It takes 3/4 of the States to ratify an Amendment to the Constitution: The Electoral College is safe

[Likkmee]

Hilary lost to a Community Organizer unknown, and then a novice businessman. No wonder she has to lean on Chardonnay too much as she's told us. EC rules!

Novice businessman ? Get help man.

 

[Deno]

The EC was and still is a very good idea.

Yup and that's why the FF's put it in the Constitution. They were very wise, far seeing men.

People that own human slaves are NOT wise.

That should have read were not.. Not are not dumb ass.....

Slavery was an evil thing....

Our Founding Fathers set up the greatest system of Government

the world has ever seen.

It eventually lead to the end of slavery.

You do realize there is still slavery in the world today... don’t you?

 

[Pilot1]

Hilary lost to a Community Organizer unknown, and then a novice businessman. No wonder she has to lean on Chardonnay too much as she's told us. EC rules!

Novice businessman ? Get help man.

Let me clarify. Novice POLITICIAN businessman. They guy ran a multinational corp. I get it.

 

[Blackrook]

...and it takes a Constitutional amendment, not an interstate compact, to abolish the Electoral College.

 

[Claudette]

You are 100% correct. Every election would be decided by the States with the most people. All the smile states votes would count for nothing.

 

[Polishprince]

...and it takes a Constitutional amendment, not an interstate compact, to abolish the Electoral College.

In addition, a national popular vote situation would make it possible for a hostile foreign power to actually rig the nationwide election.

All they would have to do is to get into a single city or state and stuff the ballot box significantly at that single point and the election would be in the bag.

As B. Hussein O so eloquently pointed out before the 2016 election, US Presidential Elections are literally impossible to rig because of their multifocal nature. They really aren't a single election, but multiple elections with different rules everywhere.

 

[iceberg]

...and it takes a Constitutional amendment, not an interstate compact, to abolish the Electoral College.

In addition, a national popular vote situation would make it possible for a hostile foreign power to actually rig the nationwide election.

All they would have to do is to get into a single city or state and stuff the ballot box significantly at that single point and the election would be in the bag.

As B. Hussein O so eloquently pointed out before the 2016 election, US Presidential Elections are literally impossible to rig because of their multifocal nature. They really aren't a single election, but multiple elections with different rules everywhere.

none of that matters. 250 years of history and representation from all founding states worked months and months to come up with a system that would be fair as could be to all. it works against the left one time and suddenly it has to go.

yea, that's leadership we need these days. instant gratification or we fight!

 

[Moonglow]

A fair system for the elites since the common citizen was not suppose to elect the president and vice president.

 

[JWBooth]

The whole point, the smaller states have collectively been a brake on domination by California.

 

[Seawytch]

You are 100% correct. Every election would be decided by the States with the most people. All the smile states votes would count for nothing.

No, every election would be decided by the people of America. Each vote having equal value rather than the current system of a vote in Wyoming being worth 3 times the vote of a Californian. One person, one vote.

 

[JWBooth]

A fair system for the elites since the common citizen was not suppose to elect the president and vice president.

Funny how that turned out with the opposite result.

 

[Claudette]

You are 100% correct. Every election would be decided by the States with the most people. All the smile states votes would count for nothing.

No, every election would be decided by the people of America. Each vote having equal value rather than the current system of a vote in Wyoming being worth 3 times the vote of a Californian. One person, one vote.

Every election would be decided by states like California and NY which have huge populations.

The smaller states would have no say in who won.

That's why the FF set up the EC.

 

[Moonglow]

A fair system for the elites since the common citizen was not suppose to elect the president and vice president.

Funny how that turned out to turn out with the opposite result.

The Founders would not have approved.

 

[JWBooth]

The whole point was to keep the larger states, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and New York at the time from running roughshod over the smaller ones. Proportional representation was reserved/preserved in the House.

 

[JWBooth]

Nobody gives a fuck about the EC until the dimocraps lose.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You are 100% correct. Every election would be decided by the States with the most people. All the smile states votes would count for nothing.

No, every election would be decided by the people of America. Each vote having equal value rather than the current system of a vote in Wyoming being worth 3 times the vote of a Californian. One person, one vote.

Every election would be decided by states like California and NY which have huge populations.

The smaller states would have no say in who won.

That's why the FF set up the EC.

These states already have bigger influence over the elections, the EC does not prevent that.

In the last election only 60% of NY voted for Clinton, yet she got 100% of the EC votes. Only 62% of Cali voted for Clinton yet she got 100% of the EC votes.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Seawytch]

...and it takes a Constitutional amendment, not an interstate compact, to abolish the Electoral College.

In addition, a national popular vote situation would make it possible for a hostile foreign power to actually rig the nationwide election.

All they would have to do is to get into a single city or state and stuff the ballot box significantly at that single point and the election would be in the bag.

As B. Hussein O so eloquently pointed out before the 2016 election, US Presidential Elections are literally impossible to rig because of their multifocal nature. They really aren't a single election, but multiple elections with different rules everywhere.

none of that matters. 250 years of history and representation from all founding states worked months and months to come up with a system that would be fair as could be to all. it works against the left one time and suddenly it has to go.

yea, that's leadership we need these days. instant gratification or we fight!

1. The Electoral College currently exists, therefore it is good.
(A) The founders thought superhard about this, and so we should defer to their judgement.

In Defense of the Electoral College”:

The Founders who sat in the 1787 Constitutional Convention lavished an extraordinary amount of argument on the electoral college, and it was by no means one-sided … The Founders also designed the operation of the electoral college with unusual care. The portion of Article 2, Section 1, describing the electoral college is longer and descends to more detail than any other single issue the Constitution addresses. More than the federal judiciary — more than the war powers — more than taxation and representation.

This isn’t the op-ed’s only argument. But the authors devote a solid 350 words of their short column to saying, essentially, “Look, our finest slaveholders already debated all this only a couple decades before the advent of the steam engine, so why reopen this can of worms?” And they are hardly alone in presenting “the founders said so” as a trump card.

The trouble with this argument is twofold. First, the founders were (mostly) a collection of land speculators who built their fortunes by ethnically cleansing Native Americans, and slavers who built theirs by participating in one of the greatest atrocities in world history. Most did not believe in popular democracy (as the vast majority of Americans do today). As political theorists, these dudes were so foresighted, they assumed that America would never have political parties.

None of this means that some of them weren’t brilliant, or that they didn’t build some institutions that are worth preserving. But it does mean we’re talking about incredibly flawed, extremely dead human beings, not philosopher kings appointed by God. Thus, there is no reason to reflexively defer to their judgement — which was itself the product of compromise between disparate interests, not Socratic dialogue on the ideal form of the state. Some founders favored the popular vote; others wanted to leverage their chattel into disproportionate political power.

Here’s Every Defense of the Electoral College — and Why They’re All Wrong

 

[Polishprince]

Nobody gives a fuck about the EC until the dimocraps lose.

Back before the razor close 2000 election, a lot of people analyzing the election thought the GOP would win the popular majority but Vice President Gore would take the EC's. A number of op-eds were written by libs glorifying the Electoral College in preparation for the opposite result.

This whole thing has nothing to do with "fairness" but the fact that the ultralibs lost

 

[occupied]

The flyover states are worried that their dwindling brain-drained populations may lose some power in Washington but what they have done with their power is not a good case for keeping the EC. There's always the Senate where the rednecks have a decided advantage. Half of America is represented by a dozen or so senators and the hillbillies get the rest.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

...and it takes a Constitutional amendment, not an interstate compact, to abolish the Electoral College.

Correct.



.



(and Jesus was a commie)

.