Elizabeth Warren: 'End Electoral College'

[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.

The Constitution has a purpose.
It's to keep fake Indians from stealing elections.

Doesn't seem to have worked then.

​

For an ironic twist ---- this President was endorsed by the Ku Klux Klan. That must have been before he did this photo.

Endorsed? So what, he renounced them.

Actually no he didn't. That's why the Klan endorsed him. Everybody else denounced them.

Let's put things in place. The president before Coolidge was Woodrow Wilson, Democrat. In his eight years he segregated federal civil service, demoted black federal officials, he promoted KKK, he screen first movie in the White House - The Birth Of The Nation, Klan membership counted in millions, lynching doubled.

Wilson was a racist asshole but he never "promoted KKK" or had anything to do with it, nor did he make that bogus quote that pops up. Klan membership did indeed reach the millions coast-to-coast although that had nothing to do with Wilson or Coolidge. Nor did lynching.

During Coolidge, Klan membership fell from millions to perhaps 10 thousands, he started debate about national anti-lynching laws, that was killed by another Democrat, FDR who traded lynching for votes on New Deal. Yet, in your twisted perspective, Coolidge was the racist one. What are you smoking?

Uh NO it didn't Sparkles, that was the Klan's heyday. That's when they had their march in DC and elected Republican Governors and Senators in Maine, Kansas, Colorado and Indiana as well as a lot of lower offices --- 1924, the same year Coolidge ran. KKK took a hit when Klan head D.C. Stephenson brutally raped a schoolteacher, but that too had nothing to do with Coolidge, Wilson or anybody else. It had to do with D.C. Stephenson.

NOR, asshole, did I ever imply Coolidge was a racist. Go learn how to READ. And when you've done that buy a goddam HISTORY BOOK. And change your name until you do, for you know *NOTHING* about this country.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I absolutely agree, because making it a holiday would bring more working people to the polls, and we all know how most working people vote. The ironic part of that is Democrats have suggested that in the past.

Well, no, we need people who are intelligent and rational. Just knowing a few things about politics doesn't make you a good voter. Just look at all the morons in this forum who live and breath politics.

I think taxpayers pay more attention to politics than those who are on the dole. After all, when you go out and create money that government confiscates, you are more concerned with how the money is spent.

People who don't work can go to the polls anytime. They have shorter lines if any line at all (depending on the type of election). Working people have a little tougher time, especially those who work 10 hours or more a day. Even if you can get to the polls, you are too exhausted and just want to have dinner and relax.

Don't normal places have early voting? We do here.

I can't remember the last time I had to wait for actual election day. Course, this is a tiny village and there wouldn't be a line anyway....

We have that here too, but what about the people who work 35 miles away from home? They leave very early for work; earlier than the polls open.

The only point I'm making is that I agree with Pat that it should be considered a holiday and everybody get off of work. Hell, we work the most hours in this country compared to other industrialized nations. We could use a few more holidays.

If government workers can get of Columbus day, MLK day, I think we can afford to take off election day.

I work WAY more than 35 miles from home and it doesn't slow me down. Again, that's the whole POINT of early voting, so you don't need to wear out your Tuesday. You go on another day.

There's no reason we can't do both -- have voting be a holiday (or simpler, just do it on a Saturday) AND have an early voting period for those who don't happen to be home on that Saturday or whenever it is.

A voting holiday would solve both problems and more. Especially up north where it does snow in November and makes things worse. I could always use more time off of work. In fact I suggested in other topics that Trump should pressure the US into four day work weeks. That way most of us get a three day weekend ever week. I'd be all for that.

 

[Pogo]

If you feel certain that he IS demanding a more powerful vote, then you are bad at logic.

Are you a man?

LOGIC


I can understand that a small state might not want to be forced to comply to the wishes and desires of a larger state.....

so why can't you understand that a larger state might not like it either?

(note i am not insulting you or mocking you.....Is there any possibility that you can do the same?)

We are not talking about forcing a small state to accept gay marriage or legalize pot. They can discriminate and destroy lives as they see fit. This is about one issue: the presidency.

The president of the WHOLE COUNTRY EQUALLY.

The presidency of ALL of the citizens equally.

NO state should carry extra weight.

Alabama shouldn't have more influence over who runs the country than New York does.

If 63 million Americans vote for....oh...I dunno.....let's say Hillary Clinton....

and 3 million LESS people vote for some other guy.....

the person with the most votes should win.

period.

Perfectly logical and fair.

What's logical is that the President gets to choose Supreme Court judges and now states are forced to accept gay marriage against their will. It's also logical that the President has power with what to do in a state such as an oil pipeline of perhaps where future nuclear waste gets buried. Or perhaps that a President can threaten your school by withdrawing financial aid if they don't allow weirdos in dresses to be in the bathroom or locker room with your daughter in school.

Where do you people get this idea that a smaller populated state has equal power to a large one? It takes nine of our lowest populated states to equal the population of New York city......ONE CITY. New York state has 29 electoral votes. Wyoming has 3.

What's logical is never believing or trusting any leftist, ESPECIALLY when they say, "Just give us what we want on this thing, and we PROMISE it won't interfere with what we're just SURE is important to you." Not only are they lying like the sacks of dog shit that they are, but they also have no fucking clue what matters to non-leftists, let alone why it matters.

What's better is they try to frame the debate as if it was not Trump's win that ruffled their feathers; it's about fairness to everybody.

Never heard any mention on the EC during the Obama or Clinton years. No problem, as long as we won, we don't care how.

If it's not the electoral college, it's gerrymandering. If it's not gerrymandering, it's voter ID. If it's not voter ID, it's purging the voter rolls. If it's not purging the voter roles, it's because of Russia. The list goes on and on.

One thing you will never hear the Democrats say, and that is "It's our fault we lost. The country doesn't like our ideas. We need to change our platform as a party, and stop with this insistence that everything is about race with the Republicans!"

Not really surprising. Leftists seem dependent to an alarming amount for their identity and self-esteem on the "moral superiority" they believe their political positions provide them. Under those circumstances, to admit that people just think their ideas and positions suck would be the same as admitting that people think THEY suck. They can't do that, so they have to make excuses why people "really love" them, and it was just somehow - probably unerhandedly - prevented from being obvious.

OK I gotta go to Lowe's and get a new Irony meter. The old sturdy one broke after seeing this one ↑ try to pin "moral superiority" on somebody else.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Mentioning the emoluments clause is the way you identify yourself as a brain dead moron.

Really. 'Cause only "brain-dead morons" read the Constitution?

Running a business has nothing to do with the emoluments clause, numskull. Stand over in the corner with the other brain dead morons.

You didn't even mention "running a business", Fingerfuck. You said anyone who mentions a specific part of the Constitution is, and I quote, a "brain dead moron".

 

[Markle]

<< ---- Edward B. Foley, Professor of Law at Ohio State University (Politico Magazine)

An opinion piece from a far, far left author, trying to sell books published on a far, far left website.

'Nuff said.

 

[Pogo]

<< ---- Edward B. Foley, Professor of Law at Ohio State University (Politico Magazine)

Opinion piece from the far, far left.

'Nuff said.

Translation:

​

​

Poisoning the Well Fallacy

Skeered, Wimp?

I've told you before ---- don't come in here unarmed.

 

[Markle]

What the fuck does that image even mean?

Doesn't matter ---- you don't "pass a bill" to eliminate the Electoral College. Ever had a civics class?

So...seemingly you know what all is involved it passing an Amendment to our Constitution. Why then are you wasting time and energy advocating such to void our Electoral College? Something which will never happen?

 

[Markle]

Actually no he didn't. That's why the Klan endorsed him. Everybody else denounced them.

Hmmmm...so what?

 

[Pogo]

Actually no he didn't. That's why the Klan endorsed him. Everybody else denounced them.

Hmmmm...so what?

Hmmm... so it started with a picture of Calvin Coolidge in a headdress, and I noted the ironic connection.

Hmmm... so go learn to read.

 

[Pogo]

What the fuck does that image even mean?

Doesn't matter ---- you don't "pass a bill" to eliminate the Electoral College. Ever had a civics class?

So...seemingly you know what all is involved it passing an Amendment to our Constitution. Why then are you wasting time and energy advocating such to void our Electoral College? Something which will never happen?

So... seemingly you've read nothing in this thread either.

I'll say this for the Cult of Ignorance --- it does at least save work. Reeding is harde.

 

[Pogo]

So JBond here's the Cliff's Notes of this long thread.

Ya got one clown pissing his pants over what URL is hosting my background link.... ya got a hookah smoking caterpillar who cowers in the corner scared shitless of reading anything I post.... and then ya got several dishonest hacks who constantly want to derail the thread into "political parties" and "your side lost" bullshit.

So while not reading the thread does cut out all the actual relevant parts peppered therein it's understandable why one wouldn't have big enough hip boots.

 

[bripat9643]

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

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

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

Your "reasoning" is based on the moronic notion that there's something intrinsically moral about majority rule. Once you ignore that idiocy, your argument falls apart.

Actually I spelled all that out in 1546. Ask your reading teacher to read it aloud to you. Then you can go argue with the Founders.

Oh and be sure to give 'em the finger. That'll be cute.

Wrong. That's just a lot of blather based on the premise that there's something intrinsically moral about majority rule. First, prove that premise. However, it's already been shown to be absurd.

No Fingerboi, it's a thorough examination of how we got to where we are, what the Founders' intentions on the EC were, and how it got perverted. You even get to blame Andy Jackson for kicking it off, but I doubt you read that far. Actually I seriously doubt you read it at all. It's over your head. Has nothing to do with "morals" either.

The EC is working just the way the Founding Fathers intended. I didn't read your entire post because I have a certain tolerance for bordom and you vastly exceeded it.

 

[bripat9643]

Correct.
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.

Mentioning the emoluments clause is the way you identify yourself as a brain dead moron.

Really. 'Cause only "brain-dead morons" read the Constitution?

Running a business has nothing to do with the emoluments clause, numskull. Stand over in the corner with the other brain dead morons.

You didn't even mention "running a business", Fingerfuck. You said anyone who mentions a specific part of the Constitution is, and I quote, a "brain dead moron".

The unstated premise was "in reference to Trump running his business," dumbfuck. Only a brain dead moron would have failed to get that.

 

[Pogo]

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

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

Your "reasoning" is based on the moronic notion that there's something intrinsically moral about majority rule. Once you ignore that idiocy, your argument falls apart.

Actually I spelled all that out in 1546. Ask your reading teacher to read it aloud to you. Then you can go argue with the Founders.

Oh and be sure to give 'em the finger. That'll be cute.

Wrong. That's just a lot of blather based on the premise that there's something intrinsically moral about majority rule. First, prove that premise. However, it's already been shown to be absurd.

No Fingerboi, it's a thorough examination of how we got to where we are, what the Founders' intentions on the EC were, and how it got perverted. You even get to blame Andy Jackson for kicking it off, but I doubt you read that far. Actually I seriously doubt you read it at all. It's over your head. Has nothing to do with "morals" either.

The EC is working just the way the Founding Fathers intended. I didn't read your entire post because I have a certain tolerance for bordom and you vastly exceeded it.

I already noted that. Because reeding is harde and shit.

And yet you plop out a hundred thousand posts of pure rhetorical diarrhea on all manner of topics you didn't bother to read up on. Because for cretins like you it's all about what feels good.

As the rest of us call it ----- "Tuesday".

 

[Ame®icano]

The WTA is the major problem with the EC. That's why I've constantly referred to "the system as practiced" and the "WTA/EC". WTA bears a heavy responsibility for depressing voter turnout, requiring voters to consult polls to determine whether it's worth going to vote at all, candidates ignoring "locked" states, most of those arguments I delineated. If my state's 15 electoral votes had been apportioned 8/7 (or 7/6/1/1) MOST of those issues would at least be significantly softened if not eliminated.

Alright. Well, I'm with you on that one. But most people I see attacking the EC are focusing on the fact that it gives voters from less populated states a greater "per-vote" voice. I'm fine with that - I think it's a good thing.

It doesn't. When you take away two EC senatorial votes that belong to state, "per-vote" average looks much closer.

So that means if you don't have a Constitutional Amendment to abolish the EC altogether, you'd have to have another one to ban WTA and prescribe guidelines for how the states can handle it. And that too is a major Constitutional tweak, just as much work as the first. So the third alternative --- not great but the best workaround we have so far ---- is the National Popular Vote Compact.

And I think that is worse than simply leaving it alone.

The biggest problem I have with most of the critics of EC is their unquestioned presumption that majority rule is a universal good. Democracy's primary benefit is that it accommodates more stable government. People are less likely to revolt if they feel like they've approved the current leadership. But that's about all I can say for it. Democracy doesn't guarantee justice. It doesn't guarantee good leadership. And it's a genuine threat to individual liberty. It only works if it's strictly, constitutionally limited in scope and reach.

He said National Popular Vote Compact is "the best workaround we have so far". Just that raise three questions.

1. The best for whom?
2. Who's "we"?
3. Why to change something that works?

I suspect, the answer for all three the question is the same. Democrats can't win playing by the rules, so they need alternative, anything that'll get them power. Anything.

Here is one alternative to look at. Pennsylvania Senate Bill 538 (from 2013). Read underlined on the second page.

 

[Rigby5]

I don't particularly like the idea of LA, NYC, and Miami controlling the country, but according to the fact, the electoral college makes little difference.

These are the only elections effected by the electoral college, in all US history.
{...
In 1824, John Quincy Adams was elected president despite not winning either the popular vote or the electoral vote. Andrew Jackson was the winner in both categories. Jackson received 38,000 more popular votes than Adams, and beat him in the electoral vote 99 to 84. Despite his victories, Jackson didn’t reach the majority 131 votes needed in the Electoral College to be declared president. In fact, neither candidate did. The decision went to the House of Representatives, which voted Adams into the White House.

In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes won the election (by a margin of one electoral vote), but he lost the popular vote by more than 250,000 ballots to Samuel J. Tilden.

In 1888, Benjamin Harrison received 233 electoral votes to Grover Cleveland’s 168, winning the presidency. But Harrison lost the popular vote by more than 90,000 votes.

In 2000, George W. Bush was declared the winner of the general election and became the 43rd president, but he didn’t win the popular vote either. Al Gore holds that distinction, garnering about 540,000 more votes than Bush. However, Bush won the electoral vote, 271 to 266.

In 2016, Donald Trump won the electoral vote by 304 to 227 over Hillary Clinton, but Trump lost the popular vote. Clinton received nearly 2.9 million more votes than Trump, according to an analysis by the Associated Press of the certified results in all 50 states and Washington, D.C.
...}

 

[dblack]

I don't particularly like the idea of LA, NYC, and Miami controlling the country, but according to the fact, the electoral college makes little difference.

These are the only elections effected by the electoral college, in all US history.
{...
In 1824, John Quincy Adams was elected president despite not winning either the popular vote or the electoral vote. Andrew Jackson was the winner in both categories. Jackson received 38,000 more popular votes than Adams, and beat him in the electoral vote 99 to 84. Despite his victories, Jackson didn’t reach the majority 131 votes needed in the Electoral College to be declared president. In fact, neither candidate did. The decision went to the House of Representatives, which voted Adams into the White House.

In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes won the election (by a margin of one electoral vote), but he lost the popular vote by more than 250,000 ballots to Samuel J. Tilden.

In 1888, Benjamin Harrison received 233 electoral votes to Grover Cleveland’s 168, winning the presidency. But Harrison lost the popular vote by more than 90,000 votes.

In 2000, George W. Bush was declared the winner of the general election and became the 43rd president, but he didn’t win the popular vote either. Al Gore holds that distinction, garnering about 540,000 more votes than Bush. However, Bush won the electoral vote, 271 to 266.

In 2016, Donald Trump won the electoral vote by 304 to 227 over Hillary Clinton, but Trump lost the popular vote. Clinton received nearly 2.9 million more votes than Trump, according to an analysis by the Associated Press of the certified results in all 50 states and Washington, D.C.
...}

Right. It only happens rarely. But it's an important safeguard. If either party decides they can dismiss the concerns of the "flyover states", they risk losing on the electoral count - especially when the divide is as clear-cut as it was in the last election. If the Democrats don't figure out a way to win back rural voters, they risk losing again, in the same way. And, near as I can tell, they aren't even trying.

 

[Pogo]

I don't particularly like the idea of LA, NYC, and Miami controlling the country, but according to the fact, the electoral college makes little difference.

These are the only elections effected by the electoral college, in all US history.
{...
In 1824, John Quincy Adams was elected president despite not winning either the popular vote or the electoral vote. Andrew Jackson was the winner in both categories. Jackson received 38,000 more popular votes than Adams, and beat him in the electoral vote 99 to 84. Despite his victories, Jackson didn’t reach the majority 131 votes needed in the Electoral College to be declared president. In fact, neither candidate did. The decision went to the House of Representatives, which voted Adams into the White House.

In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes won the election (by a margin of one electoral vote), but he lost the popular vote by more than 250,000 ballots to Samuel J. Tilden.

In 1888, Benjamin Harrison received 233 electoral votes to Grover Cleveland’s 168, winning the presidency. But Harrison lost the popular vote by more than 90,000 votes.

In 2000, George W. Bush was declared the winner of the general election and became the 43rd president, but he didn’t win the popular vote either. Al Gore holds that distinction, garnering about 540,000 more votes than Bush. However, Bush won the electoral vote, 271 to 266.

In 2016, Donald Trump won the electoral vote by 304 to 227 over Hillary Clinton, but Trump lost the popular vote. Clinton received nearly 2.9 million more votes than Trump, according to an analysis by the Associated Press of the certified results in all 50 states and Washington, D.C.
...}

You left out 1800 on that list, and it also depends on what you mean by "affected". Nixon 1968, Truman 1948, Wilson 1912, Cleveland 1892 and Lincoln 1860 all won elections where significant numbers of electors went to a third (or in 1860 third and fourth) party, if not for which presence of a a broader field siphoning off electoral votes, four of five could have gone differently; in fact the whole strategy of a 3P is, because it's the only strategy available, to siphon off enough D and R votes so as to throw the election into the House, bypassing the whole exercise of Election Day. Had half the South not rejected Thurmond, he would have succeeded*.

(*which may have been a preferable result; at least it might have spared us Truman)

And of course in the era of having an election day, 2016, 2000, 1996, 1992. 1968, 1948, 1916, 1912, 1892, 1888, 1884, 1880, 1876 (< five in a row), 1860,.1856, 1852, 1848 and 1844 (<another five in a row) all resulted in a POTUS who was not the choice of the popular vote, so we would have to say those were "affected" as well.

 

[Pogo]

The WTA is the major problem with the EC. That's why I've constantly referred to "the system as practiced" and the "WTA/EC". WTA bears a heavy responsibility for depressing voter turnout, requiring voters to consult polls to determine whether it's worth going to vote at all, candidates ignoring "locked" states, most of those arguments I delineated. If my state's 15 electoral votes had been apportioned 8/7 (or 7/6/1/1) MOST of those issues would at least be significantly softened if not eliminated.

Alright. Well, I'm with you on that one. But most people I see attacking the EC are focusing on the fact that it gives voters from less populated states a greater "per-vote" voice. I'm fine with that - I think it's a good thing.

It doesn't. When you take away two EC senatorial votes that belong to state, "per-vote" average looks much closer.

So that means if you don't have a Constitutional Amendment to abolish the EC altogether, you'd have to have another one to ban WTA and prescribe guidelines for how the states can handle it. And that too is a major Constitutional tweak, just as much work as the first. So the third alternative --- not great but the best workaround we have so far ---- is the National Popular Vote Compact.

And I think that is worse than simply leaving it alone.

The biggest problem I have with most of the critics of EC is their unquestioned presumption that majority rule is a universal good. Democracy's primary benefit is that it accommodates more stable government. People are less likely to revolt if they feel like they've approved the current leadership. But that's about all I can say for it. Democracy doesn't guarantee justice. It doesn't guarantee good leadership. And it's a genuine threat to individual liberty. It only works if it's strictly, constitutionally limited in scope and reach.

He said National Popular Vote Compact is "the best workaround we have so far". Just that raise three questions.

1. The best for whom?
2. Who's "we"?
3. Why to change something that works?

I suspect, the answer for all three the question is the same. Democrats can't win playing by the rules, so they need alternative, anything that'll get them power. Anything.

Here is one alternative to look at. Pennsylvania Senate Bill 538 (from 2013). Read underlined on the second page.

1. the best for "we";
2. "we" meaning "we the People";
3. there's no reason to do that, however there's more than ample reason to change what obviously doesn't.

 

[Cellblock2429]

I agree. I always thought america was a democracy...but when Bush Jr got elected we the citizens of the world were shocked. And that's when we found about the electoral college. It really gives the power to the crazy minority and that's why we have trump and his crazies....the US should join the democratic countries and abolish the EC.

/—-/ No Dummy, we are not a democracy. We are a Republic.