Elizabeth Warren: 'End Electoral College'

[Pogo]

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

That's basically the same proposal as I posted back in 1546. Strangely there was no comment when I did it.

Wonder why.

>> ... It is the states that have the power to restore the Electoral College to its original intent—and to ensure that it better represents the will of the American people. To do so, they must commit themselves to this majority-rule principle: No candidate receives all of a state’s electoral votes unless the candidate gets a majority of the state’s popular votes.

There are many methods states can use to comply with this principle. They could have a regular runoff between the top-two candidates, held in late November, if no candidate received a majority in the initial popular vote. Alternatively, states could hold a preliminary vote—perhaps on the Tuesday after Labor Day—to clear the field of third-party and independent candidates, so that only the top two finalists appear on the November ballot. (This option would function similarly to the “top two” system that California and Washington state currently use for nonpresidential elections.) Or, states could adopt the kind of “instant runoff voting” procedure that Maine recently employed successfully for its congressional elections: Voters can rank their preferences among multiple candidates, so that a computer can tally which of the top two finalists receives a majority once all lower-ranked candidates are eliminated.

Another idea: A state could award all of its electoral votes to a candidate who receives a majority of the state’s popular vote, but if no candidate does, then the state would apportion its electoral votes among the candidates. For example, in the instance of a 38-37-25 percent split among three candidates in a state’s popular vote, a state with 10 electoral votes might split them 4-4-2.

... This commitment to majority rule, moreover, is actually fairer to third-party and independent candidates than the current system, because it gives them a chance to break through without risk of affecting the outcome if they don’t. When voters don’t have to worry about how a third-party candidate might skew the election, they might feel more emboldened to vote for that candidate, and the candidate has a better opportunity to make his or her case. <<

 

[bripat9643]

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

That's basically the same proposal as I posted back in 1546. Strangely there was no comment when I did it.

Wonder why.

>> ... It is the states that have the power to restore the Electoral College to its original intent—and to ensure that it better represents the will of the American people. To do so, they must commit themselves to this majority-rule principle: No candidate receives all of a state’s electoral votes unless the candidate gets a majority of the state’s popular votes.

There are many methods states can use to comply with this principle. They could have a regular runoff between the top-two candidates, held in late November, if no candidate received a majority in the initial popular vote. Alternatively, states could hold a preliminary vote—perhaps on the Tuesday after Labor Day—to clear the field of third-party and independent candidates, so that only the top two finalists appear on the November ballot. (This option would function similarly to the “top two” system that California and Washington state currently use for nonpresidential elections.) Or, states could adopt the kind of “instant runoff voting” procedure that Maine recently employed successfully for its congressional elections: Voters can rank their preferences among multiple candidates, so that a computer can tally which of the top two finalists receives a majority once all lower-ranked candidates are eliminated.

Another idea: A state could award all of its electoral votes to a candidate who receives a majority of the state’s popular vote, but if no candidate does, then the state would apportion its electoral votes among the candidates. For example, in the instance of a 38-37-25 percent split among three candidates in a state’s popular vote, a state with 10 electoral votes might split them 4-4-2.

... This commitment to majority rule, moreover, is actually fairer to third-party and independent candidates than the current system, because it gives them a chance to break through without risk of affecting the outcome if they don’t. When voters don’t have to worry about how a third-party candidate might skew the election, they might feel more emboldened to vote for that candidate, and the candidate has a better opportunity to make his or her case. <<

It will never pass in the majority of states.

 

[Pogo]

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

That's basically the same proposal as I posted back in 1546. Strangely there was no comment when I did it.

Wonder why.

>> ... It is the states that have the power to restore the Electoral College to its original intent—and to ensure that it better represents the will of the American people. To do so, they must commit themselves to this majority-rule principle: No candidate receives all of a state’s electoral votes unless the candidate gets a majority of the state’s popular votes.

There are many methods states can use to comply with this principle. They could have a regular runoff between the top-two candidates, held in late November, if no candidate received a majority in the initial popular vote. Alternatively, states could hold a preliminary vote—perhaps on the Tuesday after Labor Day—to clear the field of third-party and independent candidates, so that only the top two finalists appear on the November ballot. (This option would function similarly to the “top two” system that California and Washington state currently use for nonpresidential elections.) Or, states could adopt the kind of “instant runoff voting” procedure that Maine recently employed successfully for its congressional elections: Voters can rank their preferences among multiple candidates, so that a computer can tally which of the top two finalists receives a majority once all lower-ranked candidates are eliminated.

Another idea: A state could award all of its electoral votes to a candidate who receives a majority of the state’s popular vote, but if no candidate does, then the state would apportion its electoral votes among the candidates. For example, in the instance of a 38-37-25 percent split among three candidates in a state’s popular vote, a state with 10 electoral votes might split them 4-4-2.

... This commitment to majority rule, moreover, is actually fairer to third-party and independent candidates than the current system, because it gives them a chance to break through without risk of affecting the outcome if they don’t. When voters don’t have to worry about how a third-party candidate might skew the election, they might feel more emboldened to vote for that candidate, and the candidate has a better opportunity to make his or her case. <<

It will never pass in the majority of states.

Here's FingerFuck valiantly making the erudite in-lieu-of-argument, the sterling "will never work". The same intellectual fart that convinced the Wright Brothers. Edison, Tesla et al to give up. Deep.

That's how he gets to 100,000 posts making no points. "Will never work" and "Everybody's a moron". Stay fingery, Fingerfuck.

 

[bripat9643]

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

That's basically the same proposal as I posted back in 1546. Strangely there was no comment when I did it.

Wonder why.

>> ... It is the states that have the power to restore the Electoral College to its original intent—and to ensure that it better represents the will of the American people. To do so, they must commit themselves to this majority-rule principle: No candidate receives all of a state’s electoral votes unless the candidate gets a majority of the state’s popular votes.

There are many methods states can use to comply with this principle. They could have a regular runoff between the top-two candidates, held in late November, if no candidate received a majority in the initial popular vote. Alternatively, states could hold a preliminary vote—perhaps on the Tuesday after Labor Day—to clear the field of third-party and independent candidates, so that only the top two finalists appear on the November ballot. (This option would function similarly to the “top two” system that California and Washington state currently use for nonpresidential elections.) Or, states could adopt the kind of “instant runoff voting” procedure that Maine recently employed successfully for its congressional elections: Voters can rank their preferences among multiple candidates, so that a computer can tally which of the top two finalists receives a majority once all lower-ranked candidates are eliminated.

Another idea: A state could award all of its electoral votes to a candidate who receives a majority of the state’s popular vote, but if no candidate does, then the state would apportion its electoral votes among the candidates. For example, in the instance of a 38-37-25 percent split among three candidates in a state’s popular vote, a state with 10 electoral votes might split them 4-4-2.

... This commitment to majority rule, moreover, is actually fairer to third-party and independent candidates than the current system, because it gives them a chance to break through without risk of affecting the outcome if they don’t. When voters don’t have to worry about how a third-party candidate might skew the election, they might feel more emboldened to vote for that candidate, and the candidate has a better opportunity to make his or her case. <<

It will never pass in the majority of states.

Here's FingerFuck valiantly making the erudite in-lieu-of-argument, the sterling "will never work". The same intellectual fart that convinced the Wright Brothers. Edison, Tesla et al to give up. Deep.

That's how he gets to 100,000 posts making no points. "Will never work" and "Everybody's a moron". Stay fingery, Fingerfuck.

You have a reading comprehension problem. I didn't say it would never "work," whatever that means. I said it would never pass in most states. Why would any small state want to dilute the power of its vote?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Apparently, their strategy is to tell us all what a bunch of ignorant, unevolved hicks we are, and how we should be ashamed of ourselves and aspire to be like them.

Yeah, that'll work.

 

[Pogo]

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

That's basically the same proposal as I posted back in 1546. Strangely there was no comment when I did it.

Wonder why.

>> ... It is the states that have the power to restore the Electoral College to its original intent—and to ensure that it better represents the will of the American people. To do so, they must commit themselves to this majority-rule principle: No candidate receives all of a state’s electoral votes unless the candidate gets a majority of the state’s popular votes.

There are many methods states can use to comply with this principle. They could have a regular runoff between the top-two candidates, held in late November, if no candidate received a majority in the initial popular vote. Alternatively, states could hold a preliminary vote—perhaps on the Tuesday after Labor Day—to clear the field of third-party and independent candidates, so that only the top two finalists appear on the November ballot. (This option would function similarly to the “top two” system that California and Washington state currently use for nonpresidential elections.) Or, states could adopt the kind of “instant runoff voting” procedure that Maine recently employed successfully for its congressional elections: Voters can rank their preferences among multiple candidates, so that a computer can tally which of the top two finalists receives a majority once all lower-ranked candidates are eliminated.

Another idea: A state could award all of its electoral votes to a candidate who receives a majority of the state’s popular vote, but if no candidate does, then the state would apportion its electoral votes among the candidates. For example, in the instance of a 38-37-25 percent split among three candidates in a state’s popular vote, a state with 10 electoral votes might split them 4-4-2.

... This commitment to majority rule, moreover, is actually fairer to third-party and independent candidates than the current system, because it gives them a chance to break through without risk of affecting the outcome if they don’t. When voters don’t have to worry about how a third-party candidate might skew the election, they might feel more emboldened to vote for that candidate, and the candidate has a better opportunity to make his or her case. <<

It will never pass in the majority of states.

Here's FingerFuck valiantly making the erudite in-lieu-of-argument, the sterling "will never work". The same intellectual fart that convinced the Wright Brothers. Edison, Tesla et al to give up. Deep.

That's how he gets to 100,000 posts making no points. "Will never work" and "Everybody's a moron". Stay fingery, Fingerfuck.

You have a reading comprehension problem. I didn't say it would never "work," whatever that means. I said it would never pass in most states. Why would any small state want to dilute the power of its vote?

"B-but... but I didn't say it would never work, I said it would never pass!"

One of these daze you should go back and read your own posts.

I even shortened that post you found so intimidating so it wouldn't be so scary, and you still didn't read it.

 

[bripat9643]

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

That's basically the same proposal as I posted back in 1546. Strangely there was no comment when I did it.

Wonder why.

>> ... It is the states that have the power to restore the Electoral College to its original intent—and to ensure that it better represents the will of the American people. To do so, they must commit themselves to this majority-rule principle: No candidate receives all of a state’s electoral votes unless the candidate gets a majority of the state’s popular votes.

There are many methods states can use to comply with this principle. They could have a regular runoff between the top-two candidates, held in late November, if no candidate received a majority in the initial popular vote. Alternatively, states could hold a preliminary vote—perhaps on the Tuesday after Labor Day—to clear the field of third-party and independent candidates, so that only the top two finalists appear on the November ballot. (This option would function similarly to the “top two” system that California and Washington state currently use for nonpresidential elections.) Or, states could adopt the kind of “instant runoff voting” procedure that Maine recently employed successfully for its congressional elections: Voters can rank their preferences among multiple candidates, so that a computer can tally which of the top two finalists receives a majority once all lower-ranked candidates are eliminated.

Another idea: A state could award all of its electoral votes to a candidate who receives a majority of the state’s popular vote, but if no candidate does, then the state would apportion its electoral votes among the candidates. For example, in the instance of a 38-37-25 percent split among three candidates in a state’s popular vote, a state with 10 electoral votes might split them 4-4-2.

... This commitment to majority rule, moreover, is actually fairer to third-party and independent candidates than the current system, because it gives them a chance to break through without risk of affecting the outcome if they don’t. When voters don’t have to worry about how a third-party candidate might skew the election, they might feel more emboldened to vote for that candidate, and the candidate has a better opportunity to make his or her case. <<

It will never pass in the majority of states.

Here's FingerFuck valiantly making the erudite in-lieu-of-argument, the sterling "will never work". The same intellectual fart that convinced the Wright Brothers. Edison, Tesla et al to give up. Deep.

That's how he gets to 100,000 posts making no points. "Will never work" and "Everybody's a moron". Stay fingery, Fingerfuck.

You have a reading comprehension problem. I didn't say it would never "work," whatever that means. I said it would never pass in most states. Why would any small state want to dilute the power of its vote?

"B-but... but I didn't say it would never work, I said it would never pass!"

One of these daze you should go back and read your own posts.

I even shortened that post you found so intimidating so it wouldn't be so scary, and you still didn't read it.

In other words, exactly what I said, shit for brains.

I found your post boring, not intimidating. Who gives a shit about your complex scheme to assign electoral votes? It's never going to happen.

 

[Pogo]

That's basically the same proposal as I posted back in 1546. Strangely there was no comment when I did it.

Wonder why.

>> ... It is the states that have the power to restore the Electoral College to its original intent—and to ensure that it better represents the will of the American people. To do so, they must commit themselves to this majority-rule principle: No candidate receives all of a state’s electoral votes unless the candidate gets a majority of the state’s popular votes.

There are many methods states can use to comply with this principle. They could have a regular runoff between the top-two candidates, held in late November, if no candidate received a majority in the initial popular vote. Alternatively, states could hold a preliminary vote—perhaps on the Tuesday after Labor Day—to clear the field of third-party and independent candidates, so that only the top two finalists appear on the November ballot. (This option would function similarly to the “top two” system that California and Washington state currently use for nonpresidential elections.) Or, states could adopt the kind of “instant runoff voting” procedure that Maine recently employed successfully for its congressional elections: Voters can rank their preferences among multiple candidates, so that a computer can tally which of the top two finalists receives a majority once all lower-ranked candidates are eliminated.

Another idea: A state could award all of its electoral votes to a candidate who receives a majority of the state’s popular vote, but if no candidate does, then the state would apportion its electoral votes among the candidates. For example, in the instance of a 38-37-25 percent split among three candidates in a state’s popular vote, a state with 10 electoral votes might split them 4-4-2.

... This commitment to majority rule, moreover, is actually fairer to third-party and independent candidates than the current system, because it gives them a chance to break through without risk of affecting the outcome if they don’t. When voters don’t have to worry about how a third-party candidate might skew the election, they might feel more emboldened to vote for that candidate, and the candidate has a better opportunity to make his or her case. <<

It will never pass in the majority of states.

Here's FingerFuck valiantly making the erudite in-lieu-of-argument, the sterling "will never work". The same intellectual fart that convinced the Wright Brothers. Edison, Tesla et al to give up. Deep.

That's how he gets to 100,000 posts making no points. "Will never work" and "Everybody's a moron". Stay fingery, Fingerfuck.

You have a reading comprehension problem. I didn't say it would never "work," whatever that means. I said it would never pass in most states. Why would any small state want to dilute the power of its vote?

"B-but... but I didn't say it would never work, I said it would never pass!"

One of these daze you should go back and read your own posts.

I even shortened that post you found so intimidating so it wouldn't be so scary, and you still didn't read it.

In other words, exactly what I said, shit for brains.

I found your post boring, not intimidating. Who gives a shit about your complex scheme to assign electoral votes? It's never going to happen.

And now he does it AGAIN.
"I didn't say it would never work, I said it would never pass --- wait, I didn't say it would never pass, I said it would never happen. Wait, where's my thesaurus...."



This is the inevitable result of listening to nothing except Numero Uno.

 

[Ame®icano]

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

That's basically the same proposal as I posted back in 1546. Strangely there was no comment when I did it.

Wonder why.

>> ... It is the states that have the power to restore the Electoral College to its original intent—and to ensure that it better represents the will of the American people. To do so, they must commit themselves to this majority-rule principle: No candidate receives all of a state’s electoral votes unless the candidate gets a majority of the state’s popular votes.

There are many methods states can use to comply with this principle. They could have a regular runoff between the top-two candidates, held in late November, if no candidate received a majority in the initial popular vote. Alternatively, states could hold a preliminary vote—perhaps on the Tuesday after Labor Day—to clear the field of third-party and independent candidates, so that only the top two finalists appear on the November ballot. (This option would function similarly to the “top two” system that California and Washington state currently use for nonpresidential elections.) Or, states could adopt the kind of “instant runoff voting” procedure that Maine recently employed successfully for its congressional elections: Voters can rank their preferences among multiple candidates, so that a computer can tally which of the top two finalists receives a majority once all lower-ranked candidates are eliminated.

Another idea: A state could award all of its electoral votes to a candidate who receives a majority of the state’s popular vote, but if no candidate does, then the state would apportion its electoral votes among the candidates. For example, in the instance of a 38-37-25 percent split among three candidates in a state’s popular vote, a state with 10 electoral votes might split them 4-4-2.

... This commitment to majority rule, moreover, is actually fairer to third-party and independent candidates than the current system, because it gives them a chance to break through without risk of affecting the outcome if they don’t. When voters don’t have to worry about how a third-party candidate might skew the election, they might feel more emboldened to vote for that candidate, and the candidate has a better opportunity to make his or her case. <<

It will never pass in the majority of states.

Here's FingerFuck valiantly making the erudite in-lieu-of-argument, the sterling "will never work". The same intellectual fart that convinced the Wright Brothers. Edison, Tesla et al to give up. Deep.

That's how he gets to 100,000 posts making no points. "Will never work" and "Everybody's a moron". Stay fingery, Fingerfuck.

Apples and oranges.

You're comparing Wright Brothers, Edison, Tesla, who were relying on their own brilliance and work, to self serving politicians and butthurt masses unhappy they didn't get it their way.

 

[Pogo]

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

That's basically the same proposal as I posted back in 1546. Strangely there was no comment when I did it.

Wonder why.

>> ... It is the states that have the power to restore the Electoral College to its original intent—and to ensure that it better represents the will of the American people. To do so, they must commit themselves to this majority-rule principle: No candidate receives all of a state’s electoral votes unless the candidate gets a majority of the state’s popular votes.

There are many methods states can use to comply with this principle. They could have a regular runoff between the top-two candidates, held in late November, if no candidate received a majority in the initial popular vote. Alternatively, states could hold a preliminary vote—perhaps on the Tuesday after Labor Day—to clear the field of third-party and independent candidates, so that only the top two finalists appear on the November ballot. (This option would function similarly to the “top two” system that California and Washington state currently use for nonpresidential elections.) Or, states could adopt the kind of “instant runoff voting” procedure that Maine recently employed successfully for its congressional elections: Voters can rank their preferences among multiple candidates, so that a computer can tally which of the top two finalists receives a majority once all lower-ranked candidates are eliminated.

Another idea: A state could award all of its electoral votes to a candidate who receives a majority of the state’s popular vote, but if no candidate does, then the state would apportion its electoral votes among the candidates. For example, in the instance of a 38-37-25 percent split among three candidates in a state’s popular vote, a state with 10 electoral votes might split them 4-4-2.

... This commitment to majority rule, moreover, is actually fairer to third-party and independent candidates than the current system, because it gives them a chance to break through without risk of affecting the outcome if they don’t. When voters don’t have to worry about how a third-party candidate might skew the election, they might feel more emboldened to vote for that candidate, and the candidate has a better opportunity to make his or her case. <<

It will never pass in the majority of states.

Here's FingerFuck valiantly making the erudite in-lieu-of-argument, the sterling "will never work". The same intellectual fart that convinced the Wright Brothers. Edison, Tesla et al to give up. Deep.

That's how he gets to 100,000 posts making no points. "Will never work" and "Everybody's a moron". Stay fingery, Fingerfuck.

Apples and oranges.

You're comparing Wright Brothers, Edison, Tesla, who were relying on their own brilliance and work, to self serving politicians and butthurt masses unhappy they didn't get it their way.

Um... nnnnnnnnnno. I'm comparing Fingerboy's utter lack of argument to those people's naysayers, and you can plug in anybody who had naysayers anywhere. That point being, "will never work" has never been an argument for anything. It's the Butthurtese language phrase for "I can't think of anything".

The ACTOR in my point is the naysayer, not his target.

 

[22lcidw]

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

That's basically the same proposal as I posted back in 1546. Strangely there was no comment when I did it.

Wonder why.

>> ... It is the states that have the power to restore the Electoral College to its original intent—and to ensure that it better represents the will of the American people. To do so, they must commit themselves to this majority-rule principle: No candidate receives all of a state’s electoral votes unless the candidate gets a majority of the state’s popular votes.

There are many methods states can use to comply with this principle. They could have a regular runoff between the top-two candidates, held in late November, if no candidate received a majority in the initial popular vote. Alternatively, states could hold a preliminary vote—perhaps on the Tuesday after Labor Day—to clear the field of third-party and independent candidates, so that only the top two finalists appear on the November ballot. (This option would function similarly to the “top two” system that California and Washington state currently use for nonpresidential elections.) Or, states could adopt the kind of “instant runoff voting” procedure that Maine recently employed successfully for its congressional elections: Voters can rank their preferences among multiple candidates, so that a computer can tally which of the top two finalists receives a majority once all lower-ranked candidates are eliminated.

Another idea: A state could award all of its electoral votes to a candidate who receives a majority of the state’s popular vote, but if no candidate does, then the state would apportion its electoral votes among the candidates. For example, in the instance of a 38-37-25 percent split among three candidates in a state’s popular vote, a state with 10 electoral votes might split them 4-4-2.

... This commitment to majority rule, moreover, is actually fairer to third-party and independent candidates than the current system, because it gives them a chance to break through without risk of affecting the outcome if they don’t. When voters don’t have to worry about how a third-party candidate might skew the election, they might feel more emboldened to vote for that candidate, and the candidate has a better opportunity to make his or her case. <<

You know better then the founding fathers. You know nothing but being a potential murderer of people. The world is not Shangri La.

 

[Pogo]

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

That's basically the same proposal as I posted back in 1546. Strangely there was no comment when I did it.

Wonder why.

>> ... It is the states that have the power to restore the Electoral College to its original intent—and to ensure that it better represents the will of the American people. To do so, they must commit themselves to this majority-rule principle: No candidate receives all of a state’s electoral votes unless the candidate gets a majority of the state’s popular votes.

There are many methods states can use to comply with this principle. They could have a regular runoff between the top-two candidates, held in late November, if no candidate received a majority in the initial popular vote. Alternatively, states could hold a preliminary vote—perhaps on the Tuesday after Labor Day—to clear the field of third-party and independent candidates, so that only the top two finalists appear on the November ballot. (This option would function similarly to the “top two” system that California and Washington state currently use for nonpresidential elections.) Or, states could adopt the kind of “instant runoff voting” procedure that Maine recently employed successfully for its congressional elections: Voters can rank their preferences among multiple candidates, so that a computer can tally which of the top two finalists receives a majority once all lower-ranked candidates are eliminated.

Another idea: A state could award all of its electoral votes to a candidate who receives a majority of the state’s popular vote, but if no candidate does, then the state would apportion its electoral votes among the candidates. For example, in the instance of a 38-37-25 percent split among three candidates in a state’s popular vote, a state with 10 electoral votes might split them 4-4-2.

... This commitment to majority rule, moreover, is actually fairer to third-party and independent candidates than the current system, because it gives them a chance to break through without risk of affecting the outcome if they don’t. When voters don’t have to worry about how a third-party candidate might skew the election, they might feel more emboldened to vote for that candidate, and the candidate has a better opportunity to make his or her case. <<

You know better then the founding fathers. You know nothing but being a potential murderer of people. The world is not Shangri La.

On the contrary I quoted the Founding Fathers. Right there in that link as well as Madison's comments elsewhere in the thread.

And that's for the benefit of those wags who think THEY know better.

Go ahead. Read it. I dare you.

 

[22lcidw]

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

That's basically the same proposal as I posted back in 1546. Strangely there was no comment when I did it.

Wonder why.

>> ... It is the states that have the power to restore the Electoral College to its original intent—and to ensure that it better represents the will of the American people. To do so, they must commit themselves to this majority-rule principle: No candidate receives all of a state’s electoral votes unless the candidate gets a majority of the state’s popular votes.

There are many methods states can use to comply with this principle. They could have a regular runoff between the top-two candidates, held in late November, if no candidate received a majority in the initial popular vote. Alternatively, states could hold a preliminary vote—perhaps on the Tuesday after Labor Day—to clear the field of third-party and independent candidates, so that only the top two finalists appear on the November ballot. (This option would function similarly to the “top two” system that California and Washington state currently use for nonpresidential elections.) Or, states could adopt the kind of “instant runoff voting” procedure that Maine recently employed successfully for its congressional elections: Voters can rank their preferences among multiple candidates, so that a computer can tally which of the top two finalists receives a majority once all lower-ranked candidates are eliminated.

Another idea: A state could award all of its electoral votes to a candidate who receives a majority of the state’s popular vote, but if no candidate does, then the state would apportion its electoral votes among the candidates. For example, in the instance of a 38-37-25 percent split among three candidates in a state’s popular vote, a state with 10 electoral votes might split them 4-4-2.

... This commitment to majority rule, moreover, is actually fairer to third-party and independent candidates than the current system, because it gives them a chance to break through without risk of affecting the outcome if they don’t. When voters don’t have to worry about how a third-party candidate might skew the election, they might feel more emboldened to vote for that candidate, and the candidate has a better opportunity to make his or her case. <<

You know better then the founding fathers. You know nothing but being a potential murderer of people. The world is not Shangri La.

On the contrary I quoted the Founding Fathers. Right there in that link as well as Madison's comments elsewhere in the thread.

And that's for the benefit of those wags who think THEY know better.

Go ahead. Read it. I dare you.

Live it. I dare you. Get this. You can have any type of way the government is run with capitalism, socialism and all the other isms. But they told you what real money was back then. And they gave you a blue print for freedom. The Electoral College is one of the checks and balances. The removal of Senators appointed by state legislatures was another. The Federal Reserve Act and the Federal Income Tax was a hindrance to freedom. State and local taxes are different. You are living off the results of the sell out politicians in our history and quoting words from a founding father long before.

 

[Pogo]

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

That's basically the same proposal as I posted back in 1546. Strangely there was no comment when I did it.

Wonder why.

>> ... It is the states that have the power to restore the Electoral College to its original intent—and to ensure that it better represents the will of the American people. To do so, they must commit themselves to this majority-rule principle: No candidate receives all of a state’s electoral votes unless the candidate gets a majority of the state’s popular votes.

There are many methods states can use to comply with this principle. They could have a regular runoff between the top-two candidates, held in late November, if no candidate received a majority in the initial popular vote. Alternatively, states could hold a preliminary vote—perhaps on the Tuesday after Labor Day—to clear the field of third-party and independent candidates, so that only the top two finalists appear on the November ballot. (This option would function similarly to the “top two” system that California and Washington state currently use for nonpresidential elections.) Or, states could adopt the kind of “instant runoff voting” procedure that Maine recently employed successfully for its congressional elections: Voters can rank their preferences among multiple candidates, so that a computer can tally which of the top two finalists receives a majority once all lower-ranked candidates are eliminated.

Another idea: A state could award all of its electoral votes to a candidate who receives a majority of the state’s popular vote, but if no candidate does, then the state would apportion its electoral votes among the candidates. For example, in the instance of a 38-37-25 percent split among three candidates in a state’s popular vote, a state with 10 electoral votes might split them 4-4-2.

... This commitment to majority rule, moreover, is actually fairer to third-party and independent candidates than the current system, because it gives them a chance to break through without risk of affecting the outcome if they don’t. When voters don’t have to worry about how a third-party candidate might skew the election, they might feel more emboldened to vote for that candidate, and the candidate has a better opportunity to make his or her case. <<

You know better then the founding fathers. You know nothing but being a potential murderer of people. The world is not Shangri La.

On the contrary I quoted the Founding Fathers. Right there in that link as well as Madison's comments elsewhere in the thread.

And that's for the benefit of those wags who think THEY know better.

Go ahead. Read it. I dare you.

Live it. I dare you. Get this. You can have any type of way the government is run with capitalism, socialism and all the other isms. But they told you what real money was back then. And they gave you a blue print for freedom. The Electoral College is one of the checks and balances. The removal of Senators appointed by state legislatures was another. The Federal Reserve Act and the Federal Income Tax was a hindrance to freedom. State and local taxes are different. You are living off the results of the sell out politicians in our history and quoting words from a founding father long before.

I notice whenever you get a point you can't handle you stuff the dictionary into a blender and posts whatever comes out.

You now owe me an indeterminate amount of nickels. Have no idea what all those bizarre concepts have to do with my post but none of them address it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

That's basically the same proposal as I posted back in 1546. Strangely there was no comment when I did it.

Wonder why.

>> ... It is the states that have the power to restore the Electoral College to its original intent—and to ensure that it better represents the will of the American people. To do so, they must commit themselves to this majority-rule principle: No candidate receives all of a state’s electoral votes unless the candidate gets a majority of the state’s popular votes.

There are many methods states can use to comply with this principle. They could have a regular runoff between the top-two candidates, held in late November, if no candidate received a majority in the initial popular vote. Alternatively, states could hold a preliminary vote—perhaps on the Tuesday after Labor Day—to clear the field of third-party and independent candidates, so that only the top two finalists appear on the November ballot. (This option would function similarly to the “top two” system that California and Washington state currently use for nonpresidential elections.) Or, states could adopt the kind of “instant runoff voting” procedure that Maine recently employed successfully for its congressional elections: Voters can rank their preferences among multiple candidates, so that a computer can tally which of the top two finalists receives a majority once all lower-ranked candidates are eliminated.

Another idea: A state could award all of its electoral votes to a candidate who receives a majority of the state’s popular vote, but if no candidate does, then the state would apportion its electoral votes among the candidates. For example, in the instance of a 38-37-25 percent split among three candidates in a state’s popular vote, a state with 10 electoral votes might split them 4-4-2.

... This commitment to majority rule, moreover, is actually fairer to third-party and independent candidates than the current system, because it gives them a chance to break through without risk of affecting the outcome if they don’t. When voters don’t have to worry about how a third-party candidate might skew the election, they might feel more emboldened to vote for that candidate, and the candidate has a better opportunity to make his or her case. <<

Too much work. We can barely get enough people to the polls as it is. The system works fine. If it's not broke--don't fix it.

 

[22lcidw]

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

That's basically the same proposal as I posted back in 1546. Strangely there was no comment when I did it.

Wonder why.

>> ... It is the states that have the power to restore the Electoral College to its original intent—and to ensure that it better represents the will of the American people. To do so, they must commit themselves to this majority-rule principle: No candidate receives all of a state’s electoral votes unless the candidate gets a majority of the state’s popular votes.

There are many methods states can use to comply with this principle. They could have a regular runoff between the top-two candidates, held in late November, if no candidate received a majority in the initial popular vote. Alternatively, states could hold a preliminary vote—perhaps on the Tuesday after Labor Day—to clear the field of third-party and independent candidates, so that only the top two finalists appear on the November ballot. (This option would function similarly to the “top two” system that California and Washington state currently use for nonpresidential elections.) Or, states could adopt the kind of “instant runoff voting” procedure that Maine recently employed successfully for its congressional elections: Voters can rank their preferences among multiple candidates, so that a computer can tally which of the top two finalists receives a majority once all lower-ranked candidates are eliminated.

Another idea: A state could award all of its electoral votes to a candidate who receives a majority of the state’s popular vote, but if no candidate does, then the state would apportion its electoral votes among the candidates. For example, in the instance of a 38-37-25 percent split among three candidates in a state’s popular vote, a state with 10 electoral votes might split them 4-4-2.

... This commitment to majority rule, moreover, is actually fairer to third-party and independent candidates than the current system, because it gives them a chance to break through without risk of affecting the outcome if they don’t. When voters don’t have to worry about how a third-party candidate might skew the election, they might feel more emboldened to vote for that candidate, and the candidate has a better opportunity to make his or her case. <<

You know better then the founding fathers. You know nothing but being a potential murderer of people. The world is not Shangri La.

On the contrary I quoted the Founding Fathers. Right there in that link as well as Madison's comments elsewhere in the thread.

And that's for the benefit of those wags who think THEY know better.

Go ahead. Read it. I dare you.

Live it. I dare you. Get this. You can have any type of way the government is run with capitalism, socialism and all the other isms. But they told you what real money was back then. And they gave you a blue print for freedom. The Electoral College is one of the checks and balances. The removal of Senators appointed by state legislatures was another. The Federal Reserve Act and the Federal Income Tax was a hindrance to freedom. State and local taxes are different. You are living off the results of the sell out politicians in our history and quoting words from a founding father long before.

I notice whenever you get a point you can't handle you stuff the dictionary into a blender and posts whatever comes out.

You now owe me an indeterminate amount of nickels. Have no idea what all those bizarre concepts have to do with my post but none of them address it.

It is not complicated. But you made it to be that. We live in a bullcrap world of mano mano. In life and death situations there are people who are not verbally aggressive but are in the front lines putting their life on the line. Then there are people in the back who mouth off like they are the purveyors of protection when they just sign off supplies and equipment to the real heroes. You talk nickels. I talk men who who come back in caskets or parts of their bodies removed or with psyche issues. And some of them are mano mano but they put it on the line. There are many jobs like that. And the quotas and affirmative action run amok has blurred the real heroes. You do not understand the constitution because gold and silver based was the currency. Freedom was the jist of what was written at that time even with flaws. There is freedom and there is wealth. It is not the same. You spout commie socialism saying that is the constitution. Even with that people were nasty to each other at times. Today we still are at at least a 50% tax rate amd may 60 % or more.

 

[Pogo]

That's basically the same proposal as I posted back in 1546. Strangely there was no comment when I did it.

Wonder why.

>> ... It is the states that have the power to restore the Electoral College to its original intent—and to ensure that it better represents the will of the American people. To do so, they must commit themselves to this majority-rule principle: No candidate receives all of a state’s electoral votes unless the candidate gets a majority of the state’s popular votes.

There are many methods states can use to comply with this principle. They could have a regular runoff between the top-two candidates, held in late November, if no candidate received a majority in the initial popular vote. Alternatively, states could hold a preliminary vote—perhaps on the Tuesday after Labor Day—to clear the field of third-party and independent candidates, so that only the top two finalists appear on the November ballot. (This option would function similarly to the “top two” system that California and Washington state currently use for nonpresidential elections.) Or, states could adopt the kind of “instant runoff voting” procedure that Maine recently employed successfully for its congressional elections: Voters can rank their preferences among multiple candidates, so that a computer can tally which of the top two finalists receives a majority once all lower-ranked candidates are eliminated.

Another idea: A state could award all of its electoral votes to a candidate who receives a majority of the state’s popular vote, but if no candidate does, then the state would apportion its electoral votes among the candidates. For example, in the instance of a 38-37-25 percent split among three candidates in a state’s popular vote, a state with 10 electoral votes might split them 4-4-2.

... This commitment to majority rule, moreover, is actually fairer to third-party and independent candidates than the current system, because it gives them a chance to break through without risk of affecting the outcome if they don’t. When voters don’t have to worry about how a third-party candidate might skew the election, they might feel more emboldened to vote for that candidate, and the candidate has a better opportunity to make his or her case. <<

You know better then the founding fathers. You know nothing but being a potential murderer of people. The world is not Shangri La.

On the contrary I quoted the Founding Fathers. Right there in that link as well as Madison's comments elsewhere in the thread.

And that's for the benefit of those wags who think THEY know better.

Go ahead. Read it. I dare you.

Live it. I dare you. Get this. You can have any type of way the government is run with capitalism, socialism and all the other isms. But they told you what real money was back then. And they gave you a blue print for freedom. The Electoral College is one of the checks and balances. The removal of Senators appointed by state legislatures was another. The Federal Reserve Act and the Federal Income Tax was a hindrance to freedom. State and local taxes are different. You are living off the results of the sell out politicians in our history and quoting words from a founding father long before.

I notice whenever you get a point you can't handle you stuff the dictionary into a blender and posts whatever comes out.

You now owe me an indeterminate amount of nickels. Have no idea what all those bizarre concepts have to do with my post but none of them address it.

It is not complicated. But you made it to be that. We live in a bullcrap world of mano mano. In life and death situations there are people who are not verbally aggressive but are in the front lines putting their life on the line. Then there are people in the back who mouth off like they are the purveyors of protection when they just sign off supplies and equipment to the real heroes. You talk nickels. I talk men who who come back in caskets or parts of their bodies removed or with psyche issues. And some of them are mano mano but they put it on the line. There are many jobs like that. And the quotas and affirmative action run amok has blurred the real heroes. You do not understand the constitution because gold and silver based was the currency. Freedom was the jist of what was written at that time even with flaws. There is freedom and there is wealth. It is not the same. You spout commie socialism saying that is the constitution. Even with that people were nasty to each other at times. Today we still are at at least a 50% tax rate amd may 60 % or more.

What in the FUCK does any of that incoherent rambling have to do with the Constitution, Jefferrson, Jackson, WTA, or anything in this thread?

I've posted **NOTHING** about "gold and silver", "commie socialism", "taxes" or "nasty". NO THING. I notice whenever you get a point you can't handle you stuff the dictionary into a blender and post whatever comes out.

 

[Pogo]

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

That's basically the same proposal as I posted back in 1546. Strangely there was no comment when I did it.

Wonder why.

>> ... It is the states that have the power to restore the Electoral College to its original intent—and to ensure that it better represents the will of the American people. To do so, they must commit themselves to this majority-rule principle: No candidate receives all of a state’s electoral votes unless the candidate gets a majority of the state’s popular votes.

There are many methods states can use to comply with this principle. They could have a regular runoff between the top-two candidates, held in late November, if no candidate received a majority in the initial popular vote. Alternatively, states could hold a preliminary vote—perhaps on the Tuesday after Labor Day—to clear the field of third-party and independent candidates, so that only the top two finalists appear on the November ballot. (This option would function similarly to the “top two” system that California and Washington state currently use for nonpresidential elections.) Or, states could adopt the kind of “instant runoff voting” procedure that Maine recently employed successfully for its congressional elections: Voters can rank their preferences among multiple candidates, so that a computer can tally which of the top two finalists receives a majority once all lower-ranked candidates are eliminated.

Another idea: A state could award all of its electoral votes to a candidate who receives a majority of the state’s popular vote, but if no candidate does, then the state would apportion its electoral votes among the candidates. For example, in the instance of a 38-37-25 percent split among three candidates in a state’s popular vote, a state with 10 electoral votes might split them 4-4-2.

... This commitment to majority rule, moreover, is actually fairer to third-party and independent candidates than the current system, because it gives them a chance to break through without risk of affecting the outcome if they don’t. When voters don’t have to worry about how a third-party candidate might skew the election, they might feel more emboldened to vote for that candidate, and the candidate has a better opportunity to make his or her case. <<

Too much work. We can barely get enough people to the polls as it is. The system works fine. If it's not broke--don't fix it.

The system IS broke. We're sitting on 89 pages (or for those whose settings are 10 posts per page, 178 pages) of reasons why.

 

[22lcidw]

You know better then the founding fathers. You know nothing but being a potential murderer of people. The world is not Shangri La.

On the contrary I quoted the Founding Fathers. Right there in that link as well as Madison's comments elsewhere in the thread.

And that's for the benefit of those wags who think THEY know better.

Go ahead. Read it. I dare you.

Live it. I dare you. Get this. You can have any type of way the government is run with capitalism, socialism and all the other isms. But they told you what real money was back then. And they gave you a blue print for freedom. The Electoral College is one of the checks and balances. The removal of Senators appointed by state legislatures was another. The Federal Reserve Act and the Federal Income Tax was a hindrance to freedom. State and local taxes are different. You are living off the results of the sell out politicians in our history and quoting words from a founding father long before.

I notice whenever you get a point you can't handle you stuff the dictionary into a blender and posts whatever comes out.

You now owe me an indeterminate amount of nickels. Have no idea what all those bizarre concepts have to do with my post but none of them address it.

It is not complicated. But you made it to be that. We live in a bullcrap world of mano mano. In life and death situations there are people who are not verbally aggressive but are in the front lines putting their life on the line. Then there are people in the back who mouth off like they are the purveyors of protection when they just sign off supplies and equipment to the real heroes. You talk nickels. I talk men who who come back in caskets or parts of their bodies removed or with psyche issues. And some of them are mano mano but they put it on the line. There are many jobs like that. And the quotas and affirmative action run amok has blurred the real heroes. You do not understand the constitution because gold and silver based was the currency. Freedom was the jist of what was written at that time even with flaws. There is freedom and there is wealth. It is not the same. You spout commie socialism saying that is the constitution. Even with that people were nasty to each other at times. Today we still are at at least a 50% tax rate amd may 60 % or more.

What in the FUCK does any of that incoherent rambling have to do with the Constitution, Jefferrson, Jackson, WTA, or anything in this thread?

I've posted **NOTHING** about "gold and silver", "commie socialism", "taxes" or "nasty". NO THING. I notice whenever you get a point you can't handle you stuff the dictionary into a blender and post whatever comes out.

You are deflecting. Your comments are based on your interpretation of the constitution by a founding father. There is no interpretation. They laid it out straight. Making comments base on real money. Making comments based on Senators picked by state legislatures. Making comments based on no federal income tax is different then making comments based on socialism views of a constitution that has been usurped. I do not want us to go back at tha time because people sucking on the tit including soon enough myself will not live long in today's world. It is the constant expansion of socialism increasing taxes that is an antihima to what that document written means. We can not even pay for what is owed to people in social security.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

Apparently, their strategy is to tell us all what a bunch of ignorant, unevolved hicks we are, and how we should be ashamed of ourselves and aspire to be like them.

Yeah, that'll work.

Deplorable is the term they seem to favor.

I have a sweatshirt with it printed on the front.