The electoral college is a disaster for democracy

[NYcarbineer]

Bullshit.
You can't make that argument work. Cannot be done. Go ahead and give it a shot.

A PV in no way takes any votes away from outside of metro areas.
An EC on the other hand nullifies literally millions on the spot.

And again, this system wasn't set up by "the Founders" but by the Twelfth Amendment.... which also counted slaves for three-fifths of a person for the purpose of counting EVs (but not for the purpose of voting).

That of course was revised with the Fourteenth when slavery was abolished ---- which also counted women for the purpose of counting EVs but not for the purpose of voting.

That part wasn't fixed until the Nineteenth.

Notice that this Yugo is always in the shop?

Yugo = Pogo

it is a well known FACT that the voters in our largest cities are predominately democrats. So NY, Chitown, LA, Houston, Philly, and DC could decide our presidents. For that matter, California and New York plus Chitown and Philly could pick our presidents.


The EC gives an electoral voice to the citizens of Alaska, Idaho, Mississippi, and Kansas.

Sorry if you think it caused your terrible hildebeast to lose. That's just the way it is. BTW, the latest counts have Trump winning the popular vote as well as the EC-----------------------------------------------------Soooooooo, Hillary is a two time LOSER who may end up in jail. The system works.

You don't deserve to have your vote diluted just because you live in a city.

you don't deserve to have your vote not count just because you live in a low population state. The EC is the best compromise and in almost every case the winner of the EC also won the PV. Trump included, the latest counts have him winning both.

Bullshit.
You can't make that argument work. Cannot be done. Go ahead and give it a shot.

A PV in no way takes any votes away from outside of metro areas.
An EC on the other hand nullifies literally millions on the spot.

And again, this system wasn't set up by "the Founders" but by the Twelfth Amendment.... which also counted slaves for three-fifths of a person for the purpose of counting EVs (but not for the purpose of voting).

That of course was revised with the Fourteenth when slavery was abolished ---- which also counted women for the purpose of counting EVs but not for the purpose of voting.

That part wasn't fixed until the Nineteenth.

Notice that this Yugo is always in the shop?

Yugo = Pogo

it is a well known FACT that the voters in our largest cities are predominately democrats. So NY, Chitown, LA, Houston, Philly, and DC could decide our presidents. For that matter, California and New York plus Chitown and Philly could pick our presidents.


The EC gives an electoral voice to the citizens of Alaska, Idaho, Mississippi, and Kansas.

Sorry if you think it caused your terrible hildebeast to lose. That's just the way it is. BTW, the latest counts have Trump winning the popular vote as well as the EC-----------------------------------------------------Soooooooo, Hillary is a two time LOSER who may end up in jail. The system works.

You don't deserve to have your vote diluted just because you live in a city.

you don't deserve to have your vote not count just because you live in a low population state. The EC is the best compromise and in almost every case the winner of the EC also won the PV. Trump included, the latest counts have him winning both.

The EC is based on the idea that people in low population states will have very different needs than a high population state so the EC is needed otherwise our elections would be biased toward the needs of large population states.

Needs of people vary greatly regardless of population. For example, West Virginia and Utah are about the same size both have the same number of electoral votes but their needs are much different. The same can be said for Delaware and Alaska, or West Virginia and Utah. Is Texas with 35 electoral votes really that similar to New York with 31. I would say Texas is far more like Oklahoma with only 7.

Size of state population is not a reliable indicator of the needs of the people in that state, thus the popular vote is far more equatable for everyone.

We tend to the think that the GOP dominates the smaller states but if you look at the number of states that have less than 10 electoral votes they are probably closer than you think, 17 are red states and 14 are Blue states.

its not really a state by state issue. Look at the blue dots on the map-----the big metropolitan areas. Without the EC, our 4 or 5 largest cities would be picking our presidents. OR, if you like the state deal, California, the DC metroplex, and New York would be picking our presidents. The rest of us would have no say.

But this is mental masturbation, a constitutional amendment removing the EC will never be ratified by 38 states.

You're an idiot. Without the EC, the People, one person one vote, would elect the president.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Bullshit.
You can't make that argument work. Cannot be done. Go ahead and give it a shot.

A PV in no way takes any votes away from outside of metro areas.
An EC on the other hand nullifies literally millions on the spot.

And again, this system wasn't set up by "the Founders" but by the Twelfth Amendment.... which also counted slaves for three-fifths of a person for the purpose of counting EVs (but not for the purpose of voting).

That of course was revised with the Fourteenth when slavery was abolished ---- which also counted women for the purpose of counting EVs but not for the purpose of voting.

That part wasn't fixed until the Nineteenth.

Notice that this Yugo is always in the shop?

Yugo = Pogo

it is a well known FACT that the voters in our largest cities are predominately democrats. So NY, Chitown, LA, Houston, Philly, and DC could decide our presidents. For that matter, California and New York plus Chitown and Philly could pick our presidents.


The EC gives an electoral voice to the citizens of Alaska, Idaho, Mississippi, and Kansas.

Sorry if you think it caused your terrible hildebeast to lose. That's just the way it is. BTW, the latest counts have Trump winning the popular vote as well as the EC-----------------------------------------------------Soooooooo, Hillary is a two time LOSER who may end up in jail. The system works.

You don't deserve to have your vote diluted just because you live in a city.

you don't deserve to have your vote not count just because you live in a low population state. The EC is the best compromise and in almost every case the winner of the EC also won the PV. Trump included, the latest counts have him winning both.

Bullshit.
You can't make that argument work. Cannot be done. Go ahead and give it a shot.

A PV in no way takes any votes away from outside of metro areas.
An EC on the other hand nullifies literally millions on the spot.

And again, this system wasn't set up by "the Founders" but by the Twelfth Amendment.... which also counted slaves for three-fifths of a person for the purpose of counting EVs (but not for the purpose of voting).

That of course was revised with the Fourteenth when slavery was abolished ---- which also counted women for the purpose of counting EVs but not for the purpose of voting.

That part wasn't fixed until the Nineteenth.

Notice that this Yugo is always in the shop?

Yugo = Pogo

it is a well known FACT that the voters in our largest cities are predominately democrats. So NY, Chitown, LA, Houston, Philly, and DC could decide our presidents. For that matter, California and New York plus Chitown and Philly could pick our presidents.


The EC gives an electoral voice to the citizens of Alaska, Idaho, Mississippi, and Kansas.

Sorry if you think it caused your terrible hildebeast to lose. That's just the way it is. BTW, the latest counts have Trump winning the popular vote as well as the EC-----------------------------------------------------Soooooooo, Hillary is a two time LOSER who may end up in jail. The system works.

You don't deserve to have your vote diluted just because you live in a city.

you don't deserve to have your vote not count just because you live in a low population state. The EC is the best compromise and in almost every case the winner of the EC also won the PV. Trump included, the latest counts have him winning both.

The EC is based on the idea that people in low population states will have very different needs than a high population state so the EC is needed otherwise our elections would be biased toward the needs of large population states.

Needs of people vary greatly regardless of population. For example, West Virginia and Utah are about the same size both have the same number of electoral votes but their needs are much different. The same can be said for Delaware and Alaska, or West Virginia and Utah. Is Texas with 35 electoral votes really that similar to New York with 31. I would say Texas is far more like Oklahoma with only 7.

Size of state population is not a reliable indicator of the needs of the people in that state, thus the popular vote is far more equatable for everyone.

We tend to the think that the GOP dominates the smaller states but if you look at the number of states that have less than 10 electoral votes they are probably closer than you think, 17 are red states and 14 are Blue states.

its not really a state by state issue. Look at the blue dots on the map-----the big metropolitan areas. Without the EC, our 4 or 5 largest cities would be picking our presidents. OR, if you like the state deal, California, the DC metroplex, and New York would be picking our presidents. The rest of us would have no say.

But this is mental masturbation, a constitutional amendment removing the EC will never be ratified by 38 states.

If there are more people in the cities, why shouldn't they have proportionately more power?

 

[Redfish]

Yugo = Pogo

it is a well known FACT that the voters in our largest cities are predominately democrats. So NY, Chitown, LA, Houston, Philly, and DC could decide our presidents. For that matter, California and New York plus Chitown and Philly could pick our presidents.


The EC gives an electoral voice to the citizens of Alaska, Idaho, Mississippi, and Kansas.

Sorry if you think it caused your terrible hildebeast to lose. That's just the way it is. BTW, the latest counts have Trump winning the popular vote as well as the EC-----------------------------------------------------Soooooooo, Hillary is a two time LOSER who may end up in jail. The system works.

You don't deserve to have your vote diluted just because you live in a city.

you don't deserve to have your vote not count just because you live in a low population state. The EC is the best compromise and in almost every case the winner of the EC also won the PV. Trump included, the latest counts have him winning both.

Yugo = Pogo

it is a well known FACT that the voters in our largest cities are predominately democrats. So NY, Chitown, LA, Houston, Philly, and DC could decide our presidents. For that matter, California and New York plus Chitown and Philly could pick our presidents.


The EC gives an electoral voice to the citizens of Alaska, Idaho, Mississippi, and Kansas.

Sorry if you think it caused your terrible hildebeast to lose. That's just the way it is. BTW, the latest counts have Trump winning the popular vote as well as the EC-----------------------------------------------------Soooooooo, Hillary is a two time LOSER who may end up in jail. The system works.

You don't deserve to have your vote diluted just because you live in a city.

you don't deserve to have your vote not count just because you live in a low population state. The EC is the best compromise and in almost every case the winner of the EC also won the PV. Trump included, the latest counts have him winning both.

The EC is based on the idea that people in low population states will have very different needs than a high population state so the EC is needed otherwise our elections would be biased toward the needs of large population states.

Needs of people vary greatly regardless of population. For example, West Virginia and Utah are about the same size both have the same number of electoral votes but their needs are much different. The same can be said for Delaware and Alaska, or West Virginia and Utah. Is Texas with 35 electoral votes really that similar to New York with 31. I would say Texas is far more like Oklahoma with only 7.

Size of state population is not a reliable indicator of the needs of the people in that state, thus the popular vote is far more equatable for everyone.

We tend to the think that the GOP dominates the smaller states but if you look at the number of states that have less than 10 electoral votes they are probably closer than you think, 17 are red states and 14 are Blue states.

its not really a state by state issue. Look at the blue dots on the map-----the big metropolitan areas. Without the EC, our 4 or 5 largest cities would be picking our presidents. OR, if you like the state deal, California, the DC metroplex, and New York would be picking our presidents. The rest of us would have no say.

But this is mental masturbation, a constitutional amendment removing the EC will never be ratified by 38 states.

If there are more people in the cities, why shouldn't they have proportionately more power?

NO, our 4 or 5 biggest cities should not run our country. Are you really that stupid?

 

[LaDexter]

If there are more people in the cities, why shouldn't they have proportionately more power?

This taxpayer funded leech just wants the Dems to win. If Hillary had won the EC and Trump the popular, she would be thrilled with the EC and shouting "racist" at anyone who wanted a popular vote...

 

[Redfish]

Yugo = Pogo

it is a well known FACT that the voters in our largest cities are predominately democrats. So NY, Chitown, LA, Houston, Philly, and DC could decide our presidents. For that matter, California and New York plus Chitown and Philly could pick our presidents.


The EC gives an electoral voice to the citizens of Alaska, Idaho, Mississippi, and Kansas.

Sorry if you think it caused your terrible hildebeast to lose. That's just the way it is. BTW, the latest counts have Trump winning the popular vote as well as the EC-----------------------------------------------------Soooooooo, Hillary is a two time LOSER who may end up in jail. The system works.

You don't deserve to have your vote diluted just because you live in a city.

you don't deserve to have your vote not count just because you live in a low population state. The EC is the best compromise and in almost every case the winner of the EC also won the PV. Trump included, the latest counts have him winning both.

Yugo = Pogo

it is a well known FACT that the voters in our largest cities are predominately democrats. So NY, Chitown, LA, Houston, Philly, and DC could decide our presidents. For that matter, California and New York plus Chitown and Philly could pick our presidents.


The EC gives an electoral voice to the citizens of Alaska, Idaho, Mississippi, and Kansas.

Sorry if you think it caused your terrible hildebeast to lose. That's just the way it is. BTW, the latest counts have Trump winning the popular vote as well as the EC-----------------------------------------------------Soooooooo, Hillary is a two time LOSER who may end up in jail. The system works.

You don't deserve to have your vote diluted just because you live in a city.

you don't deserve to have your vote not count just because you live in a low population state. The EC is the best compromise and in almost every case the winner of the EC also won the PV. Trump included, the latest counts have him winning both.

The EC is based on the idea that people in low population states will have very different needs than a high population state so the EC is needed otherwise our elections would be biased toward the needs of large population states.

Needs of people vary greatly regardless of population. For example, West Virginia and Utah are about the same size both have the same number of electoral votes but their needs are much different. The same can be said for Delaware and Alaska, or West Virginia and Utah. Is Texas with 35 electoral votes really that similar to New York with 31. I would say Texas is far more like Oklahoma with only 7.

Size of state population is not a reliable indicator of the needs of the people in that state, thus the popular vote is far more equatable for everyone.

We tend to the think that the GOP dominates the smaller states but if you look at the number of states that have less than 10 electoral votes they are probably closer than you think, 17 are red states and 14 are Blue states.

its not really a state by state issue. Look at the blue dots on the map-----the big metropolitan areas. Without the EC, our 4 or 5 largest cities would be picking our presidents. OR, if you like the state deal, California, the DC metroplex, and New York would be picking our presidents. The rest of us would have no say.

But this is mental masturbation, a constitutional amendment removing the EC will never be ratified by 38 states.

You're an idiot. Without the EC, the People, one person one vote, would elect the president.

and the people in Idaho, Alaska, Mississippi, Alabama, Oklahoma, the Dakotas, Kansas, and several others would have no voice in presidential elections.

But dream on, there will never be 38 states voting to amend the constitution to eliminate the EC. and for your further amazement-------there's this from CNN

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/christinerousselle/2016/11/10/plot-twist-cnn-now-saying-that-donald-trump-won-the-popular-vote-n2244077

 

[Borillar]

We are a constitutional republic that elects representatives. An extent of that republicanism is that our EC elects the presidents. An amendment would have to change the process, and neither party wants such, despite what certain members of those parties may say.

I beg to differ. Since the Democrats have now lost two recent elections due to the idiotic EC, they will definitely want to get rid of it now.

The EC is going nowhere...

It's not going anywhere, but it should go somewhere. The EC is responsible for Bush, who was a disastrous President. And now we may have an even bigger disaster on our hands in Trump.

And not only that, certain states like California are not fairly represented. California contains 30% of this country's population, but is only worth 55 electoral votes. It should be worth a lot more than that, so that's bullshit also. This kind of ridiculous horseshit is the only way Republicans can win presidential elections anymore.

Without the EC the northern plains should not even vote, it's a waste of time money and resources.

Yeah, and with the EC, if you live in a populous state, you may as well not vote because it doesn't matter. The whole country must have what the residents of Dumfuckville, Nebraska want for POTUS.

 

[Pogo]

You don't deserve to have your vote diluted just because you live in a city.

you don't deserve to have your vote not count just because you live in a low population state. The EC is the best compromise and in almost every case the winner of the EC also won the PV. Trump included, the latest counts have him winning both.

You don't deserve to have your vote diluted just because you live in a city.

you don't deserve to have your vote not count just because you live in a low population state. The EC is the best compromise and in almost every case the winner of the EC also won the PV. Trump included, the latest counts have him winning both.

The EC is based on the idea that people in low population states will have very different needs than a high population state so the EC is needed otherwise our elections would be biased toward the needs of large population states.

Needs of people vary greatly regardless of population. For example, West Virginia and Utah are about the same size both have the same number of electoral votes but their needs are much different. The same can be said for Delaware and Alaska, or West Virginia and Utah. Is Texas with 35 electoral votes really that similar to New York with 31. I would say Texas is far more like Oklahoma with only 7.

Size of state population is not a reliable indicator of the needs of the people in that state, thus the popular vote is far more equatable for everyone.

We tend to the think that the GOP dominates the smaller states but if you look at the number of states that have less than 10 electoral votes they are probably closer than you think, 17 are red states and 14 are Blue states.

its not really a state by state issue. Look at the blue dots on the map-----the big metropolitan areas. Without the EC, our 4 or 5 largest cities would be picking our presidents. OR, if you like the state deal, California, the DC metroplex, and New York would be picking our presidents. The rest of us would have no say.

But this is mental masturbation, a constitutional amendment removing the EC will never be ratified by 38 states.

If there are more people in the cities, why shouldn't they have proportionately more power?

NO, our 4 or 5 biggest cities should not run our country. Are you really that stupid?

"Cities" do not vote, my friend. Just as "states" should not vote.

Just as "counties" or "parishes" do not vote when Louisiana elects a Governor or Senator. That would be absurd.

Whelp ------- same thing.

Why should N'awlins and BR and maybe Shreveport run Louisiana?
See? You cannot make that argument. Because it isn't one.

 

[Pogo]

We are a constitutional republic that elects representatives. An extent of that republicanism is that our EC elects the presidents. An amendment would have to change the process, and neither party wants such, despite what certain members of those parties may say.

I beg to differ. Since the Democrats have now lost two recent elections due to the idiotic EC, they will definitely want to get rid of it now.

The EC is going nowhere...

It's not going anywhere, but it should go somewhere. The EC is responsible for Bush, who was a disastrous President. And now we may have an even bigger disaster on our hands in Trump.

And not only that, certain states like California are not fairly represented. California contains 30% of this country's population, but is only worth 55 electoral votes. It should be worth a lot more than that, so that's bullshit also. This kind of ridiculous horseshit is the only way Republicans can win presidential elections anymore.

Without the EC the northern plains should not even vote, it's a waste of time money and resources.

Yeah, and with the EC, if you live in a populous state, you may as well not vote because it doesn't matter. The whole country must have what the residents of Dumfuckville, Nebraska want for POTUS.

Actually as long as you live in a state that's not "in play", you're not represented. Because your state is already decided, even if it's Wyoming. It's a lock. So there's no point in voting for President, whether you vote with your state, vote against it, or stay home and don't vote. All three have the same result.

That's how the EC nullfies votes. And at the same time, discourages voting, and makes us dependent on poll-watching to find out if our state will get a vote that means anything or not. Most do not.

 

[Pogo]

And not only that, certain states like California are not fairly represented. California contains 30% of this country's population, but is only worth 55 electoral votes. It should be worth a lot more than that, so that's bullshit also.

Quick math sez:

GIVEN: California = 30% of population;
GIVEN: Total EC quantity = 538;
THEN 30% of 538 = 161.4 votes

That's within the framework of keeping the Electrical College system.

Sure you wanna go with this, Electricians?

Do you? http://townhall.com/tipsheet/christinerousselle/2016/11/10/plot-twist-cnn-now-saying-that-donald-trump-won-the-popular-vote-n2244077

I uh, don't think you read either my post nor your own link.

The latter reads: "UPDATE: It turns out that CNN's projection for Trump was a "design flaw." Hillary Clinton is still poised to win the popular vote."

--- which was both already known, and irrelevant to this topic. Plus it's dated four days ago ----- last Thursday.

My post you replied to was about none of this. It simply did the math to match up what California's EV should be given its proportional population ---- 161 votes. To be exact 161 and two-fifths.

And no there's no reason a state can't have two-fifths of an Electrical Vote. Back when the EC began it was counting slaves as three-fifths of a people, so there's a precedent.

 

[Unkotare]

...

Actually as long as you live in a state that's not "in play", you're not represented. Because your state is already decided....

Illogical and inaccurate. You really are a desperately poor loser, loser.

 

[Pogo]

...

Actually as long as you live in a state that's not "in play", you're not represented. Because your state is already decided....

Illogical and inaccurate. You really are a desperately poor loser, loser.

Once again pulling a single line out of all its context because you have neither the intellect nor the balls to articulate an actual point.

Dismissed, Wimpy.

 

[Rustic]

I beg to differ. Since the Democrats have now lost two recent elections due to the idiotic EC, they will definitely want to get rid of it now.

The EC is going nowhere...

It's not going anywhere, but it should go somewhere. The EC is responsible for Bush, who was a disastrous President. And now we may have an even bigger disaster on our hands in Trump.

And not only that, certain states like California are not fairly represented. California contains 30% of this country's population, but is only worth 55 electoral votes. It should be worth a lot more than that, so that's bullshit also. This kind of ridiculous horseshit is the only way Republicans can win presidential elections anymore.

Without the EC the northern plains should not even vote, it's a waste of time money and resources.

Yeah, and with the EC, if you live in a populous state, you may as well not vote because it doesn't matter. The whole country must have what the residents of Dumfuckville, Nebraska want for POTUS.

Actually as long as you live in a state that's not "in play", you're not represented. Because your state is already decided, even if it's Wyoming. It's a lock. So there's no point in voting for President, whether you vote with your state, vote against it, or stay home and don't vote. All three have the same result.

That's how the EC nullfies votes. And at the same time, discourages voting, and makes us dependent on poll-watching to find out if our state will get a vote that means anything or not. Most do not.

Na, the EC is the only representation small states have. Fact

 

[Pogo]

The EC is going nowhere...

It's not going anywhere, but it should go somewhere. The EC is responsible for Bush, who was a disastrous President. And now we may have an even bigger disaster on our hands in Trump.

And not only that, certain states like California are not fairly represented. California contains 30% of this country's population, but is only worth 55 electoral votes. It should be worth a lot more than that, so that's bullshit also. This kind of ridiculous horseshit is the only way Republicans can win presidential elections anymore.

Without the EC the northern plains should not even vote, it's a waste of time money and resources.

Yeah, and with the EC, if you live in a populous state, you may as well not vote because it doesn't matter. The whole country must have what the residents of Dumfuckville, Nebraska want for POTUS.

Actually as long as you live in a state that's not "in play", you're not represented. Because your state is already decided, even if it's Wyoming. It's a lock. So there's no point in voting for President, whether you vote with your state, vote against it, or stay home and don't vote. All three have the same result.

That's how the EC nullfies votes. And at the same time, discourages voting, and makes us dependent on poll-watching to find out if our state will get a vote that means anything or not. Most do not.

Na, the EC is the only representation small states have. Fact

Ummm 'fraid not Twinkles. Small states, like bigly states, like medium states, have these life forms we call "voters". Thousands of them, even in small states.

 

[Unkotare]

...

Once again pulling a single line out of all its context....

Not at all. Your comment was inaccurate and illogical. You have been informed and corrected dozens of times on this thread alone. At this point you're just making a fool of yourself.


The Electoral College is not going away anytime soon.

 

[Rustic]

It's not going anywhere, but it should go somewhere. The EC is responsible for Bush, who was a disastrous President. And now we may have an even bigger disaster on our hands in Trump.

And not only that, certain states like California are not fairly represented. California contains 30% of this country's population, but is only worth 55 electoral votes. It should be worth a lot more than that, so that's bullshit also. This kind of ridiculous horseshit is the only way Republicans can win presidential elections anymore.

Without the EC the northern plains should not even vote, it's a waste of time money and resources.

Yeah, and with the EC, if you live in a populous state, you may as well not vote because it doesn't matter. The whole country must have what the residents of Dumfuckville, Nebraska want for POTUS.

Actually as long as you live in a state that's not "in play", you're not represented. Because your state is already decided, even if it's Wyoming. It's a lock. So there's no point in voting for President, whether you vote with your state, vote against it, or stay home and don't vote. All three have the same result.

That's how the EC nullfies votes. And at the same time, discourages voting, and makes us dependent on poll-watching to find out if our state will get a vote that means anything or not. Most do not.

Na, the EC is the only representation small states have. Fact

Ummm 'fraid not Twinkles. Small states, like bigly states, like medium states, have these life forms we call "voters". Thousands of them, even in small states.

Not enough to control their own state, city like the greeter Minneapolis area would overwhelm 5 rural states...

 

[Unkotare]

'If You Live Near Other People, You're Probably a Democrat. If Your Neighbors Are Distant, Republican'


Oh gosh, could it be? Is the far-left, brainless big-mouth trying to convince himself he's clever in his infantile, transparent attempt at insisting only people in densely-populated cities decide our presidential elections? Could the ignorant buffoon not realize how obvious it is? All this is nothing more than the same kind of whiny sour-grapes seen from every other poor loser around here. It's fucking pathetic.

 

[Flopper]

Bullshit.
You can't make that argument work. Cannot be done. Go ahead and give it a shot.

A PV in no way takes any votes away from outside of metro areas.
An EC on the other hand nullifies literally millions on the spot.

And again, this system wasn't set up by "the Founders" but by the Twelfth Amendment.... which also counted slaves for three-fifths of a person for the purpose of counting EVs (but not for the purpose of voting).

That of course was revised with the Fourteenth when slavery was abolished ---- which also counted women for the purpose of counting EVs but not for the purpose of voting.

That part wasn't fixed until the Nineteenth.

Notice that this Yugo is always in the shop?

Yugo = Pogo

it is a well known FACT that the voters in our largest cities are predominately democrats. So NY, Chitown, LA, Houston, Philly, and DC could decide our presidents. For that matter, California and New York plus Chitown and Philly could pick our presidents.


The EC gives an electoral voice to the citizens of Alaska, Idaho, Mississippi, and Kansas.

Sorry if you think it caused your terrible hildebeast to lose. That's just the way it is. BTW, the latest counts have Trump winning the popular vote as well as the EC-----------------------------------------------------Soooooooo, Hillary is a two time LOSER who may end up in jail. The system works.

You don't deserve to have your vote diluted just because you live in a city.

you don't deserve to have your vote not count just because you live in a low population state. The EC is the best compromise and in almost every case the winner of the EC also won the PV. Trump included, the latest counts have him winning both.

Bullshit.
You can't make that argument work. Cannot be done. Go ahead and give it a shot.

A PV in no way takes any votes away from outside of metro areas.
An EC on the other hand nullifies literally millions on the spot.

And again, this system wasn't set up by "the Founders" but by the Twelfth Amendment.... which also counted slaves for three-fifths of a person for the purpose of counting EVs (but not for the purpose of voting).

That of course was revised with the Fourteenth when slavery was abolished ---- which also counted women for the purpose of counting EVs but not for the purpose of voting.

That part wasn't fixed until the Nineteenth.

Notice that this Yugo is always in the shop?

Yugo = Pogo

it is a well known FACT that the voters in our largest cities are predominately democrats. So NY, Chitown, LA, Houston, Philly, and DC could decide our presidents. For that matter, California and New York plus Chitown and Philly could pick our presidents.


The EC gives an electoral voice to the citizens of Alaska, Idaho, Mississippi, and Kansas.

Sorry if you think it caused your terrible hildebeast to lose. That's just the way it is. BTW, the latest counts have Trump winning the popular vote as well as the EC-----------------------------------------------------Soooooooo, Hillary is a two time LOSER who may end up in jail. The system works.

You don't deserve to have your vote diluted just because you live in a city.

you don't deserve to have your vote not count just because you live in a low population state. The EC is the best compromise and in almost every case the winner of the EC also won the PV. Trump included, the latest counts have him winning both.

The EC is based on the idea that people in low population states will have very different needs than a high population state so the EC is needed otherwise our elections would be biased toward the needs of large population states.

Needs of people vary greatly regardless of population. For example, West Virginia and Utah are about the same size both have the same number of electoral votes but their needs are much different. The same can be said for Delaware and Alaska, or West Virginia and Utah. Is Texas with 35 electoral votes really that similar to New York with 31. I would say Texas is far more like Oklahoma with only 7.

Size of state population is not a reliable indicator of the needs of the people in that state, thus the popular vote is far more equatable for everyone.

We tend to the think that the GOP dominates the smaller states but if you look at the number of states that have less than 10 electoral votes they are probably closer than you think, 17 are red states and 14 are Blue states.

its not really a state by state issue. Look at the blue dots on the map-----the big metropolitan areas. Without the EC, our 4 or 5 largest cities would be picking our presidents. OR, if you like the state deal, California, the DC metroplex, and New York would be picking our presidents. The rest of us would have no say.

But this is mental masturbation, a constitutional amendment removing the EC will never be ratified by 38 states.

You're probably right. The popular vote would not be ratified. However, that may not always be the case. The mobility of people, ideas, and issues should in time narrow the divide between the people. If it doesn't there might not be a United States of America but rather the Divided States of America.

 

[Pogo]

Yugo = Pogo

it is a well known FACT that the voters in our largest cities are predominately democrats. So NY, Chitown, LA, Houston, Philly, and DC could decide our presidents. For that matter, California and New York plus Chitown and Philly could pick our presidents.


The EC gives an electoral voice to the citizens of Alaska, Idaho, Mississippi, and Kansas.

Sorry if you think it caused your terrible hildebeast to lose. That's just the way it is. BTW, the latest counts have Trump winning the popular vote as well as the EC-----------------------------------------------------Soooooooo, Hillary is a two time LOSER who may end up in jail. The system works.

You don't deserve to have your vote diluted just because you live in a city.

you don't deserve to have your vote not count just because you live in a low population state. The EC is the best compromise and in almost every case the winner of the EC also won the PV. Trump included, the latest counts have him winning both.

Yugo = Pogo

it is a well known FACT that the voters in our largest cities are predominately democrats. So NY, Chitown, LA, Houston, Philly, and DC could decide our presidents. For that matter, California and New York plus Chitown and Philly could pick our presidents.


The EC gives an electoral voice to the citizens of Alaska, Idaho, Mississippi, and Kansas.

Sorry if you think it caused your terrible hildebeast to lose. That's just the way it is. BTW, the latest counts have Trump winning the popular vote as well as the EC-----------------------------------------------------Soooooooo, Hillary is a two time LOSER who may end up in jail. The system works.

You don't deserve to have your vote diluted just because you live in a city.

you don't deserve to have your vote not count just because you live in a low population state. The EC is the best compromise and in almost every case the winner of the EC also won the PV. Trump included, the latest counts have him winning both.

The EC is based on the idea that people in low population states will have very different needs than a high population state so the EC is needed otherwise our elections would be biased toward the needs of large population states.

Needs of people vary greatly regardless of population. For example, West Virginia and Utah are about the same size both have the same number of electoral votes but their needs are much different. The same can be said for Delaware and Alaska, or West Virginia and Utah. Is Texas with 35 electoral votes really that similar to New York with 31. I would say Texas is far more like Oklahoma with only 7.

Size of state population is not a reliable indicator of the needs of the people in that state, thus the popular vote is far more equatable for everyone.

We tend to the think that the GOP dominates the smaller states but if you look at the number of states that have less than 10 electoral votes they are probably closer than you think, 17 are red states and 14 are Blue states.

its not really a state by state issue. Look at the blue dots on the map-----the big metropolitan areas. Without the EC, our 4 or 5 largest cities would be picking our presidents. OR, if you like the state deal, California, the DC metroplex, and New York would be picking our presidents. The rest of us would have no say.

But this is mental masturbation, a constitutional amendment removing the EC will never be ratified by 38 states.

You're probably right. The popular vote would not be ratified. However, that may not always be the case. The mobility of people, ideas, and issues should in time narrow the divide between the people. If it doesn't there might not be a United States of America but rather the Divided States of America.

Indeed there already is. The entire concepts of "red" and "blue" states, as if different countries within a country.... as well as "blue walls" and "battleground states" --- should not exist at all, but that's the waste product of the Electrical College.

One of the minor bases of reasoning for the EC was that then -- in the 18th century --- a candidate from, say, Georgia would be largely unknown to voters in, say, Connecticut, as the two were way too far apart. Technology has long since rendered that argument utterly moot.

 

[Redfish]

you don't deserve to have your vote not count just because you live in a low population state. The EC is the best compromise and in almost every case the winner of the EC also won the PV. Trump included, the latest counts have him winning both.

you don't deserve to have your vote not count just because you live in a low population state. The EC is the best compromise and in almost every case the winner of the EC also won the PV. Trump included, the latest counts have him winning both.

The EC is based on the idea that people in low population states will have very different needs than a high population state so the EC is needed otherwise our elections would be biased toward the needs of large population states.

Needs of people vary greatly regardless of population. For example, West Virginia and Utah are about the same size both have the same number of electoral votes but their needs are much different. The same can be said for Delaware and Alaska, or West Virginia and Utah. Is Texas with 35 electoral votes really that similar to New York with 31. I would say Texas is far more like Oklahoma with only 7.

Size of state population is not a reliable indicator of the needs of the people in that state, thus the popular vote is far more equatable for everyone.

We tend to the think that the GOP dominates the smaller states but if you look at the number of states that have less than 10 electoral votes they are probably closer than you think, 17 are red states and 14 are Blue states.

its not really a state by state issue. Look at the blue dots on the map-----the big metropolitan areas. Without the EC, our 4 or 5 largest cities would be picking our presidents. OR, if you like the state deal, California, the DC metroplex, and New York would be picking our presidents. The rest of us would have no say.

But this is mental masturbation, a constitutional amendment removing the EC will never be ratified by 38 states.

If there are more people in the cities, why shouldn't they have proportionately more power?

NO, our 4 or 5 biggest cities should not run our country. Are you really that stupid?

"Cities" do not vote, my friend. Just as "states" should not vote.

Just as "counties" or "parishes" do not vote when Louisiana elects a Governor or Senator. That would be absurd.

Whelp ------- same thing.

Why should N'awlins and BR and maybe Shreveport run Louisiana?
See? You cannot make that argument. Because it isn't one.

you are ignoring one pertinent fact. Most large city dwellers are left leaning if not blatant democrats. Residents of our large cities do not represent the demographics of the entire country. The EC gives a proportional voice to every citizen no matter where he or she lives.

As to your Louisiana example, Orleans parish and Baton Rouge (two parishes) do control most state wide elections------and lean left.

I am not suggesting something like the EC for states, but at the national level it is the best alternative, and it was proven again this year as the final counts show that Trump won both the EC and the PV.

 

[Redfish]

And not only that, certain states like California are not fairly represented. California contains 30% of this country's population, but is only worth 55 electoral votes. It should be worth a lot more than that, so that's bullshit also.

Quick math sez:

GIVEN: California = 30% of population;
GIVEN: Total EC quantity = 538;
THEN 30% of 538 = 161.4 votes

That's within the framework of keeping the Electrical College system.

Sure you wanna go with this, Electricians?

Do you? http://townhall.com/tipsheet/christinerousselle/2016/11/10/plot-twist-cnn-now-saying-that-donald-trump-won-the-popular-vote-n2244077

I uh, don't think you read either my post nor your own link.

The latter reads: "UPDATE: It turns out that CNN's projection for Trump was a "design flaw." Hillary Clinton is still poised to win the popular vote."

--- which was both already known, and irrelevant to this topic. Plus it's dated four days ago ----- last Thursday.

My post you replied to was about none of this. It simply did the math to match up what California's EV should be given its proportional population ---- 161 votes. To be exact 161 and two-fifths.

And no there's no reason a state can't have two-fifths of an Electrical Vote. Back when the EC began it was counting slaves as three-fifths of a people, so there's a precedent.

using your logic, we should only allow California and New York to vote in presidential elections, since the votes of other states would be meaningless.