Should the popular vote be the ultimate decider?

[Pogo]

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.

I would change it too.
I would make sure that Democrats couldn't count the votes anywhere. The counting would either be done by some trustworthy unbiased group randomly selected the day of the election do know one will know who is counting, or all done by PC to a centeral computer to remove the human element and the totals not announced till the winner was decided.

Katherine Harris finds this post hifuckinlarious. And Ken Blackwell agrees.

Katherine Harris likes to follow the law, and Democrats like to break the law.

uh HUH.

And what do Sweeping Generalizers like to do?

 

[Wyatt earp]

because there are more of them and they have a different agenda than people living in Idaho, or Montana or Louisiana, or Alabama. Without the EC four states would pick our presidents, Cal, TX, Ny, and Fl...with Cal having the biggest input. The voters in the other 46 would have zero to say about it if those 4 all voted the same way. That's why the founders put the EC in the constitution.

But you think everyone in Cal, TX, NY and FL vote the same way or something?
I don't think that's true. I sure don't see how the EC is supposed to give states equal representation, since my state gets 4 and California gets 55. As a matter of fact, the states you listed are the 4 states with the most electoral votes.
So how does that make Maine equal with California, again? Somehow, I don't think it had anything to do with making it equal. That's the Senate's job.

I believe at one point there was a plan to have the Senators be the electors. Makes more sense. In answer to your paradox yes those states do have the most electoral votes but even so the EC takes the edgre off of the population disparity.

Jo

"takes the edgre off" huh. Wonder how Edgar feels about that.

We notice that summa y'all speak of this "population disparity" as if it were a negative, as if it's something to be penalized for.

Fact is, if most people wanted to live in Wyoming ---- they would.

We are 50 separate country's United , that's what you can never comprehend

Ironically enough this addressed nothing about what I just posted, so tell us about inability to comprehend.

We have been arguing about it for years and you have yet to acknowledge the damn fact we are 50 separate country's United...most everyone the world over knows Texas , California or flordia.


Not many people know what the hell Hokkaido is or frickin wurzburg


.

 

[Pogo]

But you think everyone in Cal, TX, NY and FL vote the same way or something?
I don't think that's true. I sure don't see how the EC is supposed to give states equal representation, since my state gets 4 and California gets 55. As a matter of fact, the states you listed are the 4 states with the most electoral votes.
So how does that make Maine equal with California, again? Somehow, I don't think it had anything to do with making it equal. That's the Senate's job.

I believe at one point there was a plan to have the Senators be the electors. Makes more sense. In answer to your paradox yes those states do have the most electoral votes but even so the EC takes the edgre off of the population disparity.

Jo

"takes the edgre off" huh. Wonder how Edgar feels about that.

We notice that summa y'all speak of this "population disparity" as if it were a negative, as if it's something to be penalized for.

Fact is, if most people wanted to live in Wyoming ---- they would.

We are 50 separate country's United , that's what you can never comprehend

Ironically enough this addressed nothing about what I just posted, so tell us about inability to comprehend.

We have been arguing about it for years and you have yet to acknowledge the damn fact we are 50 separate country's United...most everyone the world over knows Texas , California or flordia.


Not many people know what the hell Hokkaido is or frickin wurzburg

We have been arguing about it for five minutes and I haven't acknowledged it for two reasons --- one, it has nothing to do with what I have posted above, and two, even if [country's] were an actual word, we would NOT be 50 separate ones of them.

 

[Godboy]

Why don't you cite where any of those links make the case that "California and NY [would] start making all decisions for every other state". That was after all your claim.

I guess you should have read the articles, then you wouldnt have these stupid questions.

Sooooooooooo there's nothing in any of them you can cite.

Kinda figured.

I now need to site evidence for why the electoral college exists?

 

[Wyatt earp]

I believe at one point there was a plan to have the Senators be the electors. Makes more sense. In answer to your paradox yes those states do have the most electoral votes but even so the EC takes the edgre off of the population disparity.

Jo

"takes the edgre off" huh. Wonder how Edgar feels about that.

We notice that summa y'all speak of this "population disparity" as if it were a negative, as if it's something to be penalized for.

Fact is, if most people wanted to live in Wyoming ---- they would.

We are 50 separate country's United , that's what you can never comprehend

Ironically enough this addressed nothing about what I just posted, so tell us about inability to comprehend.

We have been arguing about it for years and you have yet to acknowledge the damn fact we are 50 separate country's United...most everyone the world over knows Texas , California or flordia.


Not many people know what the hell Hokkaido is or frickin wurzburg

We have been arguing about it for five minutes and I haven't acknowledged it for two reasons --- one, it has nothing to do with what I have posted above, and two, even if [country's] were an actual word, we would NOT be 50 separate ones of them.

B.S. it's been at least 2 years we have been arguing about this and you will never acknowledge the fact we are 50 separate country's ..United


You want to think people have the same values all over America but we don't...a huge difference between a queer in San Francisco and a redneck in Georgia .



.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Or a practical logical person from Boston. Like moi. But I am not a raging Leftist fool like many Bostonians.

 

[justoffal]

"takes the edgre off" huh. Wonder how Edgar feels about that.

We notice that summa y'all speak of this "population disparity" as if it were a negative, as if it's something to be penalized for.

Fact is, if most people wanted to live in Wyoming ---- they would.

We are 50 separate country's United , that's what you can never comprehend

Ironically enough this addressed nothing about what I just posted, so tell us about inability to comprehend.

We have been arguing about it for years and you have yet to acknowledge the damn fact we are 50 separate country's United...most everyone the world over knows Texas , California or flordia.


Not many people know what the hell Hokkaido is or frickin wurzburg

We have been arguing about it for five minutes and I haven't acknowledged it for two reasons --- one, it has nothing to do with what I have posted above, and two, even if [country's] were an actual word, we would NOT be 50 separate ones of them.

B.S. it's been at least 2 years we have been arguing about this and you will never acknowledge the fact we are 50 separate country's ..United


You want to think people have the same values all over America but we don't...a huge difference between a queer in San Francisco and a redneck in Georgia .



.

Collectivism knows no modesty....and lefty owns no mirrors ( TM..Rickwa)

 

[Wyatt earp]

We are 50 separate country's United , that's what you can never comprehend

Ironically enough this addressed nothing about what I just posted, so tell us about inability to comprehend.

We have been arguing about it for years and you have yet to acknowledge the damn fact we are 50 separate country's United...most everyone the world over knows Texas , California or flordia.


Not many people know what the hell Hokkaido is or frickin wurzburg

We have been arguing about it for five minutes and I haven't acknowledged it for two reasons --- one, it has nothing to do with what I have posted above, and two, even if [country's] were an actual word, we would NOT be 50 separate ones of them.

B.S. it's been at least 2 years we have been arguing about this and you will never acknowledge the fact we are 50 separate country's ..United


You want to think people have the same values all over America but we don't...a huge difference between a queer in San Francisco and a redneck in Georgia .



.

Collectivism knows no modesty....and lefty owns no mirrors ( TM..Rickwa)

Never heard that one before..thanks

 

[Yarddog]

I think your system is wise and was designed with careful thought and consideration. The Media concentration in NY and Cali can't use control and high populations to win election year after year. You are 50 States and it's beautifully designed with this in mind.

Try it in Canada then eh.

Your reasoning makes no sense. The "Media concentration in NY and Cali", whatever that is, has no influence on elections.

Take the same concept and apply it to a state (or province). Does the "media concentration in Omaha" use control and high population to win Nebraska elections year after year? Please.

Yeah it was designed with "careful thought and consideration" for the slaveholders of the 1700s.

The "Media concentration in NY and Cali", whatever that is, has no influence on elections.

Yeah? I guess that means Russian adds also had no effect. Glad we can agree on that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Doesn't Maine do something like that? OldLady mentioned it but it's too far back now...

Know what else we need? A choice for NOTA. That would have won 2016 in a landslide.

Another suggestion: Don't list any political parties on the ballot at all. Eliminate those sheeple voting for a party instead of a person.

I agree with you on eliminating the party labels on the ballot.

I also understand why you want the ghetto areas of the big cities to decide who is president. those votes are much easier to buy.

I made no such allusion at all, but I understand why you vote for the Strawman. Seems to be a popular choice here.

the truth is usually popular. when you favor doing away with the EC you favor letting the big cities choose our presidents, that's a simple fact.

I don't understand how that works. If it is one man, one vote, doesn't that mean that every person who votes in the country, regardless of where they live, has the same say in chosing the Pres? Why would people in the cities have more say than someone living in Idaho?

Its easier and more efficient to reach the voters in big cities than it is to go door to door in Rural America.

Not to mention that if you only needed to convince the people in LA and NY to vote for you, what would be the point of ever doing anything the benefit the people in the rest of the country? You could just make all of your policies to benefit the big urban areas, and screw the meaningless peasants in the countryside. They'd just have to live with it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I agree with you on eliminating the party labels on the ballot.

I also understand why you want the ghetto areas of the big cities to decide who is president. those votes are much easier to buy.

I made no such allusion at all, but I understand why you vote for the Strawman. Seems to be a popular choice here.

the truth is usually popular. when you favor doing away with the EC you favor letting the big cities choose our presidents, that's a simple fact.

I don't understand how that works. If it is one man, one vote, doesn't that mean that every person who votes in the country, regardless of where they live, has the same say in chosing the Pres? Why would people in the cities have more say than someone living in Idaho?

Its easier and more efficient to reach the voters in big cities than it is to go door to door in Rural America.

So it's more of an issue for campaign workers?

I heard someone say that states with low populations would never see a candidate again. LOL. That would be fine with most of us, I think. Who cares if they show up in person? We all have tv's and papers.

I couldn't care less if a Presidental candidate ever personally comes to Arizona, but I care very much that the needs and wishes of the people of Arizona be a factor in the administration's policy decisions. I have no desire to become a helpless, voiceless slave to LA.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I made no such allusion at all, but I understand why you vote for the Strawman. Seems to be a popular choice here.

the truth is usually popular. when you favor doing away with the EC you favor letting the big cities choose our presidents, that's a simple fact.

I don't understand how that works. If it is one man, one vote, doesn't that mean that every person who votes in the country, regardless of where they live, has the same say in chosing the Pres? Why would people in the cities have more say than someone living in Idaho?

Its easier and more efficient to reach the voters in big cities than it is to go door to door in Rural America.

So it's more of an issue for campaign workers?

I heard someone say that states with low populations would never see a candidate again. LOL. That would be fine with most of us, I think. Who cares if they show up in person? We all have tv's and papers.

I couldn't care less if a Presidental candidate ever personally comes to Arizona, but I care very much that the needs and wishes of the people of Arizona be a factor in the administration's policy decisions. I have no desire to become a helpless, voiceless slave to LA.

Exactly pal, we Who live in other states can't vote out crazy ass Diane, Maxine or Nancy ( the three bitches from hell)

We can't do anything about them..if we don't live in there state.



.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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

Except the states are not fairly represented.

Favoring the minority over the majority is not fair by any definition.

 

[longknife]

Why don't you cite where any of those links make the case that "California and NY [would] start making all decisions for every other state". That was after all your claim.

I guess you should have read the articles, then you wouldnt have these stupid questions.

Sooooooooooo there's nothing in any of them you can cite.

Kinda figured.

I now need to site evidence for why the electoral college exists?

Learn how to write in English first.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

No

Mob rule is never a good thing

Or a real thing.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I think your system is wise and was designed with careful thought and consideration. The Media concentration in NY and Cali can't use control and high populations to win election year after year. You are 50 States and it's beautifully designed with this in mind.

Indeed. The concept is a Federal Republic of States. National Mob Rule will destroy the rights of people who do not live in the few major metro clusters controlled by the Dems.

That's simply not true in any way.
No one's rights would be destroyed. Your vote would count as it always has.
Most presidents are elected by winning both the Popular and EC votes. Winning the EC only is the anomaly.

 

[boedicca]

I think your system is wise and was designed with careful thought and consideration. The Media concentration in NY and Cali can't use control and high populations to win election year after year. You are 50 States and it's beautifully designed with this in mind.

Indeed. The concept is a Federal Republic of States. National Mob Rule will destroy the rights of people who do not live in the few major metro clusters controlled by the Dems.

That's simply not true in any way.
No one's rights would be destroyed. Your vote would count as it always has.
Most presidents are elected by winning both the Popular and EC votes. Winning the EC only is the anomaly.

Read up on what the Federal Republic designed by the Framers was designed to protect and then get back to us.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I think your system is wise and was designed with careful thought and consideration. The Media concentration in NY and Cali can't use control and high populations to win election year after year. You are 50 States and it's beautifully designed with this in mind.

Indeed. The concept is a Federal Republic of States. National Mob Rule will destroy the rights of people who do not live in the few major metro clusters controlled by the Dems.

That's simply not true in any way.
No one's rights would be destroyed. Your vote would count as it always has.
Most presidents are elected by winning both the Popular and EC votes. Winning the EC only is the anomaly.

Dude your voting to cheat..


You turd balls in California are so indoctrinated it's not even funny anymore..so the damn right has to cheat to get even.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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

" Mob rule" is a dopey narrative. There is no such thing.

 

[boedicca]

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

" Mob rule" is a dopey narrative. There is no such thing.

Robespierre is chuckling in Hell.