and win. Most people can find something their looking for in either of the two party's.

In any event, the electoral college is not going away. There is not nearly enough support to amend the constitution on this issue. The other way of doing it with the NPVIC would get a lot closer to achieving the goal but is unlikely to ever get to 270. Even if it did get to 270, eventually several of the states would overturn the measure and return to awarding their electoral votes to the winner of the state popular vote.

Things will change over time. Which states are important will change over time. 100 years from now people will be fleeing the big coastal states for the interior due to global warming causing sea level rise. I think the electoral college will stay in place though.

 

[U2Edge]

I'd much rather the states that are signing on to the popular vote compact just changed the way they award delegates to actually reflect how people in the state voted. ie no winner take all.

You could have a system where the winner of the popular vote gets the 2 electoral votes representing each senator. The other popular votes would be awarded based on who won in each congressional district. Of course, given the controversy over re-districting that happens do to the population changes, that might not be very popular either.

Trump would have still beat Hillary in that scenario.

Maybe, I have not given it a close look.

Trump won 30 states and the Republicans won the House, 241-194.

Well, that would be assuming that every House district that voted for a Republican Representative also voted for Trump. I don't know if that is indeed the case, it might be.

 

[Pogo]

And we've had Duopoly virtually ever since. Which was not the case before 1854 (or in this case we should say 1860).

It's not "temporary" at all; it's a permanent fixture until it gets fixed. Your allusions to 1964 and 1972 just affirm that.

So does this:
Exactly. Tennessee is going red no matter what any individual voter does so they might as well stay home and bake cookies. That's why our election turnout is dozens of points behind the civilised world. Because for most people, what's the point?

Let's face it, the only way for a third party to make an incursion on the system is to siphon off enough Duopoly votes so that nobody gets a majority in the EC, which then throws the whole election to the House of Reps who can do whatever they want. In other words the only way a 3P can have a chance of winning is to negate the entire election itself. And that's because under the WTA system 100% of a state's vote is going to whoever gets the most even if the most is 33.4%. That's tantamount to telling 3P voters to stay home.

Again, the electoral college is not at fault for the current political dynamics in the country or the alleged duopoly. Any third party could break into the system just as the Republican party did in the 1850s. It just has to have enough support to replace one of the two dominate political parties.

"Alleged" Duopoly??

When's the last time we had a POTUS who was not a Democrat or Republican?

Save your Wiki click, it was Whig Zachary Taylor in 1848 ---- before the Duopoly existed. The Republican Party was years in the future and the Democrat Taylor defeated, van Buren, had himself organized that party just 15 years prior (and the Whigs were the same age).

The Republican Party was not a "third" party; it was another party in a time when multiple parties existed and two major ones --- Whigs and Know Nothings --- were taking their last gasps because neither one would address the elephant in the room of the era -- Slavery.

Duopoly means a closed system. It runs everything right down to the Presidential debates, and it's not about to allow any third party in on its racket. And the WTA/EC perpetuates that racket and ensures that we never get out of it.

As I said -- there's no argument to defend that.

The 1850s can occur again, so there is no hard Duopoly. Lots people like the current two parties, even more so today, but things change, and the electoral college won't stop things from changing. Teddy Roosevelt came close to unseating the two parties with his progressive run in 1912. He certainly sent Taft and the Republicans down into the gutter.

It's very much a "hard" Duopoly, I like the term. Again, the last non-Republican non-Democrat POTUS arrived 171 years ago at a time when both major parties were approximately fifteen years old. Today the major parties are 165, so they've had eleven times as much time to entrench Want to start a third party that gets enough attention to compete? Sure. All you have to do is deconstruct the monstrous two-headed system that runs the joint now, and rotsa ruck getting that Duopoly to let you into any debates, because they literally run it.

Which reminds of a quote by Al Gore's relative Gore Vidal:

"As far as a third party, we tried that in 1972, the People's Party. Unfortunately we hadn't remembered that in order to have a third party, you must first have two other parties". --- which just underscores that this entrenched Duopoly is not something I just discovered.


TR in 1912 siphoned off enough votes to come in second and push the Republican to third, which is the last time any 3P even achieved that much, but he was (a) a former POTUS well-known and (b) had come to the Republican convention with most of the primary delegates, so that was essentially the party deciding to go the corporate route and nix the progressive one, which cost them the election and enabled Wilson to take office with his 41% of the PV. But when Wilson left office, the next Republican challenger Harding won with the then-largest landslide ever, and barely had to campaign at all. So if the Duopoly was challenged by that, it sure shook it off with a quickness.

Just to put that in perspective.

I think if women had been allowed to vote, Teddy Roosevelt would have won in 1912. So again, the two dominate parties are not invincible. But, to the Republican and Democratic party's benefit, both have changed over time to survive and win. Most people can find something their looking for in either of the two party's.

In any event, the electoral college is not going away. There is not nearly enough support to amend the constitution on this issue. The other way of doing it with the NPVIC would get a lot closer to achieving the goal but is unlikely to ever get to 270. Even if it did get to 270, eventually several of the states would overturn the measure and return to awarding their electoral votes to the winner of the state popular vote.

Why would they do that? Especially after that state had already debated and passed the measure?

What would be the incentive? Under the NPV literally everybody's vote would account for something, even if they lived in Utah their vote would at least be counted in the PV, ergo they would have an influence they do not now have. Reverting to a WTA after teasing voters with actual relevance would be hugely unpopular. How do you make a case to your state saying "yeah you know how we gave your vote meaning a few years back? Cancel that out, your vote is going back to the scrap heap". Don't think that would sell real well.

 

[Ame®icano]

Right now, the "small voice" carries more weight than it should. I want it to be equal. No one's vote should count more than anyone elses.

With pure popular vote Rural America would lose every presidential election... fact

We are a nation of states . Not rural vs city. Every state has both .

That is the reason for the electoral college, So Rural America Is represented in the executive branch.

With a pure popular vote, It is impossible for rural America to be representatived by the Executive branch of the government… the numbers just aren’t there.
Over 80% of the nations population is in urban America... The founders knew this to be true that is the reason why the electoral college was implemented, this is a republic not a shit eating democracy.

Quit Falling down the well...

Except the EC IS population based .

Do you choose your govenor via an electoral college?

BINGO. These klowns who want to babble the Doublethinkian "mob rule" are strangely silent on why gubernatorial elections are not "mob rule", why Senator elections are not "mob rule", why House elections are not "mob rule", why city council elections are not "mob rule", why elections for sheriff and clerk of court and dogcatcher are not "mob rule". If their position were viable at the very LEAST all states should have a state electoral college where each county sends electors. Zero do that. Same thing, works just fine.

Are we talking about gubernatorial, or presidential elections?

States are free to set their own election rules, where majority elects governor, so you're right, it is a mob rule. Election of senators too, since 17th amendment was ratified, where states lost their key constitutional protection. And yes, IMO states too should have electoral college, to avoid situations where NY City, or Cook county control politics of the entire state.

 

[Ame®icano]

Our beloved orange suprem leader said this about the electoral college:

Conversation Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy. 8:45 PM · Nov 6, 2012 · Twitter Web Client

Do you stupid trumpanzees know better than your leader?

"But TTTTRRRRRUUUUMMMMPPPPP!!!!!"

The battle cry of all utterly lost and ignorant arguments.

Trump said the electoral college is a disaster...do you know better than him ?

Nope, he said "electoral college is a disaster for democracy".

Are we democracy, or republic?

 

[Ame®icano]

Right now, the "small voice" carries more weight than it should. I want it to be equal. No one's vote should count more than anyone elses.

But that's not what this is about. This is about changing the rules until Democrats can win every election.

Here is a history of changes Democrats have suggested or had done in the past years.

* Get rid of punchcard ballots and go to electronic voting.
* Get rid of Diebold machines and replace them with another brand.
* Votes counted in exit polls (after John Kerry's loss) should be the decider of President.
* Illegals be allowed to vote.
* Prisoners be allowed to vote.
* Ex cons be allowed to vote.
* Children be allowed to vote.
* People with no identification be allowed to vote.

Do you see a pattern here? If you're honest with yourself, every suggestion was to try and favor the Democrat candidate.

Yeah I see a pattern. I take it this is your entry for the "Can You Top This" list of fabrications.

And not a bad piece of work in that vein if I may say. Keep it going though. The key to good comedy is to stretch it beyond the absurd, and then keep on going.

Nothing is fabricated. Democrats at one time or another proposed those things. As for the change over of voting machines, that was all by the Democrats and their constant whining about losing elections.

Oh I know about Diebold and Wally the CEO pledging to do whatever needed to be done to ensure Bush got elected. That's a no-brainer although nobody needs to be a "Democrat" to get that. Not even Wally.

What I don't know about is anyone anywhere ever advocating children, illegals, exit polls or electronic voting. If you could, you know, go ahead and try to link any of that, that'd be great.

You must not watch the news that much.

Who would benefit from it most?

 

[Pogo]

With pure popular vote Rural America would lose every presidential election... fact

We are a nation of states . Not rural vs city. Every state has both .

That is the reason for the electoral college, So Rural America Is represented in the executive branch.

With a pure popular vote, It is impossible for rural America to be representatived by the Executive branch of the government… the numbers just aren’t there.
Over 80% of the nations population is in urban America... The founders knew this to be true that is the reason why the electoral college was implemented, this is a republic not a shit eating democracy.

Quit Falling down the well...

Except the EC IS population based .

Do you choose your govenor via an electoral college?

BINGO. These klowns who want to babble the Doublethinkian "mob rule" are strangely silent on why gubernatorial elections are not "mob rule", why Senator elections are not "mob rule", why House elections are not "mob rule", why city council elections are not "mob rule", why elections for sheriff and clerk of court and dogcatcher are not "mob rule". If their position were viable at the very LEAST all states should have a state electoral college where each county sends electors. Zero do that. Same thing, works just fine.

Are we talking about gubernatorial, or presidential elections?

States are free to set their own election rules, where majority elects governor, so you're right, it is a mob rule. Election of senators too, since 17th amendment was ratified, where states lost their key constitutional protection. And yes, IMO states too should have electoral college, to avoid situations where NY City, or Cook county control politics of the entire state.

Well gosh Wally lemme think -- since we're talking about the Electoral College which only exists every four years to elect a POTUS, chances are we're talking about that. Ya think?

As to the state thingy --- if your Doublethinkian "mob rule" is really a thing, how come the number of states who have adopted that model for their own head of state is still Zero?

 

[Ame®icano]

Well there seems to be the drumbeat of that again...

Getting rid of electoral college means rural America might as well not even vote, They would lose every single election.

States like California or Florida Texas and New York would dominate everything in this country…

There is a reason why they call this a republic not a shit eating democracy...

One person. One vote.

Right?

WRONG!
We are a representative republic and when it comes to the election of the chief executive, it's "one state, number of electors."

Sorry, pal. You’re on the wrong side of another issue. Your GOP pals agree with me....except just after they’ve won an election while losing the popular vote.

You RW nutbags are very predictable.

Was the goal to win the popular or electoral vote?

 

[Ame®icano]

2019-1992=27

How did you get 31?

Simple "school teacher with a masters degree." I was referring to the four years earlier (if you read) when the last time was these states DID vote red! Neither state has voted red since Reagan's second term! And we know Ca only voted for him then because he had been a popular governor and proactive actor there. Further proof why public school kids are in the fucking dumper these days. And despite the fact that a large part of Ca is still red and most of NYS, SanFran democrats and NYC dems have so over run their states, these people no longer have any voice in their state elections! I know---- I know many who live there.

You should learn to write, dumbass!

You said 1992. If you meant 1988 you should have said so. What a fucking moron!

HEY JACKASS. I DID SAY SO. LEARN TO FUCKING READ. THEN SHUT THE HELL UP, PINHEAD. I'LL SAY IT AGAIN THAT EVEN A DOLT LIKE YOU WILL GET IT:

Lessee: California and New York have voted Blue since 1992. That is 31 years since they elected a republican.

Wrong. NY voted blue in ‘88.

You're right. My aged eyes deceived me on the tiny maps I was using, but look at the history of California voting red! Not so any more. Same for New York. Thank you for the catch.

View attachment 251347

Interesting... turning blue right after amnesty and new wave of flooding illegals...

 

[U2Edge]

Again, the electoral college is not at fault for the current political dynamics in the country or the alleged duopoly. Any third party could break into the system just as the Republican party did in the 1850s. It just has to have enough support to replace one of the two dominate political parties.

"Alleged" Duopoly??

When's the last time we had a POTUS who was not a Democrat or Republican?

Save your Wiki click, it was Whig Zachary Taylor in 1848 ---- before the Duopoly existed. The Republican Party was years in the future and the Democrat Taylor defeated, van Buren, had himself organized that party just 15 years prior (and the Whigs were the same age).

The Republican Party was not a "third" party; it was another party in a time when multiple parties existed and two major ones --- Whigs and Know Nothings --- were taking their last gasps because neither one would address the elephant in the room of the era -- Slavery.

Duopoly means a closed system. It runs everything right down to the Presidential debates, and it's not about to allow any third party in on its racket. And the WTA/EC perpetuates that racket and ensures that we never get out of it.

As I said -- there's no argument to defend that.

The 1850s can occur again, so there is no hard Duopoly. Lots people like the current two parties, even more so today, but things change, and the electoral college won't stop things from changing. Teddy Roosevelt came close to unseating the two parties with his progressive run in 1912. He certainly sent Taft and the Republicans down into the gutter.

It's very much a "hard" Duopoly, I like the term. Again, the last non-Republican non-Democrat POTUS arrived 171 years ago at a time when both major parties were approximately fifteen years old. Today the major parties are 165, so they've had eleven times as much time to entrench Want to start a third party that gets enough attention to compete? Sure. All you have to do is deconstruct the monstrous two-headed system that runs the joint now, and rotsa ruck getting that Duopoly to let you into any debates, because they literally run it.

Which reminds of a quote by Al Gore's relative Gore Vidal:

"As far as a third party, we tried that in 1972, the People's Party. Unfortunately we hadn't remembered that in order to have a third party, you must first have two other parties". --- which just underscores that this entrenched Duopoly is not something I just discovered.


TR in 1912 siphoned off enough votes to come in second and push the Republican to third, which is the last time any 3P even achieved that much, but he was (a) a former POTUS well-known and (b) had come to the Republican convention with most of the primary delegates, so that was essentially the party deciding to go the corporate route and nix the progressive one, which cost them the election and enabled Wilson to take office with his 41% of the PV. But when Wilson left office, the next Republican challenger Harding won with the then-largest landslide ever, and barely had to campaign at all. So if the Duopoly was challenged by that, it sure shook it off with a quickness.

Just to put that in perspective.

I think if women had been allowed to vote, Teddy Roosevelt would have won in 1912. So again, the two dominate parties are not invincible. But, to the Republican and Democratic party's benefit, both have changed over time to survive and win. Most people can find something their looking for in either of the two party's.

In any event, the electoral college is not going away. There is not nearly enough support to amend the constitution on this issue. The other way of doing it with the NPVIC would get a lot closer to achieving the goal but is unlikely to ever get to 270. Even if it did get to 270, eventually several of the states would overturn the measure and return to awarding their electoral votes to the winner of the state popular vote.

Why would they do that? Especially after that state had already debated and passed the measure?

What would be the incentive? Under the NPV literally everybody's vote would account for something, even if they lived in Utah their vote would at least be counted in the PV, ergo they would have an influence they do not now have. Reverting to a WTA after teasing voters with actual relevance would be hugely unpopular. How do you make a case to your state saying "yeah you know how we gave your vote meaning a few years back? Cancel that out, your vote is going back to the scrap heap". Don't think that would sell real well.

Well, State A votes for the NPV. Then State A heavily supports a candidate that fails to win the national popular vote, but wins the state vote by a large margin. People get angry that their states electoral votes did not go to the candidate that a vast majority of people in the state supported. They protest and succeed in getting the state to go back to the old system of awarding the states EVs to the winner of the state popular vote. People will vote for and support the system that best supports the candidate they like. That's why NPVIC even if it gets to 270 will not last.

 

[Ame®icano]

It takes just 13 states to stop the amendment necessary to eliminate the EC and replace it with something else. If you cannot name 13 states that will never vote for such a thing let me know and I'll do your thinking for your.

How do you plan to do to convince these states to vote for the repeal?
If you don't have a plan, why do you waste your time whining and crying about something you know you can do noting to change?

Firstly, "repealing the EC" is not at all the only approach to address the disparity. However in the event of such an Amendment to do just that, the argument for said 13 states would be exactly the same argument as in the other 44 --- that the current system already disenfranchises half that state's voters and in the case of any so-called 'red' or 'blue' state, makes the entire election day process pointless.

Every voting system disenfranchises all the voters in the losing group.

EC at least protects the votes and interests of the smaller states.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Well there seems to be the drumbeat of that again...

Getting rid of electoral college means rural America might as well not even vote, They would lose every single election.

States like California or Florida Texas and New York would dominate everything in this country…

There is a reason why they call this a republic not a shit eating democracy...

One person. One vote.

Right?

WRONG!
We are a representative republic and when it comes to the election of the chief executive, it's "one state, number of electors."

Sorry, pal. You’re on the wrong side of another issue. Your GOP pals agree with me....except just after they’ve won an election while losing the popular vote.

You RW nutbags are very predictable.

Was the goal to win the popular or electoral vote?

Both. Moron.

But that’s not the point. The point is that you fuckers are cool with winning elections when you get fewer votes. Otherwise, you favor ending the electoral college. Get it?

 

[LoneLaugher]

It takes just 13 states to stop the amendment necessary to eliminate the EC and replace it with something else. If you cannot name 13 states that will never vote for such a thing let me know and I'll do your thinking for your.

How do you plan to do to convince these states to vote for the repeal?
If you don't have a plan, why do you waste your time whining and crying about something you know you can do noting to change?

Firstly, "repealing the EC" is not at all the only approach to address the disparity. However in the event of such an Amendment to do just that, the argument for said 13 states would be exactly the same argument as in the other 44 --- that the current system already disenfranchises half that state's voters and in the case of any so-called 'red' or 'blue' state, makes the entire election day process pointless.

Every voting system disenfranchises all the voters in the losing group.

EC at least protects the votes and interests of the smaller states.

Outdated.

 

[Lesh]

How the interest of "states" more important than the interest of voters?

 

[U2Edge]

How the interest of "states" more important than the interest of voters?

Because smaller states have voters that would not be taken as seriously in national popular vote system ever again.

 

[Ame®icano]

Are you familiar with the concept of swing states?
Presidential candidates only care about swing states, largely because of electoral college.
Take care of electoral college, and everybody in the USA will get to pick the president, not just those who live in swing states. This much I know is true, is it not?

Wow, I'm so glad you shared your "wisdom" with me. Too bad it was neither wise nor required.

Everyone ALREADY picks the President, you short-sighted, illogical twerp. The fact that some states vary, or "swing", between following one party or another doesn't mean that the states which solidly follow one party aren't still having an effect on the election. Cripes, how do you manage to walk and breathe at the same time?

"Take care of" the Electoral College, and it will be those non-swing stateS that pick the President, and everyone else can just go fuck themselves. This much IS true, whatever it is you think you "know".

Everybody has varying voting power to pick the president depending on where they live. Electoral college is affirmative action for rural america. Wyoming resident has 43 times the voting power than California resident. Voting for president in a solid blue or solid red state is like farting in the wind; presidential candidates dont put much effort into those solid states because thats not what will win them the election. Efforts into purple states is required under the electoral college system.

Indeed, residents of a "red" state or a "blue" state have no reason to vote at all. It's already predetermined for them.

Which also means it's impossible to assess how many of that 45% who didn't bother to vote last round (which was a typical showing) WOULD bother to show up if they knew their vote actually meant something.

When you win the 45% is never mentioned.

That makes no sense at all.

45% of eligible voters not bothering to show up is an embarrassment in any nation with a direct vote.

Imagine embarrassment, 14th congressional district of New York, with population of nearly 700,000, where out of 353,000 voters, only 141,000 shows up in general election. And if you look at primaries, Cortez got 57% of total 27,000 votes. Basically, New York 14th district got new representative with only 5% of its voting base.

 

[Wyatt earp]

How the interest of "states" more important than the interest of voters?

Some voters go back home to mommy's house (College kids living out of state)

 

[Pogo]

Wow, I'm so glad you shared your "wisdom" with me. Too bad it was neither wise nor required.

Everyone ALREADY picks the President, you short-sighted, illogical twerp. The fact that some states vary, or "swing", between following one party or another doesn't mean that the states which solidly follow one party aren't still having an effect on the election. Cripes, how do you manage to walk and breathe at the same time?

"Take care of" the Electoral College, and it will be those non-swing stateS that pick the President, and everyone else can just go fuck themselves. This much IS true, whatever it is you think you "know".

Everybody has varying voting power to pick the president depending on where they live. Electoral college is affirmative action for rural america. Wyoming resident has 43 times the voting power than California resident. Voting for president in a solid blue or solid red state is like farting in the wind; presidential candidates dont put much effort into those solid states because thats not what will win them the election. Efforts into purple states is required under the electoral college system.

Indeed, residents of a "red" state or a "blue" state have no reason to vote at all. It's already predetermined for them.

Which also means it's impossible to assess how many of that 45% who didn't bother to vote last round (which was a typical showing) WOULD bother to show up if they knew their vote actually meant something.

When you win the 45% is never mentioned.

That makes no sense at all.

45% of eligible voters not bothering to show up is an embarrassment in any nation with a direct vote.

Imagine embarrassment, 14th congressional district of New York, with population of nearly 700,000, where out of 353,000 voters, only 141,000 shows up in general election. And if you look at primaries, Cortez got 57% of total 27,000 votes. Basically, New York 14th district got new representative with only 5% of its voting base.

You're amplifying my point for me. What "color" is New York under the bogus WTA/EC system?

There you go. For New Yorkers there's no reason to show up on election day for POTUS. It's predetermined for them. Doesn't matter if they agree with the state or disagree, there's fuck-all they can do about it.

 

[Ame®icano]

NO state votes for EITHER guy. It's never happened ever in history that a state votes unanimously for anybody. And yet, here's the Electrical College short-circuiting their own states' votes by claiming "wow it's amazing, literally everybody in our state voted for X". Which is a damn lie and disenfranchises everybody in that state who didn't vote for X.

Interesting.
Why don't states like CA and IL and NY award the electors by proportion of the popular vote in the state?

That would give Trump even bigger win, since he won in most congressional districs and would take extra two electors in most states. Demos would lose more EC votes in blue states that the Reps would in red states. No way Demos would ever agree to that.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How the interest of "states" more important than the interest of voters?

If you are a citizen of a smaller state with no EC, how is the popular vote in your interest?