Killing Electoral College would invite Trump, future presidents to rig their reelections

[Defiant1]

Democrats don't trust Trump. So why would they want to give him and future presidents more power over their own reelections and who succeeds them?

Killing Electoral College would invite presidents to rig elections

Democrats can’t think ahead.

There IS a better way. The EC must vote according to the popular vote of each State. So the EC stays in place, and the popular vote of "We the People" is satisfied.

What State does not award the votes to the majority winner of their State?

"What State does not award the votes to the majority winner of their State?

"

I don't know, weather. But since Clinton got 3 mil more than Trump, just like Gore got 1/2 mil more than Bush, both won because of the EC, so obviously popular votes are subject to EC machinations. Also I read a couple weeks ago that one State announced the intent to subject the EC to it's popular vote and the State Republicans got their shorts in a big wad. Gerrymandering, voter suppression and downright chicanery all play a part too, and none of this is beneath either party.

And the current Democratic trend to reverse Citizen's United sure appeals to me also.[/QUOTE]


"Gerrymandering" has nothing to do with the Electoral Vote.

 

[georgephillip]

I favor the Electoral College. I have feeling that if it were changed to popular vote then karma would have the Democrats getting bit in the butt, which I would find oh so humorous.

If this projection of the 2020 outcome is accurate...

Just Four States are Likely to Determine the Outcome of 2020 Presidential Race

"'Just four states are likely to determine the outcome in 2020. Each flipped to the Republicans in 2016, but President Trump won each by only a percentage point or less. The four are Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Florida. Many analysts point to Wisconsin as the single state upon which the election could turn.' ..."

'Because of the partisanship of the country and the partisanship of the president, we are now looking at the smallest map in modern political history,' said Jim Messina, who was the campaign manager for former president Barack Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign." ...

Right now Democrats benefit from a POTUS election decided on the basis of popular vote, but that would change if Republicans find another Reagan or Eisenhower.( Assuming Trump doesn't break the GOP into two rival factions in 2020)

 

[Weatherman2020]

Democrats don't trust Trump. So why would they want to give him and future presidents more power over their own reelections and who succeeds them?

Killing Electoral College would invite presidents to rig elections

Democrats can’t think ahead.

There IS a better way. The EC must vote according to the popular vote of each State. So the EC stays in place, and the popular vote of "We the People" is satisfied.

What State does not award the votes to the majority winner of their State?

"What State does not award the votes to the majority winner of their State?

"

I don't know, weather. But since Clinton got 3 mil more than Trump, just like Gore got 1/2 mil more than Bush, both won because of the EC, so obviously popular votes are subject to EC machinations. Also I read a couple weeks ago that one State announced the intent to subject the EC to it's popular vote and the State Republicans got their shorts in a big wad. Gerrymandering, voter suppression and downright chicanery all play a part too, and none of this is beneath either party.

And the current Democratic trend to reverse Citizen's United sure appeals to me also.[/QUOTE]
How does one go about gerrymandering the vote of a State?

 

[georgephillip]

What do you think of this possible future election ...

I think Democrats need to pull this stick out of their asses and admit that they need to come up with a platform that is inclusive - that appeals to rural Americans as well.

I think Democrats need to pull this stick out of their asses and admit that they need to come up with a platform that is inclusive - that appeals to rural Americans as well.

Does a majority of rural America benefit from the Electoral College?

Absolutely, Without the electoral college rural America has no voice in presidential elections... fact

Absolutely, Without the electoral college rural America has no voice in presidential elections... fact

Right now neither rural, nor suburban, nor urban voters have any voice in presidential elections unless they live in a "battleground" state.

Changing the current winner-take-all method of apportioning EC ballots will give every voter a stake in determining who serves as POTUS.

Rural States Are Almost Entirely Ignored Under Current State-by-State System

"According to the 2010 census, the 10 states with the highest percentage of rural residents are

• Maine–61%
• Vermont–61%
• West Virginia–51%
• Mississippi–51%
• Montana–44%
• Arkansas–44%
• South Dakota43%
• Kentucky–42%
• Alabama–41%
• North Dakota–40%

"However, none of the 10 most rural states were closely divided battleground states in either the 2012 or 2016 presidential election. Thus, none of these 10 states received any general-election campaign visits.

"Moreover, only five states of the 25 most rural states received any general-election campaign visits during the 2012 and 2016 presidential election, namely New Hampshire (12th most rural), Iowa (the 13th most rural), North Carolina (the 16th most rural), Wisconsin (the 20th most rural), and Minnesota (the 25th most rural).

"In short, rural states are almost entirely ignored by the current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes."

 

[Crepitus]

Democrats don't trust Trump. So why would they want to give him and future presidents more power over their own reelections and who succeeds them?

Killing Electoral College would invite presidents to rig elections

Democrats can’t think ahead.

Because some opinion contributor thinks so?

I think not. Without the electoral college for Putin to manipulate we wouldn't be stuck with a Russian puppet in the Whitehouse to start with.

 

[The Original Tree]

Democrats don't trust Trump. So why would they want to give him and future presidents more power over their own reelections and who succeeds them?

Killing Electoral College would invite presidents to rig elections

Democrats can’t think ahead.

This explains what they are trying to do perfectly. They want to disenfranchise over half of the country.

 

[dblack]

What do you think of this possible future election ...

I think Democrats need to pull this stick out of their asses and admit that they need to come up with a platform that is inclusive - that appeals to rural Americans as well.

I think Democrats need to pull this stick out of their asses and admit that they need to come up with a platform that is inclusive - that appeals to rural Americans as well.

Does a majority of rural America benefit from the Electoral College?

The Electoral College is designed to protect the minority, so I find your question irrelevant.

The Electoral College is designed to protect the minority, so I find your question irrelevant.

How's protecting the minority working out in rural states currently?

Well, they prevented Hillary from winning the Presidency, despite that fact that she had more votes.

The sad fact is, the balance of power created with the design of the electoral college, worked exactly as advertised in 2016. It's designed to punish leaders who cater only to densely populated areas, who ignore the interests of the less populated states. It gives those states a little extra leverage, a little more ability to just say no. And that's what they did.

The fact that the electoral college works is exactly why Democrats want to get rid of it. In the current political climate, with the current demographic spread, the college (or rather the uneven distribution of electoral power via electoral college) favors Republicans, so Democrats oppose it. That can change, of course, and then both bands of hypocrites will change their positions.

 

[The Original Tree]

Democrats don't trust Trump. So why would they want to give him and future presidents more power over their own reelections and who succeeds them?

Killing Electoral College would invite presidents to rig elections

Democrats can’t think ahead.

Because some opinion contributor thinks so?

I think not. Without the electoral college for Putin to manipulate we wouldn't be stuck with a Russian puppet in the Whitehouse to start with.

The Electoral College cannot be manipulated. It is hack proof. You would have to hack 50 states and 3,000 counties, and 35,000 city and 16,000 Township polling centers to effect the Electoral College because it is set up to be 50 Separate Elections for President in Each State, making it HACK PROOF.

You get rid of it, and then you can do what The Democrats Love to do and that is Stuff Ballot Boxes with Fraudulent Votes and just overwhelm the system with numbers.

 

[georgephillip]

What do you think of this possible future election ...

I think Democrats need to pull this stick out of their asses and admit that they need to come up with a platform that is inclusive - that appeals to rural Americans as well.

I think Democrats need to pull this stick out of their asses and admit that they need to come up with a platform that is inclusive - that appeals to rural Americans as well.

Does a majority of rural America benefit from the Electoral College?

The Electoral College is designed to protect the minority, so I find your question irrelevant.

The Electoral College is designed to protect the minority, so I find your question irrelevant.

How's protecting the minority working out in rural states currently?

Well, they prevented Hillary from winning the Presidency, despite that fact that she had more votes.

The sad fact is, the balance of power created with the design of the electoral college, worked exactly as advertised in 2016. It's designed to punish leaders who cater only to densely populated areas, who ignore the interests of the less populated states. It gives those states a little extra leverage, a little more ability to just say no. And that's what they did.

The fact that the electoral college works is exactly why Democrats want to get rid of it. In the current political climate, with the current demographic spread, the college (or rather the uneven distribution of electoral power via electoral college) favors Republicans, so Democrats oppose it. That can change, of course, and then both bands of hypocrites will change their positions.

The sad fact is, the balance of power created with the design of the electoral college, worked exactly as advertised in 2016. It's designed to punish leaders who cater only to densely populated areas, who ignore the interests of the less populated states. It gives those states a little extra leverage, a little more ability to just say no. And that's what they did.

Winner take all statutes in all fifty states ensure "battleground" states get "7% more federal grants than "spectator" states, twice as many disaster declarations, more Superfund enforcement exemptions, and more No Child Left Behind law exemptions."

Obviously, the US Constitution gives states exclusive control over awarding their electoral votes, and "winner-take-all" is a state law not a Constitutional mandate. It can be repealed without abandoning the EC.

Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote

"This is how the US map looks with state sizes based on the number of campaign events in 2016 (missing states received no campaign events):

"Also, because of state winner-take-all statutes, five of our 45 Presidents have come into office without having won the most popular votes nationwide.

"The 2000 and 2016 elections are the most recent examples of elections in which a second-place candidate won the White House.

"Near-misses are also common under the current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes.

"A shift of 59,393 votes in Ohio in 2004 would have elected John Kerry despite President Bush’s nationwide lead of over 3,000,000 votes."

 

[Weatherman2020]

Democrats don't trust Trump. So why would they want to give him and future presidents more power over their own reelections and who succeeds them?

Killing Electoral College would invite presidents to rig elections

Democrats can’t think ahead.

Because some opinion contributor thinks so?

I think not. Without the electoral college for Putin to manipulate we wouldn't be stuck with a Russian puppet in the Whitehouse to start with.

Hilarious and sad how you Leftards think you’re smarter than the Founding Fathers, Jesus, MLK, etc etc.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Democrats don't trust Trump. So why would they want to give him and future presidents more power over their own reelections and who succeeds them?

Killing Electoral College would invite presidents to rig elections

Democrats can’t think ahead.

Because some opinion contributor thinks so?

I think not. Without the electoral college for Putin to manipulate we wouldn't be stuck with a Russian puppet in the Whitehouse to start with.

The Electoral College cannot be manipulated. It is hack proof. You would have to hack 50 states and 3,000 counties, and 35,000 city and 16,000 Township polling centers to effect the Electoral College because it is set up to be 50 Separate Elections for President in Each State, making it HACK PROOF.

You get rid of it, and then you can do what The Democrats Love to do and that is Stuff Ballot Boxes with Fraudulent Votes and just overwhelm the system with numbers.

Yep. But one can easily hide a hundred thousand fake votes in a popular election. That’s why the Left want it.

 

[The Original Tree]

Democrats don't trust Trump. So why would they want to give him and future presidents more power over their own reelections and who succeeds them?

Killing Electoral College would invite presidents to rig elections

Democrats can’t think ahead.

Because some opinion contributor thinks so?

I think not. Without the electoral college for Putin to manipulate we wouldn't be stuck with a Russian puppet in the Whitehouse to start with.

The Electoral College cannot be manipulated. It is hack proof. You would have to hack 50 states and 3,000 counties, and 35,000 city and 16,000 Township polling centers to effect the Electoral College because it is set up to be 50 Separate Elections for President in Each State, making it HACK PROOF.

You get rid of it, and then you can do what The Democrats Love to do and that is Stuff Ballot Boxes with Fraudulent Votes and just overwhelm the system with numbers.

Yep. But one can easily hide a hundred thousand fake votes in a popular election. That’s why the Left want it.

They can hide 10 Million votes if you make this strictly via Popular Vote. This is why The Democrats want to import as many illegals as possible, and Why Obama took Refugees and planted them in Purple and Red Districts.

And it's why they want The Electoral College Subverted.

 

[easyt65]

Killing Electoral College would invite Trump, future presidents to rig their reelections

.....like the Democrats did with their 2016 Primary and tried to do with the 2016 election...

 

[The Original Tree]

Killing Electoral College would invite Trump, future presidents to rig their reelections

.....like the Democrats did with their 2016 Primary and tried to do with the 2016 election...

It's also why they started Motor Voter Registration which should be illegal, and why immediately after getting that passed approved giving Illegal Aliens Driver Licenses in most of those same states and followed that up then with Sanctuary City Proclamations.

They have a multi-level, multi-year plan to move America towards Socialism, and if you are paying attention, it's right in front of your eyes.

Agenda 21 Agenda 2030 are part of that blueprint. Every American would do well to read up on that as it includes disarmament, open immigration, a borderless society, population control, population relocation, replacing the dollar with The Amero, and then The Amero with a Global Currency, and bringing America to Heel under Global Governance. The Green New Deal and abolishing Fossil Fuels come Word for Word out of UN Agenda 21.

If we succumb to Global Governance and even yield an inch on any of this, then our Election System will be completely compromised and our Leaders will be chosen for us, and we will not have a choice in the above mentioned matters. They will be dictated to us through Mandates, and Dissent will be punishable by whatever punishment they deem necessary to extinguish dissent.

All it takes is for curious people to care and start doing their research to stop these people.

If you want to know what COUP 1.0 and COUP 2.0 is, then you have to look no further than Trump funding his own campaign, Trump being unable to be bought and controlled, Trump bucking the system and making his own decisions ALL OF WHICH OPPOSE Agenda 21 which had to be Re-Packages as Agenda 2030, because he threw a monkey wrench in their plans.

 

[bullwinkle]

Democrats don't trust Trump. So why would they want to give him and future presidents more power over their own reelections and who succeeds them?

Killing Electoral College would invite presidents to rig elections

Democrats can’t think ahead.

There IS a better way. The EC must vote according to the popular vote of each State. So the EC stays in place, and the popular vote of "We the People" is satisfied.

What State does not award the votes to the majority winner of their State?

"What State does not award the votes to the majority winner of their State?

"

I don't know, weather. But since Clinton got 3 mil more than Trump, just like Gore got 1/2 mil more than Bush, both won because of the EC, so obviously popular votes are subject to EC machinations. Also I read a couple weeks ago that one State announced the intent to subject the EC to it's popular vote and the State Republicans got their shorts in a big wad. Gerrymandering, voter suppression and downright chicanery all play a part too, and none of this is beneath either party.

And the current Democratic trend to reverse Citizen's United sure appeals to me also.

So you want Los Angeles and NYC always deciding elections?[/QUOTE]
NO, but neither do I want Kansas and Oklahoma deciding elections either.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Democrats don't trust Trump. So why would they want to give him and future presidents more power over their own reelections and who succeeds them?

Killing Electoral College would invite presidents to rig elections

Democrats can’t think ahead.

There IS a better way. The EC must vote according to the popular vote of each State. So the EC stays in place, and the popular vote of "We the People" is satisfied.

What State does not award the votes to the majority winner of their State?

"What State does not award the votes to the majority winner of their State?

"

I don't know, weather. But since Clinton got 3 mil more than Trump, just like Gore got 1/2 mil more than Bush, both won because of the EC, so obviously popular votes are subject to EC machinations. Also I read a couple weeks ago that one State announced the intent to subject the EC to it's popular vote and the State Republicans got their shorts in a big wad. Gerrymandering, voter suppression and downright chicanery all play a part too, and none of this is beneath either party.

And the current Democratic trend to reverse Citizen's United sure appeals to me also.

So you want Los Angeles and NYC always deciding elections?

NO, but neither do I want Kansas and Oklahoma deciding elections either.[/QUOTE]
And when did that ever occur?

 

[Rustic]

What do you think of this possible future election ...

I think Democrats need to pull this stick out of their asses and admit that they need to come up with a platform that is inclusive - that appeals to rural Americans as well.

I think Democrats need to pull this stick out of their asses and admit that they need to come up with a platform that is inclusive - that appeals to rural Americans as well.

Does a majority of rural America benefit from the Electoral College?

Absolutely, Without the electoral college rural America has no voice in presidential elections... fact

Absolutely, Without the electoral college rural America has no voice in presidential elections... fact

Right now neither rural, nor suburban, nor urban voters have any voice in presidential elections unless they live in a "battleground" state.

Changing the current winner-take-all method of apportioning EC ballots will give every voter a stake in determining who serves as POTUS.

Rural States Are Almost Entirely Ignored Under Current State-by-State System

"According to the 2010 census, the 10 states with the highest percentage of rural residents are

• Maine–61%
• Vermont–61%
• West Virginia–51%
• Mississippi–51%
• Montana–44%
• Arkansas–44%
• South Dakota43%
• Kentucky–42%
• Alabama–41%
• North Dakota–40%

"However, none of the 10 most rural states were closely divided battleground states in either the 2012 or 2016 presidential election. Thus, none of these 10 states received any general-election campaign visits.

"Moreover, only five states of the 25 most rural states received any general-election campaign visits during the 2012 and 2016 presidential election, namely New Hampshire (12th most rural), Iowa (the 13th most rural), North Carolina (the 16th most rural), Wisconsin (the 20th most rural), and Minnesota (the 25th most rural).

"In short, rural states are almost entirely ignored by the current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes."

Lol
Montana, North and South Dakota, Wyoming and Idaho. Don’t have the population to matter in a pure popular vote in presidential elections.
A city like San Francisco would have more power than all of those states in a pure popular vote.

That is why we need the electoral college

 

[georgephillip]

What do you think of this possible future election ...

I think Democrats need to pull this stick out of their asses and admit that they need to come up with a platform that is inclusive - that appeals to rural Americans as well.

I think Democrats need to pull this stick out of their asses and admit that they need to come up with a platform that is inclusive - that appeals to rural Americans as well.

Does a majority of rural America benefit from the Electoral College?

Absolutely, Without the electoral college rural America has no voice in presidential elections... fact

Absolutely, Without the electoral college rural America has no voice in presidential elections... fact

Right now neither rural, nor suburban, nor urban voters have any voice in presidential elections unless they live in a "battleground" state.

Changing the current winner-take-all method of apportioning EC ballots will give every voter a stake in determining who serves as POTUS.

Rural States Are Almost Entirely Ignored Under Current State-by-State System

"According to the 2010 census, the 10 states with the highest percentage of rural residents are

• Maine–61%
• Vermont–61%
• West Virginia–51%
• Mississippi–51%
• Montana–44%
• Arkansas–44%
• South Dakota43%
• Kentucky–42%
• Alabama–41%
• North Dakota–40%

"However, none of the 10 most rural states were closely divided battleground states in either the 2012 or 2016 presidential election. Thus, none of these 10 states received any general-election campaign visits.

"Moreover, only five states of the 25 most rural states received any general-election campaign visits during the 2012 and 2016 presidential election, namely New Hampshire (12th most rural), Iowa (the 13th most rural), North Carolina (the 16th most rural), Wisconsin (the 20th most rural), and Minnesota (the 25th most rural).

"In short, rural states are almost entirely ignored by the current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes."

Lol
Montana, North and South Dakota, Wyoming and Idaho. Don’t have the population to matter in a pure popular vote in presidential elections.
A city like San Francisco would have more power than all of those states in a pure popular vote.

That is why we need the electoral college

Lol
Montana, North and South Dakota, Wyoming and Idaho. Don’t have the population to matter in a pure popular vote in presidential elections.
A city like San Francisco would have more power than all of those states in a pure popular vote.

San Francisco has fewer than 900,000 residents, so how would its voters have more power than five states? What ever good reasons the Founders had for inflicting the EC on this country have long since evaporated. Today, a handful of "swing states" decide who becomes POTUS. In 2016 Trump and Clinton made more than 90% of their campaign stops in 11 states, nearly two-thirds of those stops took place in just four states. That's not even representative democracy.

"The eight least populous states (i.e., those with three electoral votes each) together received just one general-election campaign visit in 2008, 2012, and 2016 combined.

"Meanwhile, the closely divided battleground state of Wisconsin (with about the same population as the eight smallest states combined) received 40 visits. Wisconsin received more attention despite having only 10 electoral votes -- compared to the total of 24 for the eight smallest states."

Small States Are Not Helped by Current System

 

[georgephillip]

"Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote
One-page explanation (PDF)

"The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes across all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

"The Compact ensures that every vote, in every state, will matter in every presidential election.

"The Compact is a state-based approach that preserves the Electoral College, state control of elections, and the power of the states to control how the President is elected."

 

[skookerasbil]

What do you think of this possible future election:

Just Four States are Likely to Determine the Outcome of 2020 Presidential Race

"Just four states are likely to determine the outcome in 2020. Each flipped to the Republicans in 2016, but President Trump won each by only a percentage point or less. The four are Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Florida. Many analysts point to Wisconsin as the single state upon which the election could turn." ...

In 2016 Trump lost the popular vote by 8 million ballots across all fifty states.
His EC "win" came from about 77000 votes spread across three mid-west states.
How do you justify that?

People are very pleased with the electoral college s0n......nobody cares what you think. Why even get angst about this......its not going to change......ever. And trust me, you would never want to live in this country if somebody tried to change it because it would change life as we know it.