Elizabeth Warren: 'End Electoral College'

[mikegriffith1]

Sooooo . . . never mind that she lied about her heritage/ethnicity for decades and used her phony "Indian" roots to get ahead. You just don't care, right?

 

[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.

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.

I think you are just about the only one that disagrees with us which is why we have all these pages. Yes, the system works fine.......just not for Democrats any longer. That's their problem--not ours. It's working just fine for us.

 

[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.

I think you are just about the only one that disagrees with us which is why we have all these pages. Yes, the system works fine.......just not for Democrats any longer. That's their problem--not ours. It's working just fine for us.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand right back to the escape crutch again.

*NOTHING* --- as in ZERO -- in the machinations of the Electrical College has anything to do with this or that "political party". And you've been told this 87 times. You're still afraid to tackle those machinations.

 

[Dr Grump]

The Twelfth Amendment says that's a NO.

Now, Go back to civics class and try to stay awake this time.

Get rid of the amendment.

 

[Dr Grump]

I think you are just about the only one that disagrees with us which is why we have all these pages. Yes, the system works fine.......just not for Democrats any longer. That's their problem--not ours. It's working just fine for us.

it's a shit system. As I've said many times before, it heavy weighs in favour of some states and not others.

 

[Dr Grump]

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.

I always thought america was a democracy...but when Bush Jr got elected we the citizens of the world were shocked.

Because you're ignorant.

But most of us aren't. Face it, the US electoral system is a shit one.

 

[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.

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.

I think you are just about the only one that disagrees with us which is why we have all these pages. Yes, the system works fine.......just not for Democrats any longer. That's their problem--not ours. It's working just fine for us.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand right back to the escape crutch again.

*NOTHING* --- as in ZERO -- in the machinations of the Electrical College has anything to do with this or that "political party". And you've been told this 87 times. You're still afraid to tackle those machinations.

It has everything to do with party because it's the Democrat party bitching about it--not us. We are just fine with it. If Hillary won, we wouldn't' even be having this discussion. If Trump won with the popular vote, we would be discussing gerrymandering and Voter-ID just to name a few.

Democrats can't accept loss, they never could. When they lose, it's always because of something they claim unfair.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

I always thought america was a democracy...but when Bush Jr got elected we the citizens of the world were shocked.

Because you're ignorant.

But most of us aren't. Face it, the US electoral system is a shit one.

Yeah, but most liberals are.

 

[MAGAman]

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.

Clinton won twice and never with a majority.

I'll bet you really were shocked...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I think you are just about the only one that disagrees with us which is why we have all these pages. Yes, the system works fine.......just not for Democrats any longer. That's their problem--not ours. It's working just fine for us.

it's a shit system. As I've said many times before, it heavy weighs in favour of some states and not others.

As I've said many times before, it heavy weighs in favour of some states and not others.

That's a feature, not a bug.

 

[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. <<

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.

I think you are just about the only one that disagrees with us which is why we have all these pages. Yes, the system works fine.......just not for Democrats any longer. That's their problem--not ours. It's working just fine for us.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand right back to the escape crutch again.

*NOTHING* --- as in ZERO -- in the machinations of the Electrical College has anything to do with this or that "political party". And you've been told this 87 times. You're still afraid to tackle those machinations.

It has everything to do with party because it's the Democrat party bitching about it--not us.

Who the fuck is "us"? The EC affects ALL OF US, not just some cherrypicked election or party.
Besides which there is no such thing as a "Democrat party" anyway. Are we to infer there's a "Republic party"? Limblob much?

Your cherrypicked selective-ignorance doesn't account for the fact that the NPV initiative is fourteen years old. Or that it has Republicans behind it like Gingrich. Or the "Every Vote Counts" Amendment of 2005. Or the Bayh-Celler Amendment of 1969 with Nixon behind it. Or the Madison criticism of 1823 or the Jefferson objection in post 1546. OR the fact that 2019 is not an election year, nor was last year nor the year before that.

It would seem your crutch has nothing to stand on. Would it not.

 

[Chuz Life]

The Twelfth Amendment says that's a NO.

Now, Go back to civics class and try to stay awake this time.

Get rid of the amendment.

How about a big fat serving of "No" with a side order go fuck yourself?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

I think you are just about the only one that disagrees with us which is why we have all these pages. Yes, the system works fine.......just not for Democrats any longer. That's their problem--not ours. It's working just fine for us.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand right back to the escape crutch again.

*NOTHING* --- as in ZERO -- in the machinations of the Electrical College has anything to do with this or that "political party". And you've been told this 87 times. You're still afraid to tackle those machinations.

It has everything to do with party because it's the Democrat party bitching about it--not us.

Who the fuck is "us"? The EC affects ALL OF US, not just some cherrypicked election or party.
Besides which there is no such thing as a "Democrat party" anyway. Are we to infer there's a "Republic party"? Limblob much?

Your cherrypicked selective-ignorance doesn't account for the fact that the NPV initiative is fourteen years old. Or that it has Republicans behind it like Gingrich. Or the "Every Vote Counts" Amendment of 2005. Or the Bayh-Celler Amendment of 1969 with Nixon behind it. Or the Madison criticism of 1823 or the Jefferson objection in post 1546. OR the fact that 2019 is not an election year, nor was last year nor the year before that.

It would seem your crutch has nothing to stand on. Would it not.

Us are people on the right. Us are the majority of the Republican party. Us are not the people bitching about a system we've used for centuries. Yes, the electoral college affects all of us, and we like the effects.

Ignore the political divide on this issue all you like. It's not going away. And if in 2020 Trump loses the election but gets the popular vote, I would bet my dollar to your dime you won't hear one Republican complain about the system. Instead, we will examine what we did wrong; something the Democrat party is incapable of.

 

[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.

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.

But he didn't say "it will never work" as you claim. He said "it will never pass", and I agree with him, since small states won't vote against their own interests.

 

[Pogo]

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.

I think you are just about the only one that disagrees with us which is why we have all these pages. Yes, the system works fine.......just not for Democrats any longer. That's their problem--not ours. It's working just fine for us.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand right back to the escape crutch again.

*NOTHING* --- as in ZERO -- in the machinations of the Electrical College has anything to do with this or that "political party". And you've been told this 87 times. You're still afraid to tackle those machinations.

It has everything to do with party because it's the Democrat party bitching about it--not us.

Who the fuck is "us"? The EC affects ALL OF US, not just some cherrypicked election or party.
Besides which there is no such thing as a "Democrat party" anyway. Are we to infer there's a "Republic party"? Limblob much?

Your cherrypicked selective-ignorance doesn't account for the fact that the NPV initiative is fourteen years old. Or that it has Republicans behind it like Gingrich. Or the "Every Vote Counts" Amendment of 2005. Or the Bayh-Celler Amendment of 1969 with Nixon behind it. Or the Madison criticism of 1823 or the Jefferson objection in post 1546. OR the fact that 2019 is not an election year, nor was last year nor the year before that.

It would seem your crutch has nothing to stand on. Would it not.

Us are people on the right. Us are the majority of the Republican party. Us are not the people bitching about a system we've used for centuries. Yes, the electoral college affects all of us, and we like the effects.

Ignore the political divide on this issue all you like. It's not going away. And if in 2020 Trump loses the election but gets the popular vote, I would bet my dollar to your dime you won't hear one Republican complain about the system. Instead, we will examine what we did wrong; something the Democrat party is incapable of.

Ah you mean like this?

You're damn right the "Democrat party" is incapable of that --- it's not capable of anything inasmuch as it doesn't exist. Are you illiterate?

Again, you ignore, but solely because you CHOOSE TO ignore, lest it require you to actually look under the hood of this thing and we can't have THAT, all the counterexamples I just gave you. You sit there and pretend that didn't happen, that Richard Nixon and Newt Gingrich and James Madison and Thomas Jefferson never existed. Sit there in your safe space of "magical 2016 land" where you can huddle down in your little cocoon, rocking back and forth making low moaning noises. Courageous.

 

[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. <<

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.

The only reason you lefties keep saying "the system is broke" is because checks and balances are not the way you are used to play, cheating the system to get your way. Other than that, the system is working just fine.

 

[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.

The only reason you lefties keep saying "the system is broke" is because checks and balances are not the way you are used to play, cheating the system to get your way. Other than that, the system is working just fine.

All this was explained back in 1546. You won't touch that though.

Wimp.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I think you are just about the only one that disagrees with us which is why we have all these pages. Yes, the system works fine.......just not for Democrats any longer. That's their problem--not ours. It's working just fine for us.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand right back to the escape crutch again.

*NOTHING* --- as in ZERO -- in the machinations of the Electrical College has anything to do with this or that "political party". And you've been told this 87 times. You're still afraid to tackle those machinations.

It has everything to do with party because it's the Democrat party bitching about it--not us.

Who the fuck is "us"? The EC affects ALL OF US, not just some cherrypicked election or party.
Besides which there is no such thing as a "Democrat party" anyway. Are we to infer there's a "Republic party"? Limblob much?

Your cherrypicked selective-ignorance doesn't account for the fact that the NPV initiative is fourteen years old. Or that it has Republicans behind it like Gingrich. Or the "Every Vote Counts" Amendment of 2005. Or the Bayh-Celler Amendment of 1969 with Nixon behind it. Or the Madison criticism of 1823 or the Jefferson objection in post 1546. OR the fact that 2019 is not an election year, nor was last year nor the year before that.

It would seem your crutch has nothing to stand on. Would it not.

Us are people on the right. Us are the majority of the Republican party. Us are not the people bitching about a system we've used for centuries. Yes, the electoral college affects all of us, and we like the effects.

Ignore the political divide on this issue all you like. It's not going away. And if in 2020 Trump loses the election but gets the popular vote, I would bet my dollar to your dime you won't hear one Republican complain about the system. Instead, we will examine what we did wrong; something the Democrat party is incapable of.

Ah you mean like this?

You're damn right the "Democrat party" is incapable of that --- it's not capable of anything inasmuch as it doesn't exist. Are you illiterate?

Again, you ignore, but solely because you CHOOSE TO ignore, lest it require you to actually look under the hood of this thing and we can't have THAT, all the counterexamples I just gave you. You sit there and pretend that didn't happen, that Richard Nixon and Newt Gingrich and James Madison and Thomas Jefferson never existed. Sit there in your safe space of "magical 2016 land" where you can huddle down in your little cocoon, rocking back and forth making low moaning noises. Courageous.

Big deal. So you find a Republican here and there that agrees with you. Take note when I said "a majority."

 

[Pogo]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand right back to the escape crutch again.

*NOTHING* --- as in ZERO -- in the machinations of the Electrical College has anything to do with this or that "political party". And you've been told this 87 times. You're still afraid to tackle those machinations.

It has everything to do with party because it's the Democrat party bitching about it--not us.

Who the fuck is "us"? The EC affects ALL OF US, not just some cherrypicked election or party.
Besides which there is no such thing as a "Democrat party" anyway. Are we to infer there's a "Republic party"? Limblob much?

Your cherrypicked selective-ignorance doesn't account for the fact that the NPV initiative is fourteen years old. Or that it has Republicans behind it like Gingrich. Or the "Every Vote Counts" Amendment of 2005. Or the Bayh-Celler Amendment of 1969 with Nixon behind it. Or the Madison criticism of 1823 or the Jefferson objection in post 1546. OR the fact that 2019 is not an election year, nor was last year nor the year before that.

It would seem your crutch has nothing to stand on. Would it not.

Us are people on the right. Us are the majority of the Republican party. Us are not the people bitching about a system we've used for centuries. Yes, the electoral college affects all of us, and we like the effects.

Ignore the political divide on this issue all you like. It's not going away. And if in 2020 Trump loses the election but gets the popular vote, I would bet my dollar to your dime you won't hear one Republican complain about the system. Instead, we will examine what we did wrong; something the Democrat party is incapable of.

Ah you mean like this?

You're damn right the "Democrat party" is incapable of that --- it's not capable of anything inasmuch as it doesn't exist. Are you illiterate?

Again, you ignore, but solely because you CHOOSE TO ignore, lest it require you to actually look under the hood of this thing and we can't have THAT, all the counterexamples I just gave you. You sit there and pretend that didn't happen, that Richard Nixon and Newt Gingrich and James Madison and Thomas Jefferson never existed. Sit there in your safe space of "magical 2016 land" where you can huddle down in your little cocoon, rocking back and forth making low moaning noises. Courageous.

Big deal. So you find a Republican here and there that agrees with you. Take note when I said "a majority."

Which Republican? Gingrich? Nixon? Rump? Jake Garn? David Durenberger? John Anderson? John Buchanan? Tom Campbell? Tom Tancredo ? Jim Edgar?

Actually I'll take note of nothing from you until you quit hiding behind that crutch. You can't sit here claiming safe space behind a fantasy about a political party that doesn't even exist and then go "la la la" after I give you fifteen examples that disprove it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It has everything to do with party because it's the Democrat party bitching about it--not us.

Who the fuck is "us"? The EC affects ALL OF US, not just some cherrypicked election or party.
Besides which there is no such thing as a "Democrat party" anyway. Are we to infer there's a "Republic party"? Limblob much?

Your cherrypicked selective-ignorance doesn't account for the fact that the NPV initiative is fourteen years old. Or that it has Republicans behind it like Gingrich. Or the "Every Vote Counts" Amendment of 2005. Or the Bayh-Celler Amendment of 1969 with Nixon behind it. Or the Madison criticism of 1823 or the Jefferson objection in post 1546. OR the fact that 2019 is not an election year, nor was last year nor the year before that.

It would seem your crutch has nothing to stand on. Would it not.

Us are people on the right. Us are the majority of the Republican party. Us are not the people bitching about a system we've used for centuries. Yes, the electoral college affects all of us, and we like the effects.

Ignore the political divide on this issue all you like. It's not going away. And if in 2020 Trump loses the election but gets the popular vote, I would bet my dollar to your dime you won't hear one Republican complain about the system. Instead, we will examine what we did wrong; something the Democrat party is incapable of.

Ah you mean like this?

You're damn right the "Democrat party" is incapable of that --- it's not capable of anything inasmuch as it doesn't exist. Are you illiterate?

Again, you ignore, but solely because you CHOOSE TO ignore, lest it require you to actually look under the hood of this thing and we can't have THAT, all the counterexamples I just gave you. You sit there and pretend that didn't happen, that Richard Nixon and Newt Gingrich and James Madison and Thomas Jefferson never existed. Sit there in your safe space of "magical 2016 land" where you can huddle down in your little cocoon, rocking back and forth making low moaning noises. Courageous.

Big deal. So you find a Republican here and there that agrees with you. Take note when I said "a majority."

Which Republican? Gingrich? Nixon? Rump? Jake Garn? David Durenberger? John Anderson? John Buchanan? Tom Campbell? Tom Tancredo ? Jim Edgar?

Actually I'll take note of nothing from you until you quit hiding behind that crutch. You can't sit here claiming safe space behind a fantasy about a political party that doesn't even exist and then go "la la la" after I give you fifteen examples that disprove it.

In the survey, Republicans overwhelmingly favored keeping the voting method with 64 percent of respondents saying they wanted to retain it but only 25 percent in favor of eliminating it. Eleven percent of GOP respondents were unsure.

Poll: Democrats want to abolish Electoral College, Republicans want to keep it

No......it has nothing to do with parties.