Should the popular vote be the ultimate decider?

[Doc1]

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.

I know that, you know that but Pogo cannot unwrap his/her head from the propaganda.

 

[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.

I know that, you know that but Pogo cannot unwrap his/her head from the propaganda.

Ah, my mistake. I can't see Pogo, and I didn't realize you were quoting him.

Thus do you demonstrate WHY I can't see Pogo.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

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.

Pogo- you’re a sharp dude, but wrong on this. WTA/EC is fundamental to the spirit of the United States of America. Independent states, not states ruled by populations of other states. I suppose based on your vision of this country, you Would you be in favor of a popular vote to amend the constitution, instead of the system where each state has an equal voice. Alaska and Alabama are both in this country but there are very different. Different people, different culture, different lifestyles and different needs and wants. We all don’t want the people in New York, Florida, Texas and California deciding what is best for us. Popular vote in the USA is the devils work.

Funny then that this "devil's work" seems to work for everybody else in the world who elects their leaders with literally the single exception of Pakistan.

Funnier still that those boroughs in Alaska and counties in Alabama (and parishes in Louisiana and counties everywhere else) don't adopt the same proxy-brush system to elect their governors, do they. If it's a valid model then they should be doing that, since New Orleans and Ferriday are very different with different people, different culture, different lifestyles, different needs and wants. Ditto Anchorage and Barrow, Birmingham and Wadley, Los Angeles and Susanville, etc etc etc. If it's a valid model why aren't the several states using it instead of this "devil's work" of one voter one vote?

I don’t know why other states aren’t using it, ask them. I do know however that the founding fathers were very concerned about the tyranny of the majority. You know the saying- democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.
Here is a great perspective and a very quick and simple read for you Democrats who are still butthurt over the electoral college.
Preventing "The Tyranny of the Majority"

 

[Issa]

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.

Dum ass Issa is not a female name...it means jesus in Arabic you twat.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Actually you're full of shit. It *DID* count their slave populations, at a discount rate, exactly as I posted in the first place. Those slave states got 3/5 of their slave populations counted in assessing electoral votes, while granting those slaves zero-fifths of a vote.

You could look it up. So could the poster you quoted. But why do that when you have your juvenile gainsaying. Which is sooooooooooooooo much more convincing that actual history --- such as this:

>> The proposal for apportionment for the determination of each state’s number of seats in the House of Representatives became an issue when the Constitution was being drafted in 1787. Aside from being a complex system and method for calculating the population through the census and then establishing a number of seats for representation, the issue as to who was eligible to be counted for the population was a topic of controversy. However, it is no surprise that this agreement is known as the Three-Fifths Compromise, for the Constitution itself was born out of compromise between the Framers of the Constitution.

However, the Three-Fifths Compromise is arguably the most controversial topic, for it delegates that all slaves of a particular state are to be counted as three-fifths of a white person. The population of slaves would be counted as three-fifths in total when apportioning Representatives, as well as Presidential electors and taxes.

The Three-Fifths Compromise was proposed by James Wilson and Roger Sherman, who were both delegates for the Constitutional Convention of 1787. However, the Three-Fifth Compromise has its roots further back in history, dating back to the Continental Congress in 1783. The Compromise was a result of the apportionment of taxes being related to land values.

Initially, taxes were levied not in accordance to the population numbers, but the actual value of the land. Many states began to depreciate the value of the land in order to provide for relief from their taxes. A committee was held that would rectify the situation by implementing the apportionment of taxes in relation to the state’s population. However, this idea was met with the dispute over how to consider slaves in the apportionment process and the actual ratio of slaves to free people at that time.

For the most part, those who opposed slavery only wanted to consider the free people of a population, while those in favor wanted to include slaves in the population count. This would provide for slave holders to have many more seats in the House of Representatives and more representation in the Electoral College. Many ratios were considered, such as three-fourths, one-half, and one-quarter. After much debate, it would be James Madison that would suggest the Three-Fifths Compromise. However, the Three-Fifths Compromise would not be adopted until the Constitutional Convention because the Compromise was not approved by all of the states and the Articles of Federation required a unanimous vote.

The implementation of the Three-Fifths Compromise would greatly increase the representation and political power of slave-owning states. The Southern states, if represented equally, would have accounted for 33 of the seats in the House of Representatives. However, because of the Three-Fifths Compromise, the Southern states accounted for 47 seats in the House of Representatives of the first United States Congress of 1790. << --- Constitution Law​

This is kinda junior high school stuff.

And once again, as I already posted, that gave extra votes to Virginia, the largest EC prize of that time, and as a result eight of the first nine Presidential terms were served by Virginians: Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe, all of whom served two terms.

I don't just pull these points out of my ass. I learn them first. And I don't declare something doesn't exist without knowing it doesn't exist. Your tip for the day.

 

[Pogo]

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.

I know that, you know that but Pogo cannot unwrap his/her head from the propaganda.

Ah, my mistake. I can't see Pogo, and I didn't realize you were quoting him.

Thus do you demonstrate WHY I can't see Pogo.

You can't see Pogo because you've been frantically running away from your own claim of --- what is it now, three weeks ago (?) ---- that I employed Composition Fallacies. I immediately threw the challenge flag and dared you to find any. Even a one. And you went to hide in the bushes, crying "move over Sean Spicer".

THAT is what you're running away from. And the whole world knows it.

You're also running away because you know by now that I back up what I post and when you gainsay it I will not hesitate to spank you as I just did in the previous post.

DEAL with it.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Pogo- you’re a sharp dude, but wrong on this. WTA/EC is fundamental to the spirit of the United States of America. Independent states, not states ruled by populations of other states. I suppose based on your vision of this country, you Would you be in favor of a popular vote to amend the constitution, instead of the system where each state has an equal voice. Alaska and Alabama are both in this country but there are very different. Different people, different culture, different lifestyles and different needs and wants. We all don’t want the people in New York, Florida, Texas and California deciding what is best for us. Popular vote in the USA is the devils work.

Funny then that this "devil's work" seems to work for everybody else in the world who elects their leaders with literally the single exception of Pakistan.

Funnier still that those boroughs in Alaska and counties in Alabama (and parishes in Louisiana and counties everywhere else) don't adopt the same proxy-brush system to elect their governors, do they. If it's a valid model then they should be doing that, since New Orleans and Ferriday are very different with different people, different culture, different lifestyles, different needs and wants. Ditto Anchorage and Barrow, Birmingham and Wadley, Los Angeles and Susanville, etc etc etc. If it's a valid model why aren't the several states using it instead of this "devil's work" of one voter one vote?

I don’t know why other states aren’t using it, ask them. I do know however that the founding fathers were very concerned about the tyranny of the majority. You know the saying- democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.
Here is a great perspective and a very quick and simple read for you Democrats who are still butthurt over the electoral college.
Preventing "The Tyranny of the Majority"

I'm not a "Democrat"; I'm simply pointing out why your premise is inoperative. If it were a valid system for choosing a head of state, then it would be an equally valid system for choosing the head of a state. Yet not a single one does. Are all 57 states just wrong?

As for your ludicrous "tyranny of the majority" canard I already shot that down when it tried to waltz in here dressed as "mob rule". Orwellian Doubletalk. What the hell do you think the whole purpose of an election is? Is not your governor elected by a majority? Are not your Senators? Your Congresscritter? Your mayor, your sheriff, etc etc etc? If a 'majority' equals a 'tyranny' then why is it also the objective of everyone in an election, including the voters?

 

[Doc1]

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.

Actually you're full of shit. It *DID* count their slave populations, at a discount rate, exactly as I posted in the first place. Those slave states got 3/5 of their slave populations counted in assessing electoral votes, while granting those slaves zero-fifths of a vote.

You could look it up. So could the poster you quoted. But why do that when you have your juvenile gainsaying. Which is sooooooooooooooo much more convincing that actual history --- such as this:

>> The proposal for apportionment for the determination of each state’s number of seats in the House of Representatives became an issue when the Constitution was being drafted in 1787. Aside from being a complex system and method for calculating the population through the census and then establishing a number of seats for representation, the issue as to who was eligible to be counted for the population was a topic of controversy. However, it is no surprise that this agreement is known as the Three-Fifths Compromise, for the Constitution itself was born out of compromise between the Framers of the Constitution.

However, the Three-Fifths Compromise is arguably the most controversial topic, for it delegates that all slaves of a particular state are to be counted as three-fifths of a white person. The population of slaves would be counted as three-fifths in total when apportioning Representatives, as well as Presidential electors and taxes.

The Three-Fifths Compromise was proposed by James Wilson and Roger Sherman, who were both delegates for the Constitutional Convention of 1787. However, the Three-Fifth Compromise has its roots further back in history, dating back to the Continental Congress in 1783. The Compromise was a result of the apportionment of taxes being related to land values.

Initially, taxes were levied not in accordance to the population numbers, but the actual value of the land. Many states began to depreciate the value of the land in order to provide for relief from their taxes. A committee was held that would rectify the situation by implementing the apportionment of taxes in relation to the state’s population. However, this idea was met with the dispute over how to consider slaves in the apportionment process and the actual ratio of slaves to free people at that time.

For the most part, those who opposed slavery only wanted to consider the free people of a population, while those in favor wanted to include slaves in the population count. This would provide for slave holders to have many more seats in the House of Representatives and more representation in the Electoral College. Many ratios were considered, such as three-fourths, one-half, and one-quarter. After much debate, it would be James Madison that would suggest the Three-Fifths Compromise. However, the Three-Fifths Compromise would not be adopted until the Constitutional Convention because the Compromise was not approved by all of the states and the Articles of Federation required a unanimous vote.

The implementation of the Three-Fifths Compromise would greatly increase the representation and political power of slave-owning states. The Southern states, if represented equally, would have accounted for 33 of the seats in the House of Representatives. However, because of the Three-Fifths Compromise, the Southern states accounted for 47 seats in the House of Representatives of the first United States Congress of 1790. << --- Constitution Law​

This is kinda junior high school stuff.

And once again, as I already posted, that gave extra votes to Virginia, the largest EC prize of that time, and as a result eight of the first nine Presidential terms were served by Virginians: Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe, all of whom served two terms.

I don't just pull these points out of my ass. I learn them first. And I don't declare something doesn't exist without knowing it doesn't exist. Your tip for the day.

This is how stupid and brainwashed you are. Representation is determined by population, the 3/5ths was aimed at keeping the representation semi equitable, without it the South would have been over represented and the blacks still couldn't have voted. Now setting aside that WITHOUT the "compromise" there would have been no Constitution, how many seats would they have had if the blacks had been fully counted?
You're an ignorant partisan hack kid. Your opinion of yourself is wholly unwarranted.

 

[Papageorgio]

If you don't want the Electoral College, change the Constitution, you just need a majority of the House, 2/3 of the Senate and 3/4 of the states to approve and ratify. Good luck.

 

[frigidweirdo]

He's sick because the majority should get to choose the president?

Personally I'd love to see PR in the House, so that when it comes to Presidential elections more viable parties are present. Then a run off system like France where the best two go against each other in a second round.

In 2016, we voted for a proposition for Ranked Choice Voting in Maine. Legislators quickly shut down as much of it as it could and we can only vote for federal elections using it, even though it was passed because we usually have a pretty strong third party candidate and it caused us to elect that fruitcake LePage twice as governor without a majority. It finally got used in the primaries this year and went well. It was used for one of our senators and one of our Representatives to Congress, Bruce Poliquin (R).
King won by a majority and RCV did not kick in.
In Poliquin's race, however, there were four candidates and no one got the majority. All the ballots were couriered to a central counting location and the lengthy process began. Poliquin realized he might lose once the #2 votes were counted and has filed a lawsuit to stop RCV in Maine, saying it is unconstitutional. He is such a little Wormtail. If he were winning, you can bet your ass he wouldn't have said a word. He could have filed this suit anytime in the past two years and didn't.
Republicans are being disgusting.

Okay, and what's your point here? That it's bad or good? I can't really tell.

You can't? Ranked Choice Voting is the only solution for getting viable third party candidates on the ballot. Without it, people just consider a third party vote as a "spoiler," even if they really like them.
I think Ranked Choice Voting is very good and I think it is very bad that the Republicans have done everything they can to stop it. We need one word changed in the State Constitution to allow Ranked Choice Voting in state elections. Has that been done over the past two years? Nope. The politicians do not give a shit what the voters voted for.

Actually I believe you're wrong.

Germany has PR and they have six parties in government.
I could give a list of countries with PR and how many parties there are, and none will be two. Others will be many more.

France has a lower house elected via a two vote system. So, a person must get more than 50% of the votes in order to be elected to government. It's not as good as PR, but better than the US system.

But France has 9 political groups.

When it comes to electing the president there were FOUR people who received over 19% of the vote. That means people saw there were more choices. Then two of those choices went into a run off.

The US just has two parties and it's a massive con.

If you're going to change the electoral system, why not go for something even better than a system which still disenfranchises lots of people?

I'm interested in your response, but I don't understand it because I don't understand what "PR" stands for, or what it means.

PR is Proportional Representation.

 

[Doc1]

LOL, now I'm agreeing with Frigid, there seems to be a higher power who starts things and then reverses course.....

 

[BuckToothMoron]

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.

Pogo- you’re a sharp dude, but wrong on this. WTA/EC is fundamental to the spirit of the United States of America. Independent states, not states ruled by populations of other states. I suppose based on your vision of this country, you Would you be in favor of a popular vote to amend the constitution, instead of the system where each state has an equal voice. Alaska and Alabama are both in this country but there are very different. Different people, different culture, different lifestyles and different needs and wants. We all don’t want the people in New York, Florida, Texas and California deciding what is best for us. Popular vote in the USA is the devils work.

Funny then that this "devil's work" seems to work for everybody else in the world who elects their leaders with literally the single exception of Pakistan.

Funnier still that those boroughs in Alaska and counties in Alabama (and parishes in Louisiana and counties everywhere else) don't adopt the same proxy-brush system to elect their governors, do they. If it's a valid model then they should be doing that, since New Orleans and Ferriday are very different with different people, different culture, different lifestyles, different needs and wants. Ditto Anchorage and Barrow, Birmingham and Wadley, Los Angeles and Susanville, etc etc etc. If it's a valid model why aren't the several states using it instead of this "devil's work" of one voter one vote?

I don’t know why other states aren’t using it, ask them. I do know however that the founding fathers were very concerned about the tyranny of the majority. You know the saying- democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.
Here is a great perspective and a very quick and simple read for you Democrats who are still butthurt over the electoral college.
Preventing "The Tyranny of the Majority"

I'm not a "Democrat"; I'm simply pointing out why your premise is inoperative. If it were a valid system for choosing a head of state, then it would be an equally valid system for choosing the head of a state. Yet not a single one does. Are all 57 states just wrong?

As for your ludicrous "tyranny of the majority" canard I already shot that down when it tried to waltz in here dressed as "mob rule". Orwellian Doubletalk. What the hell do you think the whole purpose of an election is? Is not your governor elected by a majority? Are not your Senators? Your Congresscritter? Your mayor, your sheriff, etc etc etc? If a 'majority' equals a 'tyranny' then why is it also the objective of everyone in an election, including the voters?

Sorry, I reject your premise of what’s good for the goose is good for the gander regarding smaller and larger government entities. Just because one system (in this case the electoral system) is good for a union of separate states, aka the USA, it doesn’t mean it would serve well for a much much smaller government with its own and separate constitution, aka any state in the union.

Let’s just leave it at this- you clearly believe that a simple majority vote system at any and all levels of government, for any and all positions of government, is the best choice. I vehemently disagree, and I pleased that our founders had the depth to disagree as well.

Let me also leave you with this- You and your ilk will not do away with the electoral system. Because no matter how big California or New York get, they still will only have the same number of votes as South Dakota and Wyoming when it comes to changing the constitution. Which is exactly what the framers had in mind...........tyranny of the majority be damned! Bwahahahahha

 

[Doc1]

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.

Pogo- you’re a sharp dude, but wrong on this. WTA/EC is fundamental to the spirit of the United States of America. Independent states, not states ruled by populations of other states. I suppose based on your vision of this country, you Would you be in favor of a popular vote to amend the constitution, instead of the system where each state has an equal voice. Alaska and Alabama are both in this country but there are very different. Different people, different culture, different lifestyles and different needs and wants. We all don’t want the people in New York, Florida, Texas and California deciding what is best for us. Popular vote in the USA is the devils work.

Funny then that this "devil's work" seems to work for everybody else in the world who elects their leaders with literally the single exception of Pakistan.

Funnier still that those boroughs in Alaska and counties in Alabama (and parishes in Louisiana and counties everywhere else) don't adopt the same proxy-brush system to elect their governors, do they. If it's a valid model then they should be doing that, since New Orleans and Ferriday are very different with different people, different culture, different lifestyles, different needs and wants. Ditto Anchorage and Barrow, Birmingham and Wadley, Los Angeles and Susanville, etc etc etc. If it's a valid model why aren't the several states using it instead of this "devil's work" of one voter one vote?

I don’t know why other states aren’t using it, ask them. I do know however that the founding fathers were very concerned about the tyranny of the majority. You know the saying- democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.
Here is a great perspective and a very quick and simple read for you Democrats who are still butthurt over the electoral college.
Preventing "The Tyranny of the Majority"

I'm not a "Democrat"; I'm simply pointing out why your premise is inoperative. If it were a valid system for choosing a head of state, then it would be an equally valid system for choosing the head of a state. Yet not a single one does. Are all 57 states just wrong?

As for your ludicrous "tyranny of the majority" canard I already shot that down when it tried to waltz in here dressed as "mob rule". Orwellian Doubletalk. What the hell do you think the whole purpose of an election is? Is not your governor elected by a majority? Are not your Senators? Your Congresscritter? Your mayor, your sheriff, etc etc etc? If a 'majority' equals a 'tyranny' then why is it also the objective of everyone in an election, including the voters?

Sorry, I reject your premise of what’s good for the goose is good for the gander regarding smaller and larger government entities. Just because one system (in this case the electoral system) is good for a union of separate states, aka the USA, it doesn’t mean it would serve well for a much much smaller government with its own and separate constitution, aka any state in the union.

Let’s just leave it at this- you clearly believe that a simple majority vote system at any and all levels of government, for any and all positions of government, is the best choice. I vehemently disagree, and I pleased that our founders had the depth to disagree as well.

Let me also leave you with this- You and your ilk will not do away with the electoral system. Because no matter how big California or New York get, they still will only have the same number of votes as South Dakota and Wyoming when it comes to changing the constitution. Which is exactly what the framers had in mind...........tyranny of the majority be damned! Bwahahahahha

Of course he/she does, ALL Progs are authoritarian to their core.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

The Founding Fathers put something in place that is totally different to what exists now.

Here's the election map of the first Presidential election.

Notice the lack of voting going on except in PA, DE and MA.

Things changed over time, the Constitution has changed over time too.

The Founders put in the amendment process in order for the country to change to meet the requirements of the modern era.

This was their intelligence. To suggest that things remain the same because of the Founders intelligence is rather strange.

 

[Doc1]

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.

The Founding Fathers put something in place that is totally different to what exists now.

Here's the election map of the first Presidential election.

Notice the lack of voting going on except in PA, DE and MA.

Things changed over time, the Constitution has changed over time too.

The Founders put in the amendment process in order for the country to change to meet the requirements of the modern era.

This was their intelligence. To suggest that things remain the same because of the Founders intelligence is rather strange.

Well sure, except that the Courts are changing it and not the Amendment process.
Are you frigid?

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

No, it doesn't.

Only 12 states get to decide the outcome of the election. Wyoming is completely ignored.

Proportional Representation would actually give a voice to groups of people, no matter where they live.

Farmers would be able to unite, rather than be separated by state boundaries.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

The Founding Fathers put something in place that is totally different to what exists now.

Here's the election map of the first Presidential election.

Notice the lack of voting going on except in PA, DE and MA.

Things changed over time, the Constitution has changed over time too.

The Founders put in the amendment process in order for the country to change to meet the requirements of the modern era.

This was their intelligence. To suggest that things remain the same because of the Founders intelligence is rather strange.

Well sure, except that the Courts are changing it and not the Amendment process.
Are you frigid?

Are you on the ignore list? Yes you are.

 

[Doc1]

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.

The Founding Fathers put something in place that is totally different to what exists now.

Here's the election map of the first Presidential election.

Notice the lack of voting going on except in PA, DE and MA.

Things changed over time, the Constitution has changed over time too.

The Founders put in the amendment process in order for the country to change to meet the requirements of the modern era.

This was their intelligence. To suggest that things remain the same because of the Founders intelligence is rather strange.

Well sure, except that the Courts are changing it and not the Amendment process.
Are you frigid?

Are you on the ignore list? Yes you are.

You're a coward, nothing more.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Pogo- you’re a sharp dude, but wrong on this. WTA/EC is fundamental to the spirit of the United States of America. Independent states, not states ruled by populations of other states. I suppose based on your vision of this country, you Would you be in favor of a popular vote to amend the constitution, instead of the system where each state has an equal voice. Alaska and Alabama are both in this country but there are very different. Different people, different culture, different lifestyles and different needs and wants. We all don’t want the people in New York, Florida, Texas and California deciding what is best for us. Popular vote in the USA is the devils work.

Funny then that this "devil's work" seems to work for everybody else in the world who elects their leaders with literally the single exception of Pakistan.

Funnier still that those boroughs in Alaska and counties in Alabama (and parishes in Louisiana and counties everywhere else) don't adopt the same proxy-brush system to elect their governors, do they. If it's a valid model then they should be doing that, since New Orleans and Ferriday are very different with different people, different culture, different lifestyles, different needs and wants. Ditto Anchorage and Barrow, Birmingham and Wadley, Los Angeles and Susanville, etc etc etc. If it's a valid model why aren't the several states using it instead of this "devil's work" of one voter one vote?

I don’t know why other states aren’t using it, ask them. I do know however that the founding fathers were very concerned about the tyranny of the majority. You know the saying- democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.
Here is a great perspective and a very quick and simple read for you Democrats who are still butthurt over the electoral college.
Preventing "The Tyranny of the Majority"

I'm not a "Democrat"; I'm simply pointing out why your premise is inoperative. If it were a valid system for choosing a head of state, then it would be an equally valid system for choosing the head of a state. Yet not a single one does. Are all 57 states just wrong?

As for your ludicrous "tyranny of the majority" canard I already shot that down when it tried to waltz in here dressed as "mob rule". Orwellian Doubletalk. What the hell do you think the whole purpose of an election is? Is not your governor elected by a majority? Are not your Senators? Your Congresscritter? Your mayor, your sheriff, etc etc etc? If a 'majority' equals a 'tyranny' then why is it also the objective of everyone in an election, including the voters?

Sorry, I reject your premise of what’s good for the goose is good for the gander regarding smaller and larger government entities. Just because one system (in this case the electoral system) is good for a union of separate states, aka the USA, it doesn’t mean it would serve well for a much much smaller government with its own and separate constitution, aka any state in the union.

Okay. Then you have to explain why it isn't, when you apply the same to the POTUS election. Because if you can't do that I have proven that your position fails. Because Double Standard.

Let’s just leave it at this- you clearly believe that a simple majority vote system at any and all levels of government, for any and all positions of government, is the best choice. I vehemently disagree, and I pleased that our founders had the depth to disagree as well.

Let me also leave you with this- You and your ilk will not do away with the electoral system. Because no matter how big California or New York get, they still will only have the same number of votes as South Dakota and Wyoming when it comes to changing the constitution. Which is exactly what the framers had in mind...........tyranny of the majority be damned! Bwahahahahha

I don't have an "ilk"; I am sui generis. I actually proffered no opinion on a 'simple majority vote system' --- what I did say was that I'm criticizing the WTA system ---- which is absolutely NOT part of the Constitution ---- and noted that nobody wants to defend that system.

And the Doublethinkian terms "tyranny of the majority" and "mob rule" have already been taken to the cleaners. They're over there with "Liberal fascism" and "jumbo shrimp".

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Pogo- you’re a sharp dude, but wrong on this. WTA/EC is fundamental to the spirit of the United States of America. Independent states, not states ruled by populations of other states. I suppose based on your vision of this country, you Would you be in favor of a popular vote to amend the constitution, instead of the system where each state has an equal voice. Alaska and Alabama are both in this country but there are very different. Different people, different culture, different lifestyles and different needs and wants. We all don’t want the people in New York, Florida, Texas and California deciding what is best for us. Popular vote in the USA is the devils work.

Funny then that this "devil's work" seems to work for everybody else in the world who elects their leaders with literally the single exception of Pakistan.

Funnier still that those boroughs in Alaska and counties in Alabama (and parishes in Louisiana and counties everywhere else) don't adopt the same proxy-brush system to elect their governors, do they. If it's a valid model then they should be doing that, since New Orleans and Ferriday are very different with different people, different culture, different lifestyles, different needs and wants. Ditto Anchorage and Barrow, Birmingham and Wadley, Los Angeles and Susanville, etc etc etc. If it's a valid model why aren't the several states using it instead of this "devil's work" of one voter one vote?

I don’t know why other states aren’t using it, ask them. I do know however that the founding fathers were very concerned about the tyranny of the majority. You know the saying- democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.
Here is a great perspective and a very quick and simple read for you Democrats who are still butthurt over the electoral college.
Preventing "The Tyranny of the Majority"

I'm not a "Democrat"; I'm simply pointing out why your premise is inoperative. If it were a valid system for choosing a head of state, then it would be an equally valid system for choosing the head of a state. Yet not a single one does. Are all 57 states just wrong?

As for your ludicrous "tyranny of the majority" canard I already shot that down when it tried to waltz in here dressed as "mob rule". Orwellian Doubletalk. What the hell do you think the whole purpose of an election is? Is not your governor elected by a majority? Are not your Senators? Your Congresscritter? Your mayor, your sheriff, etc etc etc? If a 'majority' equals a 'tyranny' then why is it also the objective of everyone in an election, including the voters?

Sorry, I reject your premise of what’s good for the goose is good for the gander regarding smaller and larger government entities. Just because one system (in this case the electoral system) is good for a union of separate states, aka the USA, it doesn’t mean it would serve well for a much much smaller government with its own and separate constitution, aka any state in the union.

Okay. Then you have to explain why it isn't, when you apply the same to the POTUS election. Because if you can't do that I have proven that your position fails. Because Double Standard.

Let’s just leave it at this- you clearly believe that a simple majority vote system at any and all levels of government, for any and all positions of government, is the best choice. I vehemently disagree, and I pleased that our founders had the depth to disagree as well.

Let me also leave you with this- You and your ilk will not do away with the electoral system. Because no matter how big California or New York get, they still will only have the same number of votes as South Dakota and Wyoming when it comes to changing the constitution. Which is exactly what the framers had in mind...........tyranny of the majority be damned! Bwahahahahha

I don't have an "ilk"; I am sui generis. I actually proffered no opinion on a 'simple majority vote system' --- what I did say was that I'm criticizing the WTA system ---- which is absolutely NOT part of the Constitution ---- and noted that nobody wants to defend that system.

And the Doublethinkian terms "tyranny of the majority" and "mob rule" have already been taken to the cleaners. They're over there with "Liberal fascism" and "jumbo shrimp".

I didn’t a understand your first question ‘explain why it isn’t....’.

Regarding the winner take all system- Any state can change from the winner take all system if they choose. You’re right, it isn’t in the constitution. It should be obvious why they don’t. You know why, don’t you?