Elizabeth Warren: 'End Electoral College'

[Pogo]

"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.

No I don't think that's at all realistic.

Once you've given the voters relevance ---- regardless who some candidate was in whatever year ---- they're not going to be keen to give it up.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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?

And the only time we hear the left complaining about it is when they lose with the system we've had for centuries.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

The point is that you fuckers are cool with winning elections when you get fewer votes.

I'm cool with winning elections with the most electoral votes.

 

[Ame®icano]

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

That's where it gets interesting. They all cave in to WTA out of ..... wait for it..... "mob mentality". Which is ironic given the EC-clingers want to engage this Doublethinkian phrase "mob rule" yet where it actually applies is to their own status quo.

What you REALLY mean to say is the Democrats know they have to the full EV form each of those states to win, and therefore are more than happy to disenfranchise Republicans with WTA.

No, I mentioned nothing about political party interests. I mentioned voter interests. Know the difference.

I detailed the disenfranchised portion of four states. Two of those four voted for Rump.

Just out of curiosity, is having open borders voter interest, or political party interest?

 

[Ame®icano]

Once AGAIN you're ass-uming the remedy is a Constitutional Amendment to abolish the EC.

I don''t understand why yo don't understand that until the EC is replaced by amendment, it remains in place.

Just answered that. Read up ↑

No. You didn't. You prattled on about something unrelated.
To "end" the EC, there must be an amendment.

Only if you're taking the complaint literally. It's not necessary to "abolish" something altogether in order to correct a major flaw of it. It's not a perfect solution but it goes a long way while preserving the original motif.

What that "original motif", in your opinion, would be?

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

You must not read your posts that much. You said "children".
You also said "electronic voting", "illegals" and "exit polls".

You don't even get the children thing yet alone anything else. Yes, you are a child in this country until the age of 18. When you are 18, you are an adult in this country. Therefore anybody suggesting that kids 16 year olds should vote is saying they want children to vote.

Would they be eligible for selective services or draft at 16?

 

[Ame®icano]

Leftist [sic] only seek to change the rules when they can't win with playing by the rules.
This is actually good sign that points they don't believe they can win with electoral college.

Until the Democrats are willing to allocate the electors in the states of CA IL and NY by proportion to the votes in each, any argument they have here falls into the "we just want to to win!" file.

Once AGAIN ---- "Democrats" don't decide how electors are chosen. Nor do "Republicans". STATE LEGISLATURES decide that. That's right there in the Constitution.

You seem to have some kind of mental block. Why are you incessantly trying to morph this into a political party thing?

California State Assembly has 61 Democrats and 19 Republicans. How about New York, where they have 106 Democrats, 43 Republicans, and 1 Independent.

You claim that "state legislature" makes decision. Any decision, so let's take example, one of the latest laws passed by "state legislature"... Abortion bill.

It couldn't get passed for decades because Republicans had edge in New York Senate. Guess what, last election they lost that edge with 39(D) and 22(R) and 1(I), and passed the abortion bill with 38-24 in favor. New York house voted with 92-47 margin.

People of New York elected them, they can vote any ways they want. If they want one party rule, let them have it. That is what happens when Democrats have absolute power, they don't care about anything, they just ram it through. Just like they did abortion bill in NY, or CommieCare in Washington.

That is exact reason why EC is good for the smaller states, and generally for the whole country. You wan't to change that so you can rule the rest of us? Get the freaking Amendment!

 

[Ame®icano]

From the OP:

Former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton beat President Donald Trump by almost 3 million votes in the 2016 election by leading in strongly Democratic states. But Trump eventually won with the Electoral College’s help in swing states like Wisconsin and Michigan. Trump is the fifth United States president to have taken office without winning the national popular vote.

While left is demanding for elections to be decided by popular vote, their own primaries are decided by super delegates.

View attachment 251414


By the way, Bill Clinton did not win by popular vote in 1992 or 1996 neither.

"Primaries" are meaningless bread-and-circus designed to present the illusion of voter participation. In realty a political party is going to nominate whoever the fuck it wants to nominate, primaries be damned. The idea that any party is somehow "bound" by primary delegates is pure fantasy. One which they would love for us to buy.

So why primaries?

 

[Ame®icano]

Correct. To win popular vote, you need half of votes plus one.
Although Hillary had more votes than Trump, she did not win overall popular vote.

That depends on how the amendment that replaces the EC is written - if it specified a majority is necessary to win , then you're right; if they're stupid enough to specify "the most" votes, then they only need more than everyone else.

In the latter case, someone who took just over 10% of the vote could win, even though 90% of the people did not vote for him.

In that case, all you need to win, is to finance couple of third party or independent candidates that would take the votes from your strongest opponent. If Perot (who is Republican) didn't run in 1992, Clinton would not be President.

 

[Rustic]

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?

Fuck face, 2016 Presidential General Election Results

More people voted for the conservative/libertarian side....

 

[Ame®icano]

Clearly that's utter bullshit. When the EC was developed the largest electoral prize by far was Virginia, helped along by counting slaves as three-fifths of a person while granting those slaves zero-fifths of a vote.

Now take a look at the history that produced:

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


Find me any other time in history where one state dominated the Presidency over a twenty-year timeframe.

Matter o' fact no major political party candidate from Virginia has ever lost a Presidential election.

When you put it this way, one would think you do have a point. So, what's your point?

A thought crossed your mind? Must have been a long and lonely journey. Since there is no point.

In the first election Virginia wasn't the largest electoral prize, since they had 10 electoral votes, the same as Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. Sure, they became the biggest prize for few elections only...

Note that it's normal that home state usually give their votes to their candidate. Kinda, if you're Hillary, you wouldn't run for president from Arkansas, you'll rather run from New York.

George Washington did not have party affiliation. In first election he won with 69 electoral votes (needed 37). He did not become president because of Virginia electoral votes, he won because of what he did for the country. In second election he won with 132 electoral votes (needed 68). Was Virginia EC a factor to his win? Nope.

John Adams beat Thomas Jefferson (Virginia) in third election. Virginia had most electoral votes, and all but one went to Jefferson and he still didn't win. Damn EC, always in the way...

Fourth election, Jefferson won (73-65) with all electoral votes from his home state, while Adams got his home state, it was pretty much north vs. south. Was Virginia sole deciding factor? No, since Pennsylvania, Maryland and North Carolina split their votes.

Now, imagine how bad president Jefferson was in his first term that he solely depended on Virginia 24 votes to win his second term with total of 162-14.

The same goes for Madison, who won all of his home state of Virginia 24 votes that gave him presidency, regardless that he won with 122 EC votes, while needed only 88.

In Madison's second term, Virginia did NOT have most EC votes, they had the same (25) as Pennsylvania, and 4 less than New York (29). Was Virginia deciding factor here?

How about Monroe's first election, where he won with 183-34 margin over King. Damn, he couldn't have done it without Virginia. Oh, and second term he had only 229 out of 232 electoral voted. Damn Virginia for deciding winners and losers.

Pogo, I know... we all know that you, as leftist, will stop at nothing to askew the facts to support your argument, which is not an argument at all. It's just bunch of lies, insinuations, or to put it in the term you'll understand better... its load of crap. Save it for those who believe in what you say just because they're like you, leftists.

 

[Pogo]

Clearly that's utter bullshit. When the EC was developed the largest electoral prize by far was Virginia, helped along by counting slaves as three-fifths of a person while granting those slaves zero-fifths of a vote.

Now take a look at the history that produced:

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


Find me any other time in history where one state dominated the Presidency over a twenty-year timeframe.

Matter o' fact no major political party candidate from Virginia has ever lost a Presidential election.

When you put it this way, one would think you do have a point. So, what's your point?

A thought crossed your mind? Must have been a long and lonely journey. Since there is no point.

In the first election Virginia wasn't the largest electoral prize, since they had 10 electoral votes, the same as Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. Sure, they became the biggest prize for few elections only...

Note that it's normal that home state usually give their votes to their candidate. Kinda, if you're Hillary, you wouldn't run for president from Arkansas, you'll rather run from New York.

George Washington did not have party affiliation. In first election he won with 69 electoral votes (needed 37). He did not become president because of Virginia electoral votes, he won because of what he did for the country. In second election he won with 132 electoral votes (needed 68). Was Virginia EC a factor to his win? Nope.

John Adams beat Thomas Jefferson (Virginia) in third election. Virginia had most electoral votes, and all but one went to Jefferson and he still didn't win. Damn EC, always in the way...

Fourth election, Jefferson won (73-65) with all electoral votes from his home state, while Adams got his home state, it was pretty much north vs. south. Was Virginia sole deciding factor? No, since Pennsylvania, Maryland and North Carolina split their votes.

Now, imagine how bad president Jefferson was in his first term that he solely depended on Virginia 24 votes to win his second term with total of 162-14.

The same goes for Madison, who won all of his home state of Virginia 24 votes that gave him presidency, regardless that he won with 122 EC votes, while needed only 88.

In Madison's second term, Virginia did NOT have most EC votes, they had the same (25) as Pennsylvania, and 4 less than New York (29). Was Virginia deciding factor here?

How about Monroe's first election, where he won with 183-34 margin over King. Damn, he couldn't have done it without Virginia. Oh, and second term he had only 229 out of 232 electoral voted. Damn Virginia for deciding winners and losers.

Pogo, I know... we all know that you, as leftist, will stop at nothing to askew the facts to support your argument, which is not an argument at all. It's just bunch of lies, insinuations, or to put it in the term you'll understand better... its load of crap. Save it for those who believe in what you say just because they're like you, leftists.

You've actually put actual research into this and I appreciate that.

The original point though was not that Virginia dominated, but rather that the smaller states --- the Delawares, the Rhode Islandses etc ---- did not. In fact "small states" didn't even make an incursion with their own candidate until 1852 (Pierce, NH) and not again for another 140 years (Clinton, Arkansas) --- ironically, both Democrats. All of that was in response to the idea that the EC was designed "to prop up the smaller states".

 

[Ame®icano]

Just answered that. Read up ↑

No. You didn't. You prattled on about something unrelated.
To "end" the EC, there must be an amendment.

Only if you're taking the complaint literally. It's not necessary to "abolish" something altogether in order to correct a major flaw of it. It's not a perfect solution but it goes a long way while preserving the original motif.

It's not necessary to "abolish" something altogether in order to correct a major flaw of it.

Ending Hillary's political career is a feature, not a flaw.

Thank you for the periodic reminder of why you're on Ignore. Inability to address the topic.

Your claim that Hillary's loss was due to a "flaw" is fucking hilarious!!!

They don't see that she's the flaw.

 

[Ame®icano]

Eliminate the Electoral College and disenfranchise 5/8th of the nation's voters.

Sounds like the Democrats have finally come up with a way to win back the White House.

Why should a vote in Montana be worth more than a vote in Pennsylvania?

If we went to a popular vote, the needs of Montana would be completely ignored by populist demagogues who would only campaign in urban centers.

That's why.

You're welcome.

Correct.

He's deluded… Electoral college was created to give smaller states at least some amount of influence in order not be overrun and abused by the tyranny of the majority. The issue today that makes the president being elected seem unfair to perhaps the majority vote, is that the fed has grown so much in size and usurped states rights that the presidential election means far more. Solution to that would be way smaller fed and return to states rights.

And California need to address the unconstitutional abuse of the assholes in Sacramento.

Amazing you could post this with a straight face after the previous post shot it down in flames six minutes before yours went up.

"Shot it down" in your delusional mind only.

What exactly I said that was wrong?

 

[Ame®icano]

The Senate. The Electoral College. The First Amendment. The Second Amendment. The Supreme Court. Is there a part of our constitutional order that the Democrats have not pledged to destroy?

Once AGAIN this thread has nothing to do with "Democrats" or political parties.

What the fuck don't you GET about that?

You've been shown over and over that this thread has everything to with Democrats and their constant attempts to destroy the constitution, or to go around it, to get their way.

 

[U2Edge]

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.

No I don't think that's at all realistic.

Once you've given the voters relevance ---- regardless who some candidate was in whatever year ---- they're not going to be keen to give it up.

But that's what you fail to understand, its your perception of what relevance is, not whatever one else thinks is relevance. If you wind up with a situation where the old rules of the electoral college in terms of how states appoint their EV's favors the current Democratic party, then you can expect several of the states to drop the NPVIC and go with the old system. In addition, the political composition of any state can change over time. People are in politics to win, their perceptions of how relevant their vote is based on the electoral college vs national popular vote are far behind that.

I think in the coming years that the electoral college is going to favor Democrats more than it does now, and that will essentially kill the NPVIC movement.

Just look at the 11 largest states which add up to 270 electoral votes.

BLUE STATES - 154 electoral votes:
California
New York
Pennsylvania
Illinois
Michigan
New Jersey

SWING STATES - 47 electoral votes:
Florida
Ohio

RED STATES - 69 electoral votes:
Texas
Georgia
North Carolina

Pennsylvania and Michigan going red in 2016 was a fluke. The general trajectory of these states is still with the Blue. On the other hand, Florida and Texas risk going Blue in 2020 or 2024 due to demographic changes which see the Hispanic population growing both their immigration and the larger number of children born to Hispanic families. Because of these factors the NPVIC will lose momentum in the coming years. After several more elections with the national popular vote winner also winning the electoral college, people will forget what happened in 2016 and 2000.

 

[Pogo]

No. You didn't. You prattled on about something unrelated.
To "end" the EC, there must be an amendment.

Only if you're taking the complaint literally. It's not necessary to "abolish" something altogether in order to correct a major flaw of it. It's not a perfect solution but it goes a long way while preserving the original motif.

It's not necessary to "abolish" something altogether in order to correct a major flaw of it.

Ending Hillary's political career is a feature, not a flaw.

Thank you for the periodic reminder of why you're on Ignore. Inability to address the topic.

Your claim that Hillary's loss was due to a "flaw" is fucking hilarious!!!

They don't see that she's the flaw.

I made no such fucking point. Todd just pulled that out of his ass, that's why he's on Ignore. A dishonest hack.

 

[Pogo]

The Senate. The Electoral College. The First Amendment. The Second Amendment. The Supreme Court. Is there a part of our constitutional order that the Democrats have not pledged to destroy?

Once AGAIN this thread has nothing to do with "Democrats" or political parties.

What the fuck don't you GET about that?

You've been shown over and over that this thread has everything to with Democrats and their constant attempts to destroy the constitution, or to go around it, to get their way.

BULLSHIT. I don't traffic in Composition Fallacies first of all. This thread has been, at least in my posting, about how the EC works and what its glaring flaws are ----- which has ZERO to do with "Democrats" or any other political party. And now you're going down the same dishonest road, which tells me you're afraid to touch the topic, so you need to make it into something else.

I may never understand why binary-bots are so obsessed with "political parties" as if they're some kind of requirement and can't seem to count beyond the number "two". Just makes no goddam sense.

Same thing goes for this post above. I have yet to assign a political party advantage/disadvantage to ANY of my arguments here or in any other EC thread, yet here's another wag determined to inject in irrelevancies I never brought up. Again, it tells me that y'all Dichotomists can't deal with the argument on its own merits so you have to change it to something else. I don't play that.

 

[Meister]

A pure popular vote = mob rule

Stupid fucking Rabbit!

For the last month, I've struggled over the question of the Electoral Collage and its relevance today. I had to argue with myself about my long unwavering support of sustaining the EC based on 'Originality' grounds before my epiphany that the EC was part of the balancing compromise over representation for the lower populated white man dominated slave states.

The slave states are no longer holding slaves, and the 14th Amendment granted all former slaves citizenship...the first anchor babies for you knuckle dragging types...therefore that representation balancing of Article 1 is no longer needed and the EC has actually become moot for its intended purpose.

For the last 60 years I've held that the EC was original intent. But with the advent of 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments the demise of the Electoral Collage is long overdue. And with that, all the Gerrymandering shenanigan's pulled by the two major factions can be brought to a close!

With a pure popular vote rural America might as will not even vote... Because they would lose every single presidential election

With a pure popular vote rural America might as will not even vote... Because they would lose every single presidential election

Stupid fucking Rabbit!

Do you ever think before you start to type???? That was the same argument before the Virginia Compromise was struck in 1787, and why the "equalizing" 3/5ths rule was added to Article 1 but removed with the addition civil right amendments when the former slaves were freed and became US citizens ya fucking knob! We now have radio, TV, cell phones and the internet to say nothing about political parties! The Electoral College no longer has any real purpose to serve now!

Educate your dumb ass, fool!

The electoral college has more purpose now than it ever had before, It gives credence to every state, not just the most populated states rife with socialism.
You need to keep in mind that this nation was set up as a democratic republic, not a democracy....for good cause.

You talk like your someone's ex girlfriend, sweetheart. Sorry someone broke your heart, might want to move on to your next mark

 

[Desperado]

Anyone else notice that the electoral college was not a problem for over 200 years until the hildabeast lost