Should the popular vote be the ultimate decider?

[Cecilie1200]

It seems to me we've had this discussion before. If I'm not mistaken the voting system was originally established on a popular vote. It doesn't work, it never did and there's no possibility that human nature will change to the point where it will be possible for it to function in a large nation especially a nation such as we have which is really a collection of smaller nations that have managed to construct what can only be referred to as a non homogenous union.

For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.

Jo

But states aren't fairly represented. When you can have 51% or the people in California vote for candidate A, and the other 49%, plus the entire populations of Kentucky,Tennessee, arkansas, Missouri and oklahoma vote for candidate B, and candidate A gets more electoral votes, how does that seem fair?

I'm all for the constitution, but I think this is one where I think maybe they got it wrong.

Popular vote seems to me, to be more reflective of the peoples will. That is, after all, what is supposed to decide elections.

As before, I readily admit that I may not be thinking about this in the right way, and hope someone will explain what it is that I'm not seeing.

Wrong, small population states like the dakotas, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho etc. might as not even vote in a popular vote because They don’t have the numbers to displace a city like Denver...
Pure Popular vote = mob rule

But "states" are not supposed to elect a president, the people do. Why should the few speak for the many?

You can get to 270 EVs with just 9 states. So, if you could win those 9 states, that would be fair even if the other 41 states voted to the other candidate?

I understand that this would play in favor of Democrats, and would make it very hard for Republicans to win an election, but the way it works now, the few over rules the many. I mean, we can't be majority rule when it suits us, and then change when it doesn't.

Example, 70% of people disapproved of Obama care, yet we still got it, Republicans threw a fit about that. By the electoral college logic, people should have been just fine with that, since majority rule shouldn't matter.

Yeah, uh, no. Who told you "the people are supposed to elect a President"? Where was that ever written, or even implied? The states are supposed to choose the President, and the people are supposed to choose who their state supports. I'm very sorry if reality just burst into your happy little bubble of mob rule.

And really, you have GOT to stop babbling on about "fair" as though that's a real, adult-world concept. It's kindergarten-level. Grow up.

 

[ThisIsMe]

It seems to me we've had this discussion before. If I'm not mistaken the voting system was originally established on a popular vote. It doesn't work, it never did and there's no possibility that human nature will change to the point where it will be possible for it to function in a large nation especially a nation such as we have which is really a collection of smaller nations that have managed to construct what can only be referred to as a non homogenous union.

For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.

Jo

But states aren't fairly represented. When you can have 51% or the people in California vote for candidate A, and the other 49%, plus the entire populations of Kentucky,Tennessee, arkansas, Missouri and oklahoma vote for candidate B, and candidate A gets more electoral votes, how does that seem fair?

I'm all for the constitution, but I think this is one where I think maybe they got it wrong.

Popular vote seems to me, to be more reflective of the peoples will. That is, after all, what is supposed to decide elections.

As before, I readily admit that I may not be thinking about this in the right way, and hope someone will explain what it is that I'm not seeing.

How can that be fair? Because Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma are all just as much states as California is, and as such, are just as important as California is.

See, you think "fair" is defined as "meeting MY personal standard of how things should be", without any regard to any OTHER standards of measurement. You have determined that the only thing that matters is number of people, ergo "fair" is all about that. Maybe before you go setting standards for the rest of the world, Oh Mighty Arbiter of Cosmic Justice, you should get some education and broaden your perspective.

Don't even give me "I'm all for the Constitution" when the next words out of your mouth are going to basically be "When it agrees with my worldview".

"The people's will" is not, and never has been, the only or the ultimate measurement of what is good, or what we are aiming for.

But, when it comes to elections, the only things that does matter is the will of the people. States do not elect presidents, people do. Also, under tree he current system, it actually does more to harm the voice of the people, because, as noted previously, this winner take all system actually erases votes.

Again, under the current system, if you have a Democrat win California, this means that the Republican votes in that state are rendered null. This happens for every state. Whoever that state goes for will erase the votes of the people who voted the opposite way.

Again, not that it will ever happen, but let's say cali was split 49%-51%. Those 55 electoral votes are huge, and every Republican voice was never heard. Same with Texas. The Democrat voices are null because it goes mostly red.

Everyone thinks about how a state throws its electoral votes, but doesn't ever think about all of the people who just lost their vote. If you have a state that is divided nearly 50/50, why should only the voices of one half be heard?

I think the idea of a proportional electoral system would work.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No

Mob rule is never a good thing

I love when righties talk about the Senate makeup and electoral college . They start rattling off pro communist arguments .

I love when lefties talk about anything other than their feelings. They start rattling off nonsense, believing that it somehow sounds intelligent and profound.

I've always been a fan of dark comedy, what can I say?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Wrong, small population states like the dakotas, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho etc. might as not even vote in a popular vote because They don’t have the numbers to displace a city like Denver...
Pure Popular vote = mob rule

But "states" are not supposed to elect a president, the people do. Why should the few speak for the many?

You can get to 270 EVs with just 9 states. So, if you could win those 9 states, that would be fair even if the other 41 states voted to the other candidate?

I understand that this would play in favor of Democrats, and would make it very hard for Republicans to win an election, but the way it works now, the few over rules the many. I mean, we can't be majority rule when it suits us, and then change when it doesn't.

Example, 70% of people disapproved of Obama care, yet we still got it, Republicans threw a fit about that. By the electoral college logic, people should have been just fine with that, since majority rule shouldn't matter.

We cant have the East and West Coast telling flyover what to do, especially when it comes to socialist entitlement programs like Obamacare.
Like I said the electoral college is genius, without it Rural America might as well will not even vote in presidential elections… Because with a pure popular vote they would have zero say in the direction of the country and running of their own states.

But doesn't EC actually do exactly what you are saying? In my example, you can have 1 state, with 51% of the population beat out the other 49% of the population, as well as 6 other states entire population. This means that California alone will have more say than 6 entire central US states.

If it went by popular vote, it may not be that way. Am I misunderstanding?

Crazy Cali has more city’s each with a greater population than the northern plains states. A pure popular vote would make their votes meaningless, to the point whereas they would be better off not even participating in presidential elections... Obviously that’s why the progressives want a pure popular vote.

Ok, maybe I'm not communicating this properly.

As it sits now, the EC does more harm to those other states than the popular vote.

The 51% of the vote erases the other 49% of the votes, as well as the votes of several of the states you mentioned.

As it sits now, if Democrats win cali, it awards those ec vote to the democratic candidate, erasing all of the Republican votes in that state. With a popular vote, those Republican votes still count.

Even if the ec is not done away with, the wta system needs to go. The candidate get the amount of ec votes in proportion of the % of popular votes he won in that state.

I'm probably wrong, just brainstorming it.

There's a difference between "winning an election, while someone else loses", and "erasing the votes". I don't think the point here is to negate the fact that someone is going to lose if someone else wins, nor is it to keep a specific group from ever winning.

Populous states are still going to carry more weight than non-populous states. That's actually fine. The point was never to completely wipe out the impact of a larger population. It was just to prevent smaller states from being completely powerless and slaves to a handful of urban areas.

As to how EC representation is awarded, while I am not a fan of "winner take all", I do think it should be for the states to decide. I think the voters are going to have to get off their lazy, apathetic backsides and take an interest in how their states are run and why.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

No. The EC is one of the best ideas we’ve come up with. I would prefer the President Elect be required to win both the EC as well as the PV. I’d be okay with saying they had to win the PV in 26 states (minimum) as well. Anything short of winning all 3 of those tallies; the House decides.

I would change the entire election system as well but thats not the question before us.

It is fine the way it is. Trump wouldn't have won in 2016 and neither Hillary with your dumb idea. Who would be president?

I do appreciate you like the EC however.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

It seems to me we've had this discussion before. If I'm not mistaken the voting system was originally established on a popular vote. It doesn't work, it never did and there's no possibility that human nature will change to the point where it will be possible for it to function in a large nation especially a nation such as we have which is really a collection of smaller nations that have managed to construct what can only be referred to as a non homogenous union.

For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.

Jo

The original system wasn’t ever a popular vote. Delegates from the states voted for several candidates for President.

Mob rule is great for Marxists that want to persecute their political enemies. So the answer is no, we don’t ever need an overall popular vote system.

I think that it violates the original pact of states. If a small state say like Utah population wise was asked to join to a huge State like California population wise what incentive would they have knowing that the moment they joined they would no longer be represented?

Jo

What “pact”? Do you just make this shit up to justify your Marxist ideals?

An understanding that entering the union
Guaranteed equal representation for that particular state.... Why would they enter otherwise? Does this concept trouble you?
Oh... And btw....Marxism works against states rights dude.

Jo

. Repeal the 17th and let States pick their Senators.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

It seems to me we've had this discussion before. If I'm not mistaken the voting system was originally established on a popular vote. It doesn't work, it never did and there's no possibility that human nature will change to the point where it will be possible for it to function in a large nation especially a nation such as we have which is really a collection of smaller nations that have managed to construct what can only be referred to as a non homogenous union.

For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.

Jo

But states aren't fairly represented. When you can have 51% or the people in California vote for candidate A, and the other 49%, plus the entire populations of Kentucky,Tennessee, arkansas, Missouri and oklahoma vote for candidate B, and candidate A gets more electoral votes, how does that seem fair?

I'm all for the constitution, but I think this is one where I think maybe they got it wrong.

Popular vote seems to me, to be more reflective of the peoples will. That is, after all, what is supposed to decide elections.

As before, I readily admit that I may not be thinking about this in the right way, and hope someone will explain what it is that I'm not seeing.

Wrong, small population states like the dakotas, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho etc. might as not even vote in a popular vote because They don’t have the numbers to displace a city like Denver...
Pure Popular vote = mob rule

But "states" are not supposed to elect a president, the people do. Why should the few speak for the many?

You can get to 270 EVs with just 9 states. So, if you could win those 9 states, that would be fair even if the other 41 states voted to the other candidate?

I understand that this would play in favor of Democrats, and would make it very hard for Republicans to win an election, but the way it works now, the few over rules the many. I mean, we can't be majority rule when it suits us, and then change when it doesn't.

Example, 70% of people disapproved of Obama care, yet we still got it, Republicans threw a fit about that. By the electoral college logic, people should have been just fine with that, since majority rule shouldn't matter.

Those 9 states have large populations. We can't discount that. So if they make up 270 EVs, that's how the game is played. Thankfully, Texas is red for the foreseeable future.

 

[Cecilie1200]

We have indeed had this discussion before, for two hundred years. Once the WTA ("winner take all") format started snowballing one of the Electoral College's champions, James Madison, called for a Constitutional Amendment that would ban that practice, even though it would have cost his home state of Virginia. So the discussion goes back at least that far.

The Electoral College was invented to act as a buffer between an electorate that was either uninformed about candidates due to the technological limitations of the time, or easily misled by a huckster, in order to subject the decision to better judgment. It was also tweaked to allot extra power to the slave states by counting their slave populations at the negotiated rate of 3/5 of a person (which persons received 0/5 of a vote), which was called "Slave Power".

Obviously technology has changed, slave states no longer exist, and various states have enacted clearly unConstitutional laws requiring their electors to vote WTA regardless of hucksters or better judgments. Today there's only one other country that elects its head of state which does so by indirect method, which is Pakistan.

The Electoral College needs to go literally yesterday. All it does is create the artificial bullshit divisive entities of "red states", "blue states" and "battleground states", none of which would exist without the WTA/EC; in so doing it perpetuates the Duopoly and ensures no third party will ever gain traction; it throws away the votes of millions as pointless, removing the incentive for most people to vote at all, resulting in abysmal turnout; and it ensures that "solid" states taken for granted will never see a candidate; and it makes the electorate dependent on polls to find out whether it's even worth getting out of bed on election day to vote at all. Because for most voters, it isn't.

"It was also tweaked to allot extra power to the slave states by counting their slave populations at the negotiated rate of 3/5 of a person (which persons received 0/5 of a vote), which was called "Slave Power".

Your lack of knowledge concerning the document is glaring.

Actually, the Constitution was tweaked to LIMIT the power of slave states by refusing to count their slave populations as though they were free citizens.

It's amazing what education can actually teach a person.

 

[justoffal]

But "states" are not supposed to elect a president, the people do. Why should the few speak for the many?

You can get to 270 EVs with just 9 states. So, if you could win those 9 states, that would be fair even if the other 41 states voted to the other candidate?

I understand that this would play in favor of Democrats, and would make it very hard for Republicans to win an election, but the way it works now, the few over rules the many. I mean, we can't be majority rule when it suits us, and then change when it doesn't.

Example, 70% of people disapproved of Obama care, yet we still got it, Republicans threw a fit about that. By the electoral college logic, people should have been just fine with that, since majority rule shouldn't matter.

We cant have the East and West Coast telling flyover what to do, especially when it comes to socialist entitlement programs like Obamacare.
Like I said the electoral college is genius, without it Rural America might as well will not even vote in presidential elections… Because with a pure popular vote they would have zero say in the direction of the country and running of their own states.

But doesn't EC actually do exactly what you are saying? In my example, you can have 1 state, with 51% of the population beat out the other 49% of the population, as well as 6 other states entire population. This means that California alone will have more say than 6 entire central US states.

If it went by popular vote, it may not be that way. Am I misunderstanding?

Crazy Cali has more city’s each with a greater population than the northern plains states. A pure popular vote would make their votes meaningless, to the point whereas they would be better off not even participating in presidential elections... Obviously that’s why the progressives want a pure popular vote.

Ok, maybe I'm not communicating this properly.

As it sits now, the EC does more harm to those other states than the popular vote.

The 51% of the vote erases the other 49% of the votes, as well as the votes of several of the states you mentioned.

As it sits now, if Democrats win cali, it awards those ec vote to the democratic candidate, erasing all of the Republican votes in that state. With a popular vote, those Republican votes still count.

Even if the ec is not done away with, the wta system needs to go. The candidate get the amount of ec votes in proportion of the % of popular votes he won in that state.

I'm probably wrong, just brainstorming it.

There's a difference between "winning an election, while someone else loses", and "erasing the votes". I don't think the point here is to negate the fact that someone is going to lose if someone else wins, nor is it to keep a specific group from ever winning.

Populous states are still going to carry more weight than non-populous states. That's actually fine. The point was never to completely wipe out the impact of a larger population. It was just to prevent smaller states from being completely powerless and slaves to a handful of urban areas.

As to how EC representation is awarded, while I am not a fan of "winner take all", I do think it should be for the states to decide. I think the voters are going to have to get off their lazy, apathetic backsides and take an interest in how their states are run and why.

Yeah but in the everybody gets a trophy world of Lefty elections are something that nobody loses everybody who enters wins!

Lefty hates the idea that a loser is someone who didn't win

Jo.

 

[Pilot1]

Actually, the Constitution was tweaked to LIMIT the power of slave states by refusing to count their slave populations as though they were free citizens.

It's amazing what education can actually teach a person.

So what does that have to do with today, and today's Electoral College?

 

[Cecilie1200]

It seems to me we've had this discussion before. If I'm not mistaken the voting system was originally established on a popular vote. It doesn't work, it never did and there's no possibility that human nature will change to the point where it will be possible for it to function in a large nation especially a nation such as we have which is really a collection of smaller nations that have managed to construct what can only be referred to as a non homogenous union.

For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.

Jo

Why not?
Every other educated country has a popular vote
a paper written by slave owners and slave rapists is a pathetic thing to go by.
It's 2018 folks

The wishes of uneducated egomaniacs like you would be even more pathetic.

I realize that you think you're morally and intellectually superior to the Founding Fathers. I'm here to tell you that you're not superior in any way to anyone. You do not have the brains to rise above your cultural conditioning, as they did, and you certainly don't have the sack to do it, as they did. No one will ever be building upon anything that ever emanated from YOUR blowhole to improve humanity as a whole. No one will remember what you say five minutes after you stop speaking, let alone two centuries.

Get over yourself.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No! California and democrats import illegals. California should lose their right to vote and so should Broward County Florida!

The US without California will be like Uzbekistan.

Thhe US without crazy Cali is a lot more sane

Dude you have no idea what California represents, give and so to the US and the world. NO CLUE.

Dude, you have no idea what exists outside of California. NO CLUE.

She's pretty much a lefty idiot. In case you haven't noticed.

I'm used to it.

 

[g5000]

Every other educated country has a popular vote

Germany has an electoral system to elect their president. They do not directly vote for their President.

The UK has an electoral system to elect their prime minister. They do not directly vote for PM.

Italy has an electoral system to elect their president. They do not directly vote for their president.

Switzerland has an electoral system to elect their prime minister. They do not directly vote for their PM.

Australia does not directly vote for their PM.

And so forth, and so on.

You are quite wrong.

I told you. We are the leaders, not the followers, of the world.

Nobody does it through an indirect proxy system except us and Pakistan.

The claim was that "every other educated country has a popular vote".

Totally untrue.

 

[g5000]

OOPSIE!

 

[Cecilie1200]

It seems to me we've had this discussion before. If I'm not mistaken the voting system was originally established on a popular vote. It doesn't work, it never did and there's no possibility that human nature will change to the point where it will be possible for it to function in a large nation especially a nation such as we have which is really a collection of smaller nations that have managed to construct what can only be referred to as a non homogenous union.

For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.

Jo

But states aren't fairly represented. When you can have 51% or the people in California vote for candidate A, and the other 49%, plus the entire populations of Kentucky,Tennessee, arkansas, Missouri and oklahoma vote for candidate B, and candidate A gets more electoral votes, how does that seem fair?

I'm all for the constitution, but I think this is one where I think maybe they got it wrong.

Popular vote seems to me, to be more reflective of the peoples will. That is, after all, what is supposed to decide elections.

As before, I readily admit that I may not be thinking about this in the right way, and hope someone will explain what it is that I'm not seeing.

How can that be fair? Because Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma are all just as much states as California is, and as such, are just as important as California is.

See, you think "fair" is defined as "meeting MY personal standard of how things should be", without any regard to any OTHER standards of measurement. You have determined that the only thing that matters is number of people, ergo "fair" is all about that. Maybe before you go setting standards for the rest of the world, Oh Mighty Arbiter of Cosmic Justice, you should get some education and broaden your perspective.

Don't even give me "I'm all for the Constitution" when the next words out of your mouth are going to basically be "When it agrees with my worldview".

"The people's will" is not, and never has been, the only or the ultimate measurement of what is good, or what we are aiming for.

But, when it comes to elections, the only things that does matter is the will of the people. States do not elect presidents, people do. Also, under tree he current system, it actually does more to harm the voice of the people, because, as noted previously, this winner take all system actually erases votes.

Again, under the current system, if you have a Democrat win California, this means that the Republican votes in that state are rendered null. This happens for every state. Whoever that state goes for will erase the votes of the people who voted the opposite way.

Again, not that it will ever happen, but let's say cali was split 49%-51%. Those 55 electoral votes are huge, and every Republican voice was never heard. Same with Texas. The Democrat voices are null because it goes mostly red.

Everyone thinks about how a state throws its electoral votes, but doesn't ever think about all of the people who just lost their vote. If you have a state that is divided nearly 50/50, why should only the voices of one half be heard?

I think the idea of a proportional electoral system would work.

No, there are a lot of things that matter in elections besides "the whim of the people". There are ALSO a lot of other ways to measure and consider "the will of the people".

People do NOT elect Presidents. They never have. Just because you THOUGHT that was how it worked, and now - gasp! - you've realized it doesn't and determined, in your "I thought about it for a whole five minutes with my grade-school understanding of the world and government and philosophy" outrage, that that's how it should be, that doesn't mean you're correct or even relevant.

The Electoral College has been part of the Constitution ever since it was written and ratified. That means elections have NEVER worked the way you thought they did, and they've never been supposed to.

As for "winner take all", that's a completely separate issue, and you need to stop conflating the two.

 

[g5000]

11 States Pledge Electoral College To Popular Vote Winner


11 states have pledged to give all of their Electoral College votes to the candidate the winner of the national popular vote, ensuring that something like the 2016 election never happens again.

On May 5th, Connecticut’s Senate voted to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. This agreement, which has so far been adopted by 11 states and Washington, D.C., would mean that, whoever wins the most votes in the country would win the state’s electoral votes, too. Introduced last week, the compact will only take effect if enough states join it to make up a majority of Electoral College votes (270). The 11 states signed have 172 Electoral votes among them, and they are all states that voted for Clinton in the 2016 election.


In other words...if these 11 states...which all voted for Clinton...had given all their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote, they would have given theirs to...Clinton.

And Trump would still have won.

 

[justoffal]

It seems to me we've had this discussion before. If I'm not mistaken the voting system was originally established on a popular vote. It doesn't work, it never did and there's no possibility that human nature will change to the point where it will be possible for it to function in a large nation especially a nation such as we have which is really a collection of smaller nations that have managed to construct what can only be referred to as a non homogenous union.

For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.

Jo

But states aren't fairly represented. When you can have 51% or the people in California vote for candidate A, and the other 49%, plus the entire populations of Kentucky,Tennessee, arkansas, Missouri and oklahoma vote for candidate B, and candidate A gets more electoral votes, how does that seem fair?

I'm all for the constitution, but I think this is one where I think maybe they got it wrong.

Popular vote seems to me, to be more reflective of the peoples will. That is, after all, what is supposed to decide elections.

As before, I readily admit that I may not be thinking about this in the right way, and hope someone will explain what it is that I'm not seeing.

How can that be fair? Because Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma are all just as much states as California is, and as such, are just as important as California is.

See, you think "fair" is defined as "meeting MY personal standard of how things should be", without any regard to any OTHER standards of measurement. You have determined that the only thing that matters is number of people, ergo "fair" is all about that. Maybe before you go setting standards for the rest of the world, Oh Mighty Arbiter of Cosmic Justice, you should get some education and broaden your perspective.

Don't even give me "I'm all for the Constitution" when the next words out of your mouth are going to basically be "When it agrees with my worldview".

"The people's will" is not, and never has been, the only or the ultimate measurement of what is good, or what we are aiming for.

But, when it comes to elections, the only things that does matter is the will of the people. States do not elect presidents, people do. Also, under tree he current system, it actually does more to harm the voice of the people, because, as noted previously, this winner take all system actually erases votes.

Again, under the current system, if you have a Democrat win California, this means that the Republican votes in that state are rendered null. This happens for every state. Whoever that state goes for will erase the votes of the people who voted the opposite way.

Again, not that it will ever happen, but let's say cali was split 49%-51%. Those 55 electoral votes are huge, and every Republican voice was never heard. Same with Texas. The Democrat voices are null because it goes mostly red.

Everyone thinks about how a state throws its electoral votes, but doesn't ever think about all of the people who just lost their vote. If you have a state that is divided nearly 50/50, why should only the voices of one half be heard?

I think the idea of a proportional electoral system would work.

No, there are a lot of things that matter in elections besides "the whim of the people". There are ALSO a lot of other ways to measure and consider "the will of the people".

People do NOT elect Presidents. They never have. Just because you THOUGHT that was how it worked, and now - gasp! - you've realized it doesn't and determined, in your "I thought about it for a whole five minutes with my grade-school understanding of the world and government and philosophy" outrage, that that's how it should be, that doesn't mean you're correct or even relevant.

The Electoral College has been part of the Constitution ever since it was written and ratified. That means elections have NEVER worked the way you thought they did, and they've never been supposed to.

As for "winner take all", that's a completely separate issue, and you need to stop conflating the two.

Additionally they keep screaming about votes being erased by the electoral college.

In a popular vote election if one candidate gets a hundred million and the other candidate gets 101 million.....What do they think happens to the hundred million votes? Idiots!

Jo

 

[Cecilie1200]

Actually, the Constitution was tweaked to LIMIT the power of slave states by refusing to count their slave populations as though they were free citizens.

It's amazing what education can actually teach a person.

So what does that have to do with today, and today's Electoral College?

It's more to do with the left's asinine idea that they can invalidate the Electoral College by screaming, "SLAVERY!"

 

[justoffal]

11 States Pledge Electoral College To Popular Vote Winner


11 states have pledged to give all of their Electoral College votes to the candidate the winner of the national popular vote, ensuring that something like the 2016 election never happens again.

On May 5th, Connecticut’s Senate voted to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. This agreement, which has so far been adopted by 11 states and Washington, D.C., would mean that, whoever wins the most votes in the country would win the state’s electoral votes, too. Introduced last week, the compact will only take effect if enough states join it to make up a majority of Electoral College votes (270). The 11 states signed have 172 Electoral votes among them, and they are all states that voted for Clinton in the 2016 election.


In other words...if these 11 states...which all voted for Clinton...had given all their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote, they would have given theirs to...Clinton.

And Trump would still have won.

Leebruls is mighty dumb peeps.

Jo

 

[Cecilie1200]

It seems to me we've had this discussion before. If I'm not mistaken the voting system was originally established on a popular vote. It doesn't work, it never did and there's no possibility that human nature will change to the point where it will be possible for it to function in a large nation especially a nation such as we have which is really a collection of smaller nations that have managed to construct what can only be referred to as a non homogenous union.

For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.

Jo

But states aren't fairly represented. When you can have 51% or the people in California vote for candidate A, and the other 49%, plus the entire populations of Kentucky,Tennessee, arkansas, Missouri and oklahoma vote for candidate B, and candidate A gets more electoral votes, how does that seem fair?

I'm all for the constitution, but I think this is one where I think maybe they got it wrong.

Popular vote seems to me, to be more reflective of the peoples will. That is, after all, what is supposed to decide elections.

As before, I readily admit that I may not be thinking about this in the right way, and hope someone will explain what it is that I'm not seeing.

How can that be fair? Because Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma are all just as much states as California is, and as such, are just as important as California is.

See, you think "fair" is defined as "meeting MY personal standard of how things should be", without any regard to any OTHER standards of measurement. You have determined that the only thing that matters is number of people, ergo "fair" is all about that. Maybe before you go setting standards for the rest of the world, Oh Mighty Arbiter of Cosmic Justice, you should get some education and broaden your perspective.

Don't even give me "I'm all for the Constitution" when the next words out of your mouth are going to basically be "When it agrees with my worldview".

"The people's will" is not, and never has been, the only or the ultimate measurement of what is good, or what we are aiming for.

But, when it comes to elections, the only things that does matter is the will of the people. States do not elect presidents, people do. Also, under tree he current system, it actually does more to harm the voice of the people, because, as noted previously, this winner take all system actually erases votes.

Again, under the current system, if you have a Democrat win California, this means that the Republican votes in that state are rendered null. This happens for every state. Whoever that state goes for will erase the votes of the people who voted the opposite way.

Again, not that it will ever happen, but let's say cali was split 49%-51%. Those 55 electoral votes are huge, and every Republican voice was never heard. Same with Texas. The Democrat voices are null because it goes mostly red.

Everyone thinks about how a state throws its electoral votes, but doesn't ever think about all of the people who just lost their vote. If you have a state that is divided nearly 50/50, why should only the voices of one half be heard?

I think the idea of a proportional electoral system would work.

No, there are a lot of things that matter in elections besides "the whim of the people". There are ALSO a lot of other ways to measure and consider "the will of the people".

People do NOT elect Presidents. They never have. Just because you THOUGHT that was how it worked, and now - gasp! - you've realized it doesn't and determined, in your "I thought about it for a whole five minutes with my grade-school understanding of the world and government and philosophy" outrage, that that's how it should be, that doesn't mean you're correct or even relevant.

The Electoral College has been part of the Constitution ever since it was written and ratified. That means elections have NEVER worked the way you thought they did, and they've never been supposed to.

As for "winner take all", that's a completely separate issue, and you need to stop conflating the two.

Additionally they keep screaming about votes being erased by the electoral college.

In a popular vote election if one candidate gets a hundred million and the other candidate gets 101 million.....What do they think happens to the hundred million votes? Idiots!

Jo

The EC exists to give the people who live in the majority of the states a chance to actually affect the outcome of elections. Doesn't necessarily make it EASY, but it does make it possible. Without the EC, anyone who doesn't live in NY or CA would be basically like non-leftists who DO live in NY and CA: helpless, voiceless thralls to the whims of a bunch of crazed imbeciles.