Elizabeth Warren: 'End Electoral College'

[my2¢]

He can't imagine why that wouldn't be okay.

At least we finally agree on something. You see the issue from an imaginary point of view while the basis I use is the U.S. Constitution.

 

[Markle]

The Left has never been "Liberals". Don't blame somebody else because you don't know what words mean.

Speaking of which "Progressives" exited the scene 100 years ago.

All synonyms today.

Democrat = Progressive = Liberal = Socialist = pushing toward Communism.

Why not just kick back and face the reality?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

If you don't like this country and it's constitution, you are always free to leave. Unlike shithole socalist regimes we don't need to force people to stay here.

And there are quite a few people we would happily wave goodbye to.

 

[Pogo]

The Left has never been "Liberals". Don't blame somebody else because you don't know what words mean.

Speaking of which "Progressives" exited the scene 100 years ago.

All synonyms today.

Democrat = Progressive = Liberal = Socialist = pushing toward Communism.

Why not just kick back and face the reality?

I guess it's the Path of Least Resistance in the Cult of Ignorance to fail to notice distinctions and just go "fuck it, they all look alike to me".

What a netherworld.

 

[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.

If you don't like this country and it's [sic] constitution, you are always free to leave. Unlike shithole socalist regimes we don't need to force people to stay here.

And there are quite a few people we would happily wave goodbye to.

He made no point.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I have come around on this issue. Two of the last four Presidents have won without winning the popular vote. Given that and the naked partisan ship that resulted in Four SCOTUS ( out of nine mind you) being chosen by Republicans means we have a problem.

I had previously worried that doing away with the EC would lead to a “tyranny of the majority”. Until I realized we NOW have a “tyranny of the MINORITY”
Time to do away with the EC

"Tyranny of the minority" is apt in several ways.

In 2016 just 55% of the eligible electorate showed up to vote (again largely kept down by the EC as practiced) --- and out of those who did vote, 45% voted for Rump. 45% of 55% means 25% of the electorate chose this guy.

Another angle: my list of states in post 941 totals IIRC 154 total Electoral Votes, out of which 107 went to Rump. ALL of those states' EVs were cast on the basis of a candidate, whichever one, who could not even win 50% of that state's votes.

Doesn't get much more minority than that.

That's one of the problems with voting not being compulsory, as is in Belgium or Australia. I wish it is, so we see the real outcome of the elections, plus give another reason to Democrats to whine how poor people are not able to get to polling places.

I disagree. I think "29% voted for this guy, 28% voted for that guy, and 43% didn't give enough of a fuck to bother voting" IS the real outcome of the elections, far more than that 43% showing up and pulling levers like a monkey because they had to.

 

[Pogo]

I have come around on this issue. Two of the last four Presidents have won without winning the popular vote. Given that and the naked partisan ship that resulted in Four SCOTUS ( out of nine mind you) being chosen by Republicans means we have a problem.

I had previously worried that doing away with the EC would lead to a “tyranny of the majority”. Until I realized we NOW have a “tyranny of the MINORITY”
Time to do away with the EC

"Tyranny of the minority" is apt in several ways.

In 2016 just 55% of the eligible electorate showed up to vote (again largely kept down by the EC as practiced) --- and out of those who did vote, 45% voted for Rump. 45% of 55% means 25% of the electorate chose this guy.

Another angle: my list of states in post 941 totals IIRC 154 total Electoral Votes, out of which 107 went to Rump. ALL of those states' EVs were cast on the basis of a candidate, whichever one, who could not even win 50% of that state's votes.

Doesn't get much more minority than that.

That's one of the problems with voting not being compulsory, as is in Belgium or Australia. I wish it is, so we see the real outcome of the elections, plus give another reason to Democrats to whine how poor people are not able to get to polling places.

I disagree. I think "29% voted for this guy, 28% voted for that guy, and 43% didn't give enough of a fuck to bother voting" IS the real outcome of the elections, far more than that 43% showing up and pulling levers like a monkey because they had to.

A great deal of that 43% (or whatever) that doesn't bother to vote doesn't bother because their state is predetermined by the bullshit concepts "red state"/"blue state" --- which is, again, directly the fault of (and indeed the creation of) the very system this thread is about. They figure, "what's the point?"

And their conclusion is correct. The vote was taken out of their hands before the polls even opened.

There's no way to defend that. As I'm sure you will now proceed to demonstrate with magical dancing crickets.

 

[Grumblenuts]

we are a Constitutional Federal Republic.

Correct.

A republic (Latin: res publica) is a form of government in which the country is considered a “public matter”, not the private concern or property of the rulers. The primary positions of power within a republic are not inherited, but are attained through democracy, oligarchy or autocracy. It is a form of government under which the head of state is not a monarch.

Having ruled out democracy, which do you then prefer, oligarchy or autocracy?

The former Soviet Union had a “Politburo.” So I think Democrats want rule by committee. Pelosi, Warren, Sanders, Harris, and Ocasio Chavez running the grand Republic into the fucking sewer.

Interesting. So "democracy" then, to your mind anyway, implies "Soviet Union" which then implies "Democrats" and "rule by committee." Methinks you prone to often sliding well off the rails of your own slippery slopes. Somehow you've managed to remain blissfully unaware that every President and political party (not to mention billionaire driven oligopoly) has thus far "ruled by committee" Meanwhile, you've utterly failed to address a very reasonable, unbiased question..

 

[Cecilie1200]

He can't imagine why that wouldn't be okay.

At least we finally agree on something. You see the issue from an imaginary point of view while the basis I use is the U.S. Constitution.

No, we're still not agreeing, because you're talking out of your ass and imagining that your TP is actually the Constitution.

 

[anynameyouwish]

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.

Blue states would if they had less population. The idea of the EC is to give less populated states some power to have a say as to who our President should be.

EQUAL power is fine. MORE power is not.

 

[anynameyouwish]

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.

Blue states would if they had less population. The idea of the EC is to give less populated states some power to have a say as to who our President should be.

Basically

YOU are saying....YOU deserve MORE voting power than me.

That YOUR vote should count MORE than mine.

And the fact that you think that is "fair" makes me wonder about you.....

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Blue states would if they had less population. The idea of the EC is to give less populated states some power to have a say as to who our President should be.

EQUAL power is fine. MORE power is not.

I take it we're back to "Individual votes are EVERYTHING, so the popular vote is HOLY!"

Smaller states don't have more power than larger ones do. They don't even have equal the power of larger states. What they DO have is enough power to defend themselves from being turned into voiceless, unrepresented slaves.

 

[Grumblenuts]

we are a Constitutional Federal Republic.

Correct.

A republic (Latin: res publica) is a form of government in which the country is considered a “public matter”, not the private concern or property of the rulers. The primary positions of power within a republic are not inherited, but are attained through democracy, oligarchy or autocracy. It is a form of government under which the head of state is not a monarch.

Having ruled out democracy, which do you then prefer, oligarchy or autocracy?

Trump's indifference to the emoluments clause well illustrates the inherent problems concomitant with autocratic republics. The Kochs driving us into another oil war with Venezuela just to supply their two crud refineries in the Gulf well indicate oligarchic republic failure. Best to stick with our good, old democratic republic minus the billionaires.

Notice "democratic republic".. Not Democrats. Not Republicans. Both. All members of both major Parties in fact. Two peas in a pod, only one simply can't exist without the other. So one big pea (or pee) in reality. Created, as the Founders completely intended, to ensure that wealthy, land owning capitalists would always run the show free of any genuine fettering from the masses of supportive asses gratuitously labeled The People. Nevertheless, the Founders had no way of knowing the disgusting degree to which the workers would be distanced from and by the owners.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Blue states would if they had less population. The idea of the EC is to give less populated states some power to have a say as to who our President should be.

Basically

YOU are saying....YOU deserve MORE voting power than me.

That YOUR vote should count MORE than mine.

And the fact that you think that is "fair" makes me wonder about you.....

I feel certain that he's NOT saying that, since he's not looking at the issue in the cockeyed, self-contradicting way you are.

 

[Ame®icano]

We’ve outgrown the EC.

Look at what we have now . A handful of swing states get all the attention while 80% of the country is basically ignored .

Lol
With pure popular vote Rural America would be completely ignored

Why should some hillbilly have more of a vote?

Why should some hillbilly have two Senators when he lives in a state with a fifth of California's population and they only get two Senators as well?

The Senate no longer represents the states after the 17th amendment was passed. They represent special interest groups and themselves. The 17th amendment removed the states check on the federal government they created in the first place.

what? The 17th allowed voters (not state legislators) to chose the Senators that represent them.

You post makes no sense

And that explains how little you know, and why people like you should refrain themselves from topics they know nothing about.

Whose interests are represented in Washington by Senators?

 

[Bush92]

we are a Constitutional Federal Republic.

Correct.

A republic (Latin: res publica) is a form of government in which the country is considered a “public matter”, not the private concern or property of the rulers. The primary positions of power within a republic are not inherited, but are attained through democracy, oligarchy or autocracy. It is a form of government under which the head of state is not a monarch.

Having ruled out democracy, which do you then prefer, oligarchy or autocracy?

The former Soviet Union had a “Politburo.” So I think Democrats want rule by committee. Pelosi, Warren, Sanders, Harris, and Ocasio Chavez running the grand Republic into the fucking sewer.

Interesting. So "democracy" then, to your mind anyway, implies "Soviet Union" which then implies "Democrats" and "rule by committee." Methinks you prone to often sliding well off the rails of your own slippery slopes. Somehow you've managed to remain blissfully unaware that every President and political party (not to mention billionaire driven oligopoly) has thus far "ruled by committee" Meanwhile, you've utterly failed to address a very reasonable, unbiased question..

Democratic Party is a threat to our Constitutional democratic Republic. Democrats helped Putin in his efforts to divide and weaken the United States. Job well done you miserable cocksuckers. The left wing extremists in this nation (Democrats) can’t win legitimately through a democratic process so they steal elections through “vote harvesting” and special counsel investigations to overturn a Constitutional, democratic, election. You fuckers make me sick. Hold everyone of you no good sonsabitches accountable. I don’t like the fact that Democrats attempt to take my vote for Donald Trump away from me. Most lowlife, underhanded, thing I have ever seen in politics and I spent over 20 years working for Democratic Party. It’s fucking sickening what they have done.

 

[anynameyouwish]

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.

Blue states would if they had less population. The idea of the EC is to give less populated states some power to have a say as to who our President should be.

EQUAL power is fine. MORE power is not.

I take it we're back to "Individual votes are EVERYTHING, so the popular vote is HOLY!"

Smaller states don't have more power than larger ones do. They don't even have equal the power of larger states. What they DO have is enough power to defend themselves from being turned into voiceless, unrepresented slaves.

silly me.....I thought we were a nation of PEOPLE. Thank you for informing me that we are really a nation of states!


One person, One vote, equal.

 

[anynameyouwish]

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.

Blue states would if they had less population. The idea of the EC is to give less populated states some power to have a say as to who our President should be.

Basically

YOU are saying....YOU deserve MORE voting power than me.

That YOUR vote should count MORE than mine.

And the fact that you think that is "fair" makes me wonder about you.....

I feel certain that he's NOT saying that, since he's not looking at the issue in the cockeyed, self-contradicting way you are.

If you feel certain he is NOT demanding a more powerful vote then you are bad at math.

are you a girl? (kidding)

 

[Lesh]

Whose interests are represented in Washington by Senators?

2 Wyoming Senators represent 450,000 people. 2 NY Senators represent 20 MILLION.

You're worried that states like Wyoming don't have ENOUGH representation?

I think the problem is that have a vastly oversize amount of representation

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Whose interests are represented in Washington by Senators?

2 Wyoming Senators represent 450,000 people. 2 NY Senators represent 20 MILLION.

You're worried that states like Wyoming don't have ENOUGH representation?

I think the problem is that have a vastly oversize amount of representation

2 Wyoming Senators represent 450,000 people. 2 NY Senators represent 20 MILLION.

It's weird, it's almost like that's what the Founders intended.