Elizabeth Warren: 'End Electoral College'

[Pogo]

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

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

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

The elections listed were provided by FactCheck.org, not me, and are correct.
Third party candidates have nothing to do with electoral college that I can think of.
Nor do I get your claim on the other dates where the elected was the same as the popular vote?

We usually provide a link when we're quoting somebody so I just worked with what was posted. My dates are correct, you can look any of them up. As I said before it depends on what you mean by "affected". The list of dates at the end are all elections (18 of them) where the eventual POTUS did not win at least 50% of the national popular vote but was installed by the EC -- therefore the EC "affected" the election. And 1800 was left out.

If you're quoting somebody's web page, say so and link it, otherwise you take the responsibility for what's posted. All of the above including yesterday's post, is my own content.

Sorry, I thought I had provided the link. I must have forgotten.
Presidents Winning Without Popular Vote - FactCheck.org

When some candidate does not win enough votes and something has to be done, that is not the fault of the EC, but simply a desire not to have another run off election between the final 2 candidates.
My opinion is that the party nomination elections should be eliminated and used as an open preliminary, so that the current final election was only a run off between 2 candidates. Another solution would be to just have a single all candidate open elections where you rank each candidate. There are lots of ways to do it, all of which are better than what we do, but just going to a poplar vote improves nothing, and actually makes it worse if you still have the party nomination elections and single run off. The most over populated states are always the most screwed up and least desirable to influence choices. Over population is on record as being harmful, so these states are the most damaged and incapable of choosing well. Mob rule never is good, so there is no basis for supporting a popular vote scheme.

Several cogent thoughts there some similar to what I posted in 1546 (I'll link it). The current WTA system clearly needs work and disenfranchises millions of votes. But nobody ever suggested abandoning the EC is the only way to rectify it.

I continue to reject the Doublethinkian term "mob rule". It has no meaning. An election is not a "mob". If a state votes in a governor by say 56% that's a majority, not a "mob". If the SCOTUS renders a 6-3 decision (or even a 9-0 decision) that's not a "mob". A "mob" is a wave of emotionally-charged people out to commit some aggressive action. The phrase is absurd.

I sort of disagree.
When you have bands playing, flags waving, people giving stirring speeches, maybe some food or beer, etc., then you have a mob.

No actually that's called an 'event'. Could be a baseball game. That's a spectacle.

Voting is not a spectacle. It's standing in line to fill in a piece of paper in a small room.

For example, when we invaded Iraq, 69% of the over all population falsely believed that Saddam was behind the 9/11 attack on the WTC. Clearly that was insanely stupid, and not a single person should have thought that. Not a single responsible politician or news commentator ever believed or said that. So clearly the general population was irrational and could not have been used for making any sort of direct decision, because they not only were uninformed, but willfully so. They instead were making up totally false scenarios based on some bizarre emotional reaction. The point being that the general population IS essentially a mob. They will deliberately do great harm if they can, without bothering to even realize they are being harmful.

I doubt that figure very much. The world saw the biggest protests in the history of Earth over that invasion, though it was scantily reported here, and those demonstrations were all over this country too. That would not have happened with 70% of the populace being snowed. I think it was common knowledge that we were acting based on bullshit. That's exactly what Natalie Maines was referring to at the Dixie Chicks' concert in London --- that recent massive demonstration.

This does not define "mob". A "mob" is a group of rabid people who pull an accused prisoner out of his cell and lynch him. Or a group that corners Earnest Starr and orders him to kiss the flag. Mobs are out for coercion and violence, not voting. Basically, terrorism.

The phrase just doesn't work applied to voting. It's intentional weasel-wording and it's transparent as such.

 

[Pogo]

Several cogent thoughts there some similar to what I posted in 1546 (I'll link it).

Actually I'll just repost it here to make it easier.

You ( Rigby5 ) seem like a thoughtful sort who won't run away screaming at the prospect of reading... a background on the whole thing:

>> But here is an argument for Electoral College reform that might actually appeal to conservatives: Simply put, the way we currently elect presidents would horrify the early American authors of the U.S. electoral system, as defined in the 12th Amendment.

The drafters of that amendment, above all, wanted presidents to be elected according to the principle of majority rule. By the early 1800s, America had experimented four times with presidential elections, and had seen how the Founders’ original electoral system gave undue power to the minority party. In response, members of Congress devised a system—still federalist in nature—in which the winner of an Electoral College majority was supposed to have won majority support in the states.

The problem? In the decades since, states have abandoned their commitment to majority rule. Candidates today can win all of a state’s Electoral College votes with simply a plurality of votes in that state—and that state, either alone or along with others where the same thing happens, can swing entire elections. In 2016, Donald Trump won all the electoral votes, totaling 101, in six states where he received less than 50 percent of the popular vote: Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. (Hillary Clinton won seven states this way.) [poster note: actually the author forgot Utah where Rump got six more EVs with just 44% of its PV, Clinton actually "won" six states this way, not seven, those being Colorado, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hamster, New Mexico and Virginia] Those 101 [107] votes were [more than] one-third of the 304 Trump won overall—they were essential to his reaching an Electoral College majority of 270 and becoming president.

How did America’s presidential elections go so far astray from the goals of the 12th Amendment? And can we go back?

Understanding this deviation requires first going back to the origins of our current Electoral College system and examining what it was designed to accomplish. This history can also offer models for how states might change their rules in order to restore America’s commitment to majority rule. Principled constitutional originalists should be leading the call for this kind of reform—a reform that requires not a constitutional amendment but only changes in state law. In reality, the current system works to the detriment of both Republicans and Democrats.

.... The Electoral College system governing us today, as delineated in the 12th Amendment, is primarily the result of congressional deliberations in 1803, which revised the original system adopted at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. To the Founders, the goal of the first electoral system was to elect presidents who were consensus choices, rising above the fray of squabbling political factions. Each elector was required to cast two votes for president, each for a different candidate and the two candidates coming from different states. The assumption was that nationally acceptable second-choice candidates often would prevail over disparate “favorite son” candidates from each state.
This worked with George Washington in 1789 and 1792. But in the next two elections, after Washington retired, head-to-head competition developed between two opposing political parties—the Federalists, led by John Adams and Alexander Hamilton, and the Jeffersonians*, led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. It soon became clear that two-party politics was incompatible with the two-presidential-votes-per-elector rule.

[*"Jeffersonians" = "Democratic-Republican Party"]
​

In the election of 1800, Jefferson outpaced Adams in the Electoral College tally—73 to 65—but tied his running mate, Aaron Burr, since the Jeffersonian electors each cast their two votes for their party’s presidential and vice-presidential candidates. The Constitution’s mechanism for breaking this tie was a vote in the outgoing House of Representatives (by a special procedure in which each state’s delegation had one vote), which meant that the party controlling the outcome in the House (the Federalists) was opposed to the party whose candidates had tied for the presidency (the Jeffersonians). Not only had the Electoral College not yielded a clear winner, but tie-breaking process made matters tenser; the governors of Virginia and Pennsylvania were even prepared to use their state militias to defend Jefferson’s claim to the presidency.

Eventually, the Federalists backed down, in large part because Hamilton convinced his fellow partisans that, while Jefferson’s principles were abhorrent, at least he had principles, whereas Burr did not. Still, it was clear to the Jeffersonians that they had to do something to prevent such circumstances in the future.

Not only that, but the Jeffersonians wanted the Electoral College to yield winners who were more reflective of the prevailing sentiment among the American people. This was strategic: Ahead of the election of 1804, Jefferson had just completed the Louisiana Purchase, which Federalists opposed but the rest of the country enthusiastically applauded. The Jeffersonians also held two-thirds majorities in both houses of Congress in 1803; they did not need Federalist support to send a constitutional amendment to the states, where they were dominant as well.
So, when Congress met that year, the Jeffersonians introduced a draft of what would become the 12th Amendment, and lawmakers went to work debating it. In fact, Congress in 1803 gave much more thought to the nature of presidential elections than the 1787 convention delegates had given.

The Federalists—with Senator Uriah Tracy of Connecticut most conspicuously leading the way—defended the 1787 Electoral College system, clinging to the idea that it allowed a minority party to block a majority party’s presidential candidate. If the minority electors found the majority candidate objectionable, all they had to do was cast their two votes for their own presidential candidate and the vice-presidential candidate of the majority party, and the majority party’s vice-presidential candidate would almost certainly end up with more votes than the majority party’s presidential candidate. The Federalists contended that this minority veto was more consistent with the consensus-seeking goal of the 1787 Electoral College.

The Jeffersonians, however, argued strenuously that, according to fundamental principles of republican government, the chief executive must be the choice of the majority party. Senator John Taylor, a constitutional scholar from Virginia, asserted that it “never” is appropriate that “a minor faction should acquire a power capable of defeating the majority in the election of President.” Instead, Taylor proclaimed on the Senate floor, “the election of a President should be determined by a fair expression of the public will by a majority.” The 12th Amendment that he and the Jeffersonians proposed—in which electors each cast a single vote for president and then a separate vote for vice president—was designed to entrust power to the majority vote, which the Jeffersonians saw as representative of the popular sentiment.

.... The Jeffersonians did not conceive of this majority rule as a national popular vote. Sufficiently committed to federalism, they wanted a candidate to achieve a majority of Electoral College votes by securing majority support within the statesproviding those electoral votes. A duly elected president under the 12th Amendment, in other words, would attain a federally appropriate, compound majority-of-majorities.
Eventually, the Jeffersonians got their way in 1803. The next year, the 12th Amendment was ratified, making clear the young republic’s commitment to the will of the majority.

At first, the system devised in 1803 produced results generally consistent with the 12th Amendment’s original intent. But over time, the amendment began to lose its majoritarian moorings.

... All of this began to change with the rise of the plurality winner-take-all system, in which all of a state’s electors are awarded to the candidate who receives the highest number of votes in the state—even if that candidate receives only a plurality of the popular vote. Winner-take-all became the dominant method of appointing electors among the states after Andrew Jackson felt robbed of the presidency in 1824 and helped to persuade state legislatures to change their rules to permit plurality victories. [Jackson had easily won the popular vote by over eight points but lost the final decision to Quincy Adams]

Today, 48 states rely on the plurality winner-take-all system to select their presidential electors. It has long been the norm. But it is also a system the Jeffersonians would find entirely objectionable insofar as it empowers a party and a candidate that lack a majority of votes. The Jeffersonians would find it even more objectionable if such a candidate achieved an Electoral College victory only as a result of these minority-vote wins in enough states. Yet this is exactly what has happened in several recent elections.

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

Bolds are mine.

Some of these remedies seem to reflect your suggestions. Hope this helps.

 

[Dr Grump]

Yeah, but most liberals are.

Naw, most Deplorables are.

 

[Dr Grump]

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

Well, if you want a shit system, have it. That's one of the reasons the US is fucked. The 21st century is going to be the rise of the dragon in the east and there is nothing the US can do about it. That is what happens when you have unfettered power and greed.

 

[Chuz Life]

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

Well, if you want a shit system, have it. That's one of the reasons the US is fucked. The 21st century is going to be the rise of the dragon in the east and there is nothing the US can do about it. That is what happens when you have unfettered power and greed.

Funny how there is Nooooo speak of unfettered power and greed, when leftardz are in power.

Isn't it.

 

[Rigby5]

The elections listed were provided by FactCheck.org, not me, and are correct.
Third party candidates have nothing to do with electoral college that I can think of.
Nor do I get your claim on the other dates where the elected was the same as the popular vote?

We usually provide a link when we're quoting somebody so I just worked with what was posted. My dates are correct, you can look any of them up. As I said before it depends on what you mean by "affected". The list of dates at the end are all elections (18 of them) where the eventual POTUS did not win at least 50% of the national popular vote but was installed by the EC -- therefore the EC "affected" the election. And 1800 was left out.

If you're quoting somebody's web page, say so and link it, otherwise you take the responsibility for what's posted. All of the above including yesterday's post, is my own content.

Sorry, I thought I had provided the link. I must have forgotten.
Presidents Winning Without Popular Vote - FactCheck.org

When some candidate does not win enough votes and something has to be done, that is not the fault of the EC, but simply a desire not to have another run off election between the final 2 candidates.
My opinion is that the party nomination elections should be eliminated and used as an open preliminary, so that the current final election was only a run off between 2 candidates. Another solution would be to just have a single all candidate open elections where you rank each candidate. There are lots of ways to do it, all of which are better than what we do, but just going to a poplar vote improves nothing, and actually makes it worse if you still have the party nomination elections and single run off. The most over populated states are always the most screwed up and least desirable to influence choices. Over population is on record as being harmful, so these states are the most damaged and incapable of choosing well. Mob rule never is good, so there is no basis for supporting a popular vote scheme.

Several cogent thoughts there some similar to what I posted in 1546 (I'll link it). The current WTA system clearly needs work and disenfranchises millions of votes. But nobody ever suggested abandoning the EC is the only way to rectify it.

I continue to reject the Doublethinkian term "mob rule". It has no meaning. An election is not a "mob". If a state votes in a governor by say 56% that's a majority, not a "mob". If the SCOTUS renders a 6-3 decision (or even a 9-0 decision) that's not a "mob". A "mob" is a wave of emotionally-charged people out to commit some aggressive action. The phrase is absurd.

I sort of disagree.
When you have bands playing, flags waving, people giving stirring speeches, maybe some food or beer, etc., then you have a mob.

No actually that's called an 'event'. Could be a baseball game. That's a spectacle.

Voting is not a spectacle. It's standing in line to fill in a piece of paper in a small room.

For example, when we invaded Iraq, 69% of the over all population falsely believed that Saddam was behind the 9/11 attack on the WTC. Clearly that was insanely stupid, and not a single person should have thought that. Not a single responsible politician or news commentator ever believed or said that. So clearly the general population was irrational and could not have been used for making any sort of direct decision, because they not only were uninformed, but willfully so. They instead were making up totally false scenarios based on some bizarre emotional reaction. The point being that the general population IS essentially a mob. They will deliberately do great harm if they can, without bothering to even realize they are being harmful.

I doubt that figure very much. The world saw the biggest protests in the history of Earth over that invasion, though it was scantily reported here, and those demonstrations were all over this country too. That would not have happened with 70% of the populace being snowed. I think it was common knowledge that we were acting based on bullshit. That's exactly what Natalie Maines was referring to at the Dixie Chicks' concert in London --- that recent massive demonstration.

This does not define "mob". A "mob" is a group of rabid people who pull an accused prisoner out of his cell and lynch him. Or a group that corners Earnest Starr and orders him to kiss the flag. Mobs are out for coercion and violence, not voting. Basically, terrorism.

The phrase just doesn't work applied to voting. It's intentional weasel-wording and it's transparent as such.

I will never forget that figure.
I had to just give up arguing back then, the whole country was essentially one insane lynch mob.

{...
Former President George W. Bush and his V.P. Dick Cheney belong in prison. Back in 2003 when we invaded Iraq, 69 percent of Americans believed Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks, according to a poll by the Washington Post. In 2012, a Dartmouth poll showed a staggering 63 percent of Republican respondents still believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, compared with 27 percent of independents and 15 percent of Democrats.
...}

CIA Agent Who Interrogated Saddam Hussein Debunks George W. Bush's Lies About Iraq (VIDEO)

So then YES, the whole country was essentially trying to lynch Saddam when they were totally in the wrong, and Saddam was no only innocent, but the single most important US ally in the entire region. The only difference is that Saddam was not in a jail in the US, so we had to send our troops over there.

Voters are notoriously a lynch mob, and you can easily see it going back to the Spanish American war, where there was nothing about the USS Maine blowing up that was worth remembering, since it blew up from an internal steam mistake, and not an external explosive.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The elections listed were provided by FactCheck.org, not me, and are correct.
Third party candidates have nothing to do with electoral college that I can think of.
Nor do I get your claim on the other dates where the elected was the same as the popular vote?

We usually provide a link when we're quoting somebody so I just worked with what was posted. My dates are correct, you can look any of them up. As I said before it depends on what you mean by "affected". The list of dates at the end are all elections (18 of them) where the eventual POTUS did not win at least 50% of the national popular vote but was installed by the EC -- therefore the EC "affected" the election. And 1800 was left out.

If you're quoting somebody's web page, say so and link it, otherwise you take the responsibility for what's posted. All of the above including yesterday's post, is my own content.

Sorry, I thought I had provided the link. I must have forgotten.
Presidents Winning Without Popular Vote - FactCheck.org

When some candidate does not win enough votes and something has to be done, that is not the fault of the EC, but simply a desire not to have another run off election between the final 2 candidates.
My opinion is that the party nomination elections should be eliminated and used as an open preliminary, so that the current final election was only a run off between 2 candidates. Another solution would be to just have a single all candidate open elections where you rank each candidate. There are lots of ways to do it, all of which are better than what we do, but just going to a poplar vote improves nothing, and actually makes it worse if you still have the party nomination elections and single run off. The most over populated states are always the most screwed up and least desirable to influence choices. Over population is on record as being harmful, so these states are the most damaged and incapable of choosing well. Mob rule never is good, so there is no basis for supporting a popular vote scheme.

Several cogent thoughts there some similar to what I posted in 1546 (I'll link it). The current WTA system clearly needs work and disenfranchises millions of votes. But nobody ever suggested abandoning the EC is the only way to rectify it.

I continue to reject the Doublethinkian term "mob rule". It has no meaning. An election is not a "mob". If a state votes in a governor by say 56% that's a majority, not a "mob". If the SCOTUS renders a 6-3 decision (or even a 9-0 decision) that's not a "mob". A "mob" is a wave of emotionally-charged people out to commit some aggressive action. The phrase is absurd.

I sort of disagree.
When you have bands playing, flags waving, people giving stirring speeches, maybe some food or beer, etc., then you have a mob.

No actually that's called an 'event'. Could be a baseball game. That's a spectacle.

Voting is not a spectacle. It's standing in line to fill in a piece of paper in a small room.

For example, when we invaded Iraq, 69% of the over all population falsely believed that Saddam was behind the 9/11 attack on the WTC. Clearly that was insanely stupid, and not a single person should have thought that. Not a single responsible politician or news commentator ever believed or said that. So clearly the general population was irrational and could not have been used for making any sort of direct decision, because they not only were uninformed, but willfully so. They instead were making up totally false scenarios based on some bizarre emotional reaction. The point being that the general population IS essentially a mob. They will deliberately do great harm if they can, without bothering to even realize they are being harmful.

I doubt that figure very much. The world saw the biggest protests in the history of Earth over that invasion, though it was scantily reported here, and those demonstrations were all over this country too. That would not have happened with 70% of the populace being snowed. I think it was common knowledge that we were acting based on bullshit. That's exactly what Natalie Maines was referring to at the Dixie Chicks' concert in London --- that recent massive demonstration.

This does not define "mob". A "mob" is a group of rabid people who pull an accused prisoner out of his cell and lynch him. Or a group that corners Earnest Starr and orders him to kiss the flag. Mobs are out for coercion and violence, not voting. Basically, terrorism.

The phrase just doesn't work applied to voting. It's intentional weasel-wording and it's transparent as such.

Oh please we all know liberals vote for the Prom King and Queen and conservatives vote for policy, if that were no the case Blacks would vote for Republicans in droves


.

 

[Rigby5]

Several cogent thoughts there some similar to what I posted in 1546 (I'll link it).

Actually I'll just repost it here to make it easier.

You ( Rigby5 ) seem like a thoughtful sort who won't run away screaming at the prospect of reading... a background on the whole thing:

>> But here is an argument for Electoral College reform that might actually appeal to conservatives: Simply put, the way we currently elect presidents would horrify the early American authors of the U.S. electoral system, as defined in the 12th Amendment.

The drafters of that amendment, above all, wanted presidents to be elected according to the principle of majority rule. By the early 1800s, America had experimented four times with presidential elections, and had seen how the Founders’ original electoral system gave undue power to the minority party. In response, members of Congress devised a system—still federalist in nature—in which the winner of an Electoral College majority was supposed to have won majority support in the states.

The problem? In the decades since, states have abandoned their commitment to majority rule. Candidates today can win all of a state’s Electoral College votes with simply a plurality of votes in that state—and that state, either alone or along with others where the same thing happens, can swing entire elections. In 2016, Donald Trump won all the electoral votes, totaling 101, in six states where he received less than 50 percent of the popular vote: Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. (Hillary Clinton won seven states this way.) [poster note: actually the author forgot Utah where Rump got six more EVs with just 44% of its PV, Clinton actually "won" six states this way, not seven, those being Colorado, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hamster, New Mexico and Virginia] Those 101 [107] votes were [more than] one-third of the 304 Trump won overall—they were essential to his reaching an Electoral College majority of 270 and becoming president.

How did America’s presidential elections go so far astray from the goals of the 12th Amendment? And can we go back?

Understanding this deviation requires first going back to the origins of our current Electoral College system and examining what it was designed to accomplish. This history can also offer models for how states might change their rules in order to restore America’s commitment to majority rule. Principled constitutional originalists should be leading the call for this kind of reform—a reform that requires not a constitutional amendment but only changes in state law. In reality, the current system works to the detriment of both Republicans and Democrats.

.... The Electoral College system governing us today, as delineated in the 12th Amendment, is primarily the result of congressional deliberations in 1803, which revised the original system adopted at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. To the Founders, the goal of the first electoral system was to elect presidents who were consensus choices, rising above the fray of squabbling political factions. Each elector was required to cast two votes for president, each for a different candidate and the two candidates coming from different states. The assumption was that nationally acceptable second-choice candidates often would prevail over disparate “favorite son” candidates from each state.
This worked with George Washington in 1789 and 1792. But in the next two elections, after Washington retired, head-to-head competition developed between two opposing political parties—the Federalists, led by John Adams and Alexander Hamilton, and the Jeffersonians*, led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. It soon became clear that two-party politics was incompatible with the two-presidential-votes-per-elector rule.

[*"Jeffersonians" = "Democratic-Republican Party"]
​

In the election of 1800, Jefferson outpaced Adams in the Electoral College tally—73 to 65—but tied his running mate, Aaron Burr, since the Jeffersonian electors each cast their two votes for their party’s presidential and vice-presidential candidates. The Constitution’s mechanism for breaking this tie was a vote in the outgoing House of Representatives (by a special procedure in which each state’s delegation had one vote), which meant that the party controlling the outcome in the House (the Federalists) was opposed to the party whose candidates had tied for the presidency (the Jeffersonians). Not only had the Electoral College not yielded a clear winner, but tie-breaking process made matters tenser; the governors of Virginia and Pennsylvania were even prepared to use their state militias to defend Jefferson’s claim to the presidency.

Eventually, the Federalists backed down, in large part because Hamilton convinced his fellow partisans that, while Jefferson’s principles were abhorrent, at least he had principles, whereas Burr did not. Still, it was clear to the Jeffersonians that they had to do something to prevent such circumstances in the future.

Not only that, but the Jeffersonians wanted the Electoral College to yield winners who were more reflective of the prevailing sentiment among the American people. This was strategic: Ahead of the election of 1804, Jefferson had just completed the Louisiana Purchase, which Federalists opposed but the rest of the country enthusiastically applauded. The Jeffersonians also held two-thirds majorities in both houses of Congress in 1803; they did not need Federalist support to send a constitutional amendment to the states, where they were dominant as well.
So, when Congress met that year, the Jeffersonians introduced a draft of what would become the 12th Amendment, and lawmakers went to work debating it. In fact, Congress in 1803 gave much more thought to the nature of presidential elections than the 1787 convention delegates had given.

The Federalists—with Senator Uriah Tracy of Connecticut most conspicuously leading the way—defended the 1787 Electoral College system, clinging to the idea that it allowed a minority party to block a majority party’s presidential candidate. If the minority electors found the majority candidate objectionable, all they had to do was cast their two votes for their own presidential candidate and the vice-presidential candidate of the majority party, and the majority party’s vice-presidential candidate would almost certainly end up with more votes than the majority party’s presidential candidate. The Federalists contended that this minority veto was more consistent with the consensus-seeking goal of the 1787 Electoral College.

The Jeffersonians, however, argued strenuously that, according to fundamental principles of republican government, the chief executive must be the choice of the majority party. Senator John Taylor, a constitutional scholar from Virginia, asserted that it “never” is appropriate that “a minor faction should acquire a power capable of defeating the majority in the election of President.” Instead, Taylor proclaimed on the Senate floor, “the election of a President should be determined by a fair expression of the public will by a majority.” The 12th Amendment that he and the Jeffersonians proposed—in which electors each cast a single vote for president and then a separate vote for vice president—was designed to entrust power to the majority vote, which the Jeffersonians saw as representative of the popular sentiment.

.... The Jeffersonians did not conceive of this majority rule as a national popular vote. Sufficiently committed to federalism, they wanted a candidate to achieve a majority of Electoral College votes by securing majority support within the statesproviding those electoral votes. A duly elected president under the 12th Amendment, in other words, would attain a federally appropriate, compound majority-of-majorities.
Eventually, the Jeffersonians got their way in 1803. The next year, the 12th Amendment was ratified, making clear the young republic’s commitment to the will of the majority.

At first, the system devised in 1803 produced results generally consistent with the 12th Amendment’s original intent. But over time, the amendment began to lose its majoritarian moorings.

... All of this began to change with the rise of the plurality winner-take-all system, in which all of a state’s electors are awarded to the candidate who receives the highest number of votes in the state—even if that candidate receives only a plurality of the popular vote. Winner-take-all became the dominant method of appointing electors among the states after Andrew Jackson felt robbed of the presidency in 1824 and helped to persuade state legislatures to change their rules to permit plurality victories. [Jackson had easily won the popular vote by over eight points but lost the final decision to Quincy Adams]

Today, 48 states rely on the plurality winner-take-all system to select their presidential electors. It has long been the norm. But it is also a system the Jeffersonians would find entirely objectionable insofar as it empowers a party and a candidate that lack a majority of votes. The Jeffersonians would find it even more objectionable if such a candidate achieved an Electoral College victory only as a result of these minority-vote wins in enough states. Yet this is exactly what has happened in several recent elections.

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

Bolds are mine.

Some of these remedies seem to reflect your suggestions. Hope this helps.

But don't forget the reality back then was that not only could women, slaves, natives, and immigrants not vote, but only those who owned land could vote.

{...
One such device the founders utilized to protect property was restricting the voting franchise so that only "freeholders" (those who owned land, free and clear) could vote. For instance in the early years of our Republic every one of the States had different property requirements, either in land or some other monetary or private property equivalent--but they all attempted, in one way or the other, to protect private property by property restrictions on the vote.

Arguments the Founders used for restricting the voting franchise to property owners included:

• Since voters were also property owners they would have a great vested interest in how government was run and operated and in keeping government fiscally restrained and responsible
• Potential voters had a built-in incentive to acquire property
• Property owners were generally seen as those who had worked hard and industriously, had exercised self-control and thrift, and acquired other virtuous character traits seen as necessary for the well-being of society.

Property Rights and the Voting Franchise - The Perfect Law of Liberty
...}

The main problem now is that parties have their own control over the primary election. And that is bad because someone who might appeal to 49% of the voters in each party, gets filtered out and become unavailable.
So my favorite choice likely would be an open primary run in ALL the states at the exact same time, so that candidates do not have to spend so much money going from state to state. Then a run off between the 2 highest results candidates, regardless of what party they belong to.
Whether the votes are counted from direct popular input of individuals or is indirect through electors, I am less concerned with.
I would not even mind if Congress voted for who was president, in a parliamentary system that encouraged alliances and temporary coalitions.

 

[dblack]

I continue to reject the Doublethinkian term "mob rule". It has no meaning. An election is not a "mob". If a state votes in a governor by say 56% that's a majority, not a "mob". If the SCOTUS renders a 6-3 decision (or even a 9-0 decision) that's not a "mob". A "mob" is a wave of emotionally-charged people out to commit some aggressive action. The phrase is absurd.

I continue to reject notion that majority rule is sacrosanct.

 

[Dr Grump]

Funny how there is Nooooo speak of unfettered power and greed, when leftardz are in power.

Isn't it.

That's because they're socialist commies who want to spread the wealth around, remember?

 

[Pogo]

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

Well, if you want a shit system, have it. That's one of the reasons the US is fucked. The 21st century is going to be the rise of the dragon in the east and there is nothing the US can do about it. That is what happens when you have unfettered power and greed.

Funny how there is Nooooo speak of unfettered power and greed, when leftardz are in power.

Isn't it.

Funny how in lieu of an argument all you can do is Chuz Ignorance and think you made a point.

Thanks for breaking a brain sweat, slacker. Compliments to your crack team of researchers. Give them an extra ration of crack.

 

[Pogo]

We usually provide a link when we're quoting somebody so I just worked with what was posted. My dates are correct, you can look any of them up. As I said before it depends on what you mean by "affected". The list of dates at the end are all elections (18 of them) where the eventual POTUS did not win at least 50% of the national popular vote but was installed by the EC -- therefore the EC "affected" the election. And 1800 was left out.

If you're quoting somebody's web page, say so and link it, otherwise you take the responsibility for what's posted. All of the above including yesterday's post, is my own content.

Sorry, I thought I had provided the link. I must have forgotten.
Presidents Winning Without Popular Vote - FactCheck.org

When some candidate does not win enough votes and something has to be done, that is not the fault of the EC, but simply a desire not to have another run off election between the final 2 candidates.
My opinion is that the party nomination elections should be eliminated and used as an open preliminary, so that the current final election was only a run off between 2 candidates. Another solution would be to just have a single all candidate open elections where you rank each candidate. There are lots of ways to do it, all of which are better than what we do, but just going to a poplar vote improves nothing, and actually makes it worse if you still have the party nomination elections and single run off. The most over populated states are always the most screwed up and least desirable to influence choices. Over population is on record as being harmful, so these states are the most damaged and incapable of choosing well. Mob rule never is good, so there is no basis for supporting a popular vote scheme.

Several cogent thoughts there some similar to what I posted in 1546 (I'll link it). The current WTA system clearly needs work and disenfranchises millions of votes. But nobody ever suggested abandoning the EC is the only way to rectify it.

I continue to reject the Doublethinkian term "mob rule". It has no meaning. An election is not a "mob". If a state votes in a governor by say 56% that's a majority, not a "mob". If the SCOTUS renders a 6-3 decision (or even a 9-0 decision) that's not a "mob". A "mob" is a wave of emotionally-charged people out to commit some aggressive action. The phrase is absurd.

I sort of disagree.
When you have bands playing, flags waving, people giving stirring speeches, maybe some food or beer, etc., then you have a mob.

No actually that's called an 'event'. Could be a baseball game. That's a spectacle.

Voting is not a spectacle. It's standing in line to fill in a piece of paper in a small room.

For example, when we invaded Iraq, 69% of the over all population falsely believed that Saddam was behind the 9/11 attack on the WTC. Clearly that was insanely stupid, and not a single person should have thought that. Not a single responsible politician or news commentator ever believed or said that. So clearly the general population was irrational and could not have been used for making any sort of direct decision, because they not only were uninformed, but willfully so. They instead were making up totally false scenarios based on some bizarre emotional reaction. The point being that the general population IS essentially a mob. They will deliberately do great harm if they can, without bothering to even realize they are being harmful.

I doubt that figure very much. The world saw the biggest protests in the history of Earth over that invasion, though it was scantily reported here, and those demonstrations were all over this country too. That would not have happened with 70% of the populace being snowed. I think it was common knowledge that we were acting based on bullshit. That's exactly what Natalie Maines was referring to at the Dixie Chicks' concert in London --- that recent massive demonstration.

This does not define "mob". A "mob" is a group of rabid people who pull an accused prisoner out of his cell and lynch him. Or a group that corners Earnest Starr and orders him to kiss the flag. Mobs are out for coercion and violence, not voting. Basically, terrorism.

The phrase just doesn't work applied to voting. It's intentional weasel-wording and it's transparent as such.

I will never forget that figure.
I had to just give up arguing back then, the whole country was essentially one insane lynch mob.

{...
Former President George W. Bush and his V.P. Dick Cheney belong in prison. Back in 2003 when we invaded Iraq, 69 percent of Americans believed Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks, according to a poll by the Washington Post. In 2012, a Dartmouth poll showed a staggering 63 percent of Republican respondents still believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, compared with 27 percent of independents and 15 percent of Democrats.
...}

CIA Agent Who Interrogated Saddam Hussein Debunks George W. Bush's Lies About Iraq (VIDEO)

So then YES, the whole country was essentially trying to lynch Saddam when they were totally in the wrong, and Saddam was no only innocent, but the single most important US ally in the entire region. The only difference is that Saddam was not in a jail in the US, so we had to send our troops over there.

Voters are notoriously a lynch mob, and you can easily see it going back to the Spanish American war, where there was nothing about the USS Maine blowing up that was worth remembering, since it blew up from an internal steam mistake, and not an external explosive.

I see your link, and clicked it, but I still can't believe that. I've literally never seen that sentiment on that degree, at any time. I strongly suspect a failed or poisoned poll. It just didn't exist on this planet in my experience, not on that degree.

Besides which, a poll about who the bad guy is, is not an election. Nor is a lynching. It's not legitimate to compare them. A rush to judgment, be it a war or a lynching, is a mass emotion in the moment. An election is a long drawn-out process, which time component serves to dull such irrationality and provides for critical review. Sudden invasions and lynch mobs do not. Nor, even if we accept the 69% poll, would those 69% have any say in how the US should proceed anyway.

Truth is the first casualty in war, and the road is littered with outright made-up propaganda from depictions of a baby on a bayonet to the Nayirah fake testimony about Iraqis killing babies in incubators. Sorry, I see the link but I strongly suspect this is more of that, made up by the warmongers as justification for the uninformed to give themselves a pass. The same sort of pandering a politician speech does when they start babbling "I don't think the American people want X, I think they want Y".

Be that as it may or may not, elections simply aren't mobs. They don't have the factor of immediacy and it's not legitimate argument to compare them. If we stipulate that, then we can never have any election for anything at all.

 

[Pogo]

I continue to reject the Doublethinkian term "mob rule". It has no meaning. An election is not a "mob". If a state votes in a governor by say 56% that's a majority, not a "mob". If the SCOTUS renders a 6-3 decision (or even a 9-0 decision) that's not a "mob". A "mob" is a wave of emotionally-charged people out to commit some aggressive action. The phrase is absurd.

I continue to reject notion that majority rule is sacrosanct.

That's why we have bicameral government isn't it. Disparate interests must compromise to serve each somewhat rather than serve one solely.

But again,.that's not what an election is. The whole point of an election is to make the selection that the majority wants.

 

[Pogo]

Several cogent thoughts there some similar to what I posted in 1546 (I'll link it).

Actually I'll just repost it here to make it easier.

You ( Rigby5 ) seem like a thoughtful sort who won't run away screaming at the prospect of reading... a background on the whole thing:

>> But here is an argument for Electoral College reform that might actually appeal to conservatives: Simply put, the way we currently elect presidents would horrify the early American authors of the U.S. electoral system, as defined in the 12th Amendment.

The drafters of that amendment, above all, wanted presidents to be elected according to the principle of majority rule. By the early 1800s, America had experimented four times with presidential elections, and had seen how the Founders’ original electoral system gave undue power to the minority party. In response, members of Congress devised a system—still federalist in nature—in which the winner of an Electoral College majority was supposed to have won majority support in the states.

The problem? In the decades since, states have abandoned their commitment to majority rule. Candidates today can win all of a state’s Electoral College votes with simply a plurality of votes in that state—and that state, either alone or along with others where the same thing happens, can swing entire elections. In 2016, Donald Trump won all the electoral votes, totaling 101, in six states where he received less than 50 percent of the popular vote: Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. (Hillary Clinton won seven states this way.) [poster note: actually the author forgot Utah where Rump got six more EVs with just 44% of its PV, Clinton actually "won" six states this way, not seven, those being Colorado, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hamster, New Mexico and Virginia] Those 101 [107] votes were [more than] one-third of the 304 Trump won overall—they were essential to his reaching an Electoral College majority of 270 and becoming president.

How did America’s presidential elections go so far astray from the goals of the 12th Amendment? And can we go back?

Understanding this deviation requires first going back to the origins of our current Electoral College system and examining what it was designed to accomplish. This history can also offer models for how states might change their rules in order to restore America’s commitment to majority rule. Principled constitutional originalists should be leading the call for this kind of reform—a reform that requires not a constitutional amendment but only changes in state law. In reality, the current system works to the detriment of both Republicans and Democrats.

.... The Electoral College system governing us today, as delineated in the 12th Amendment, is primarily the result of congressional deliberations in 1803, which revised the original system adopted at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. To the Founders, the goal of the first electoral system was to elect presidents who were consensus choices, rising above the fray of squabbling political factions. Each elector was required to cast two votes for president, each for a different candidate and the two candidates coming from different states. The assumption was that nationally acceptable second-choice candidates often would prevail over disparate “favorite son” candidates from each state.
This worked with George Washington in 1789 and 1792. But in the next two elections, after Washington retired, head-to-head competition developed between two opposing political parties—the Federalists, led by John Adams and Alexander Hamilton, and the Jeffersonians*, led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. It soon became clear that two-party politics was incompatible with the two-presidential-votes-per-elector rule.

[*"Jeffersonians" = "Democratic-Republican Party"]
​

In the election of 1800, Jefferson outpaced Adams in the Electoral College tally—73 to 65—but tied his running mate, Aaron Burr, since the Jeffersonian electors each cast their two votes for their party’s presidential and vice-presidential candidates. The Constitution’s mechanism for breaking this tie was a vote in the outgoing House of Representatives (by a special procedure in which each state’s delegation had one vote), which meant that the party controlling the outcome in the House (the Federalists) was opposed to the party whose candidates had tied for the presidency (the Jeffersonians). Not only had the Electoral College not yielded a clear winner, but tie-breaking process made matters tenser; the governors of Virginia and Pennsylvania were even prepared to use their state militias to defend Jefferson’s claim to the presidency.

Eventually, the Federalists backed down, in large part because Hamilton convinced his fellow partisans that, while Jefferson’s principles were abhorrent, at least he had principles, whereas Burr did not. Still, it was clear to the Jeffersonians that they had to do something to prevent such circumstances in the future.

Not only that, but the Jeffersonians wanted the Electoral College to yield winners who were more reflective of the prevailing sentiment among the American people. This was strategic: Ahead of the election of 1804, Jefferson had just completed the Louisiana Purchase, which Federalists opposed but the rest of the country enthusiastically applauded. The Jeffersonians also held two-thirds majorities in both houses of Congress in 1803; they did not need Federalist support to send a constitutional amendment to the states, where they were dominant as well.
So, when Congress met that year, the Jeffersonians introduced a draft of what would become the 12th Amendment, and lawmakers went to work debating it. In fact, Congress in 1803 gave much more thought to the nature of presidential elections than the 1787 convention delegates had given.

The Federalists—with Senator Uriah Tracy of Connecticut most conspicuously leading the way—defended the 1787 Electoral College system, clinging to the idea that it allowed a minority party to block a majority party’s presidential candidate. If the minority electors found the majority candidate objectionable, all they had to do was cast their two votes for their own presidential candidate and the vice-presidential candidate of the majority party, and the majority party’s vice-presidential candidate would almost certainly end up with more votes than the majority party’s presidential candidate. The Federalists contended that this minority veto was more consistent with the consensus-seeking goal of the 1787 Electoral College.

The Jeffersonians, however, argued strenuously that, according to fundamental principles of republican government, the chief executive must be the choice of the majority party. Senator John Taylor, a constitutional scholar from Virginia, asserted that it “never” is appropriate that “a minor faction should acquire a power capable of defeating the majority in the election of President.” Instead, Taylor proclaimed on the Senate floor, “the election of a President should be determined by a fair expression of the public will by a majority.” The 12th Amendment that he and the Jeffersonians proposed—in which electors each cast a single vote for president and then a separate vote for vice president—was designed to entrust power to the majority vote, which the Jeffersonians saw as representative of the popular sentiment.

.... The Jeffersonians did not conceive of this majority rule as a national popular vote. Sufficiently committed to federalism, they wanted a candidate to achieve a majority of Electoral College votes by securing majority support within the statesproviding those electoral votes. A duly elected president under the 12th Amendment, in other words, would attain a federally appropriate, compound majority-of-majorities.
Eventually, the Jeffersonians got their way in 1803. The next year, the 12th Amendment was ratified, making clear the young republic’s commitment to the will of the majority.

At first, the system devised in 1803 produced results generally consistent with the 12th Amendment’s original intent. But over time, the amendment began to lose its majoritarian moorings.

... All of this began to change with the rise of the plurality winner-take-all system, in which all of a state’s electors are awarded to the candidate who receives the highest number of votes in the state—even if that candidate receives only a plurality of the popular vote. Winner-take-all became the dominant method of appointing electors among the states after Andrew Jackson felt robbed of the presidency in 1824 and helped to persuade state legislatures to change their rules to permit plurality victories. [Jackson had easily won the popular vote by over eight points but lost the final decision to Quincy Adams]

Today, 48 states rely on the plurality winner-take-all system to select their presidential electors. It has long been the norm. But it is also a system the Jeffersonians would find entirely objectionable insofar as it empowers a party and a candidate that lack a majority of votes. The Jeffersonians would find it even more objectionable if such a candidate achieved an Electoral College victory only as a result of these minority-vote wins in enough states. Yet this is exactly what has happened in several recent elections.

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

Bolds are mine.

Some of these remedies seem to reflect your suggestions. Hope this helps.

But don't forget the reality back then was that not only could women, slaves, natives, and immigrants not vote, but only those who owned land could vote.

{...
One such device the founders utilized to protect property was restricting the voting franchise so that only "freeholders" (those who owned land, free and clear) could vote. For instance in the early years of our Republic every one of the States had different property requirements, either in land or some other monetary or private property equivalent--but they all attempted, in one way or the other, to protect private property by property restrictions on the vote.

Arguments the Founders used for restricting the voting franchise to property owners included:

• Since voters were also property owners they would have a great vested interest in how government was run and operated and in keeping government fiscally restrained and responsible
• Potential voters had a built-in incentive to acquire property
• Property owners were generally seen as those who had worked hard and industriously, had exercised self-control and thrift, and acquired other virtuous character traits seen as necessary for the well-being of society.

Property Rights and the Voting Franchise - The Perfect Law of Liberty
...}

The main problem now is that parties have their own control over the primary election. And that is bad because someone who might appeal to 49% of the voters in each party, gets filtered out and become unavailable.
So my favorite choice likely would be an open primary run in ALL the states at the exact same time, so that candidates do not have to spend so much money going from state to state. Then a run off between the 2 highest results candidates, regardless of what party they belong to.
Whether the votes are counted from direct popular input of individuals or is indirect through electors, I am less concerned with.
I would not even mind if Congress voted for who was president, in a parliamentary system that encouraged alliances and temporary coalitions.

Yes I still like the runoff idea in that a runoff between two guarantees one comes out ahead unless a literal tie.
However I'd introduce a fly into that ointment to make it legitimately fair by including a third choice, which would be "NOTA".

NOTA would have swept the nation in a landslide in 2016 it's fair to say. That of course leaves us with an empty office but it also provides incentive for the two Duopoly parties to get to work and provide real choices instead of pander bears.

That's the last part of your post. I'm not sure what the point in the first part about property rights is. I don't see a connection to the point quoted.

 

[dblack]

I continue to reject notion that majority rule is sacrosanct.

That's why we have bicameral government isn't it.

No, that's why we have Constitutional limits on government power. So that the blind will of the majority doesn't run roughshod over individual rights.

But again,.that's not what an election is. The whole point of an election is to make the selection that the majority wants.

No, it's not. The point of an election is to choose a good leader/representative. And the design of the EC underscores that. It is designed, deliberately, to deny what the majority wants in certain circumstances. I understand that you don't like that - but the point of the election isn't to slavishly follow majority rule.

 

[hadit]

Sen. Elizabeth Warren said Monday that she fully supports abolishing the Electoral College and moving toward a national vote, the first time the 2020 presidential candidate has publicly taken the stance.

“My view is that every vote matters,” the Massachusetts Democrat said to roaring applause at her CNN presidential town hall at Jackson State University in Mississippi. “And the way we can make that happen is that we can have national voting, and that means get rid of the Electoral College.”

More: Elizabeth Warren Calls For Getting Rid Of The Electoral College

Amen! I couldn't agree more! Elections should be about people - not acreage! BTW, the rest of the link is worth reading.

So you believe we should accept the opinion of Elizabeth Warren, the woman who lied about her ancestry for decades?

LOL.

Yeah Warren tells a stupid lie that no one in their right mind gives a shit about (like anyone - other then a Native American - is going to vote for her because she said she was one, small part Native...riiiiiiiiight).

Trump tells lie after lie, false claim after false claim - as President - and you don't even give a shit.

Trump Lies
Opinion | President Trump’s Lies, the Definitive List
Trump Lies
Donald Trump's file
Lyin' Donald: 101 Of Trump's Greatest Lies
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/maryanngeorgantopoulos/president-trump-lie-list
All of Donald Trump's Lies
Donald Trump’s Huge Lies | National Review
President Trump Made 1,950 Untrue Claims in 2017
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims-database/?utm_term=.f4905394f18c

Talk about hypocrisy.

You just have a ridiculously-intense hatred for anyone who does not think like you do politically.

And you have - IMO - near-ZERO cred with anyone who is not a Trumpbot on such matters.


Hell, I don't even give a shit about Warren and I think she is far, too extremist (like Sanders) to be good for America as POTUS. But her one, silly lie is FUCKING NOTHING compared to the falsehoods Trump unfurls on a weekly basis.
And yet, you seem blind to them all.

You are simply pathetic....worthy of pity. You are either monumentally stupid and/or monumentally delusional about Trump.

Have a nice day.

Interesting. You don't care at all about the subject of the thread, so you write a long post about someone else. Can anyone say troll diversion?

 

[hadit]

The founders were wise men for their time - but in hindsight they did some dumb shit. The Electoral College is dumb shit.

So change it.

 

[McRocket]

Sen. Elizabeth Warren said Monday that she fully supports abolishing the Electoral College and moving toward a national vote, the first time the 2020 presidential candidate has publicly taken the stance.

“My view is that every vote matters,” the Massachusetts Democrat said to roaring applause at her CNN presidential town hall at Jackson State University in Mississippi. “And the way we can make that happen is that we can have national voting, and that means get rid of the Electoral College.”

More: Elizabeth Warren Calls For Getting Rid Of The Electoral College

Amen! I couldn't agree more! Elections should be about people - not acreage! BTW, the rest of the link is worth reading.

So you believe we should accept the opinion of Elizabeth Warren, the woman who lied about her ancestry for decades?

LOL.

Yeah Warren tells a stupid lie that no one in their right mind gives a shit about (like anyone - other then a Native American - is going to vote for her because she said she was one, small part Native...riiiiiiiiight).

Trump tells lie after lie, false claim after false claim - as President - and you don't even give a shit.

Trump Lies
Opinion | President Trump’s Lies, the Definitive List
Trump Lies
Donald Trump's file
Lyin' Donald: 101 Of Trump's Greatest Lies
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/maryanngeorgantopoulos/president-trump-lie-list
All of Donald Trump's Lies
Donald Trump’s Huge Lies | National Review
President Trump Made 1,950 Untrue Claims in 2017
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims-database/?utm_term=.f4905394f18c

Talk about hypocrisy.

You just have a ridiculously-intense hatred for anyone who does not think like you do politically.

And you have - IMO - near-ZERO cred with anyone who is not a Trumpbot on such matters.


Hell, I don't even give a shit about Warren and I think she is far, too extremist (like Sanders) to be good for America as POTUS. But her one, silly lie is FUCKING NOTHING compared to the falsehoods Trump unfurls on a weekly basis.
And yet, you seem blind to them all.

You are simply pathetic....worthy of pity. You are either monumentally stupid and/or monumentally delusional about Trump.

Have a nice day.

Interesting. You don't care at all about the subject of the thread, so you write a long post about someone else. Can anyone say troll diversion?

Idiot. It's not trolling - look it up.

It's providing links to factual proof that the lie she told is tiny in comparison to the whoppers Trump tells on a weekly basis.

It's called information for comparison purposes...dumb ass.

You just hate it because you are obviously a Trumpbot and what I typed made your hero look like a lying, obese, stack of shit.


Let's look at some of your posts...see if you ALWAYS stayed RIGHT on topic.

The Right To Bear Arms
My Ah Ha moment to why Dems really hate & demonize the Maga slogan and hat
The Right To Bear Arms

These are just three. Now explain to us all how these comments stayed COMPLETELY on topic?

 

[Chuz Life]

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

Well, if you want a shit system, have it. That's one of the reasons the US is fucked. The 21st century is going to be the rise of the dragon in the east and there is nothing the US can do about it. That is what happens when you have unfettered power and greed.

Funny how there is Nooooo speak of unfettered power and greed, when leftardz are in power.

Isn't it.

Funny how in lieu of an argument all you can do is Chuz Ignorance and think you made a point.

Thanks for breaking a brain sweat, slacker. Compliments to your crack team of researchers. Give them an extra ration of crack.

Did you catch the attorney of the two hired fake attackers on CNN last night.

Pretty damning stuff for the FBI to look into.

You might yet have to try to get a refund on your Smollett's drag show tickets.

 

[Synthaholic]

Will it still work in 2020 when Mich Penn Wicon that voted for the moron trump by a total of 72000 votes repeat?

probably

Think you're wrong A candidate like Biden won't be making mistakes in campaigning like Clinton did

what are you talking about?

your post was asking if the Electoral College would still work in 2020.

it probably will.

after 2016, I have little doubt whoever the candidate is will do more campaigning than Hillary did.

They couldn't do worse

It’s a stupid subject to argue about. It’s not getting changed anytime soon. Better to concentrate on voter registration and being ready to get people to the polls, whether it’s renting buses across the country, or Beyoncé holding a free concert in St. Louis for all who voted (I have ideas!).

Whatever it takes.

In other words drag people to the polls that are uninterested in voting and don't know crap about politics or policies. Yep, that's the Democrat way.

No, it’s educating and enlightening non-voters with all the possibilities under Democratic government. Like new, good-paying jobs.

It’s time for the adults to take over again.