The electoral college is a disaster for democracy

[Wyatt earp]

not true at all. we would be divided by county rather than state. Here in Louisiana it is very hard to win any state race without winning Orleans parish and the two parishes that make up Baton Rouge.

Of course. That's because more people live there. Hence more voters vote.

I'm not sure where y'all get this wacko idea that we should be voting by acreage and putting up county maps that in effect simply show where people live. Where you live isn't the point. Are you an eligible voter? If yes, go vote. Period, full stop, end of dilemma. You can put up maps and go "waaaah! these people don't vote the way I do" all day but --- tough. Sometimes your side wins, sometimes it loses. You don't get to pre-massage it so it comes out the way you like. That's in effect gerrymandering.

You have to be the most retarded stupid fuck on planet earth for the millionth time not all people think the same, people in the city's like butt fucking, guys in women's bathrooms, high taxes and the like the people in Tennessee Alabama don't.

Um, thanks for that most-illuminating deep thought, Hunior. Think I'll find a comfy place to sit and ruminate over the head-swimming profundity of this eloquently intellectual nugget.

not true at all. we would be divided by county rather than state. Here in Louisiana it is very hard to win any state race without winning Orleans parish and the two parishes that make up Baton Rouge.

Of course. That's because more people live there. Hence more voters vote.

I'm not sure where y'all get this wacko idea that we should be voting by acreage and putting up county maps that in effect simply show where people live. Where you live isn't the point. Are you an eligible voter? If yes, go vote. Period, full stop, end of dilemma. You can put up maps and go "waaaah! these people don't vote the way I do" all day but --- tough. Sometimes your side wins, sometimes it loses. You don't get to pre-massage it so it comes out the way you like. That's in effect gerrymandering.

You have to be the most retarded stupid fuck on planet earth for the millionth time not all people think the same, people in the city's like butt fucking, guys in women's bathrooms, high taxes and the like the people in Tennessee Alabama don't.

Um, thanks for that most-illuminating deep thought, Hunior. Think I'll find a comfy place to sit and ruminate over the head-swimming profundity of this eloquently intellectual nugget.

And you wonder how you lost in 2010.2014 and 2016?

Yeah we know bitch, you want to govern and not pay consequences

You get the poor vote you get the elite vote and fuck the middle class, shut them up and let them pay taxes...

Uhhmmmm.... I didn't "lose" in any of those years, Fingerboy. I didn't run for anything.

But it's informative that you still have nothing on the topic.

Tissue?

I know your motives, again you want to flood the US with illegals becoming legal to buy their vote with social promises.. In that little tiny brain of yours you think everyone is the same from Maine to Florida from New York to L.A. and have no respect for the fly over country..

Again shove it Asshat

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Funny, seems to work just fine when Democrats win...

 

[Pogo]

Of course. That's because more people live there. Hence more voters vote.

I'm not sure where y'all get this wacko idea that we should be voting by acreage and putting up county maps that in effect simply show where people live. Where you live isn't the point. Are you an eligible voter? If yes, go vote. Period, full stop, end of dilemma. You can put up maps and go "waaaah! these people don't vote the way I do" all day but --- tough. Sometimes your side wins, sometimes it loses. You don't get to pre-massage it so it comes out the way you like. That's in effect gerrymandering.

You have to be the most retarded stupid fuck on planet earth for the millionth time not all people think the same, people in the city's like butt fucking, guys in women's bathrooms, high taxes and the like the people in Tennessee Alabama don't.

Um, thanks for that most-illuminating deep thought, Hunior. Think I'll find a comfy place to sit and ruminate over the head-swimming profundity of this eloquently intellectual nugget.

Of course. That's because more people live there. Hence more voters vote.

I'm not sure where y'all get this wacko idea that we should be voting by acreage and putting up county maps that in effect simply show where people live. Where you live isn't the point. Are you an eligible voter? If yes, go vote. Period, full stop, end of dilemma. You can put up maps and go "waaaah! these people don't vote the way I do" all day but --- tough. Sometimes your side wins, sometimes it loses. You don't get to pre-massage it so it comes out the way you like. That's in effect gerrymandering.

You have to be the most retarded stupid fuck on planet earth for the millionth time not all people think the same, people in the city's like butt fucking, guys in women's bathrooms, high taxes and the like the people in Tennessee Alabama don't.

Um, thanks for that most-illuminating deep thought, Hunior. Think I'll find a comfy place to sit and ruminate over the head-swimming profundity of this eloquently intellectual nugget.

And you wonder how you lost in 2010.2014 and 2016?

Yeah we know bitch, you want to govern and not pay consequences

You get the poor vote you get the elite vote and fuck the middle class, shut them up and let them pay taxes...

Uhhmmmm.... I didn't "lose" in any of those years, Fingerboy. I didn't run for anything.

But it's informative that you still have nothing on the topic.

Tissue?

I know your motives, again you want to flood the US with illegals becoming legal to buy their vote with social promises.. In that little tiny brain of yours you think everyone is the same from Maine to Florida from New York to L.A. and have no respect for the fly over country..

Again shove it Asshat

And the epic meltdown continues.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So, a week later, have any of the Trumptards in this thread figured out that it was Trump who called the electoral college a disaster?

 

[Pogo]

Funny, seems to work just fine when Democrats win...

Funny, that's not what Rump said four years ago when the Democrat won.
Fatter o' mact he called for "revolution in the streets". By other people of course -- bone spurs you know.

But that's what he said. His tweet literally named this thread.

Do you DARE contradict the Cheeto Tweeto?

 

[Wyatt earp]

You have to be the most retarded stupid fuck on planet earth for the millionth time not all people think the same, people in the city's like butt fucking, guys in women's bathrooms, high taxes and the like the people in Tennessee Alabama don't.

Um, thanks for that most-illuminating deep thought, Hunior. Think I'll find a comfy place to sit and ruminate over the head-swimming profundity of this eloquently intellectual nugget.

You have to be the most retarded stupid fuck on planet earth for the millionth time not all people think the same, people in the city's like butt fucking, guys in women's bathrooms, high taxes and the like the people in Tennessee Alabama don't.

Um, thanks for that most-illuminating deep thought, Hunior. Think I'll find a comfy place to sit and ruminate over the head-swimming profundity of this eloquently intellectual nugget.

And you wonder how you lost in 2010.2014 and 2016?

Yeah we know bitch, you want to govern and not pay consequences

You get the poor vote you get the elite vote and fuck the middle class, shut them up and let them pay taxes...

Uhhmmmm.... I didn't "lose" in any of those years, Fingerboy. I didn't run for anything.

But it's informative that you still have nothing on the topic.

Tissue?

I know your motives, again you want to flood the US with illegals becoming legal to buy their vote with social promises.. In that little tiny brain of yours you think everyone is the same from Maine to Florida from New York to L.A. and have no respect for the fly over country..

Again shove it Asshat

And the epic meltdown continues.

What melt down? youre the one who is crying thinking everyone is the same.. So we don't need the electoral college..

With all your so called knowledge and intellect it blows my mind away about how ignorant you are to The country you live in.

Either your ignorant or know the fast one you want to pull.
Which is it?

 

[Pogo]

 

[Flopper]

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.

We have enough Republican Governors we can do one of those thingamajigs where 3/4 of them can vote to change the constitution and get rid of the 14th amendment. Trim it up a bit. We have a once in a life time opportunity.

Governors don't make that decision, state legislatures do and there are not enough republican state legislatures to do that. In fact, there are not enough Republicans in the Senate to pass an amendment.

 

[Flopper]

The democrats are dedicated to disenfranchising voters in 48 states.

Without the EC, New York and California alone would decide EVERY presidential election. The rest of the nation may as well stay home, their votes no longer matter.

This is what the democrats want, to disenfranchise most of the nation.

That's an exaggeration. Only 4 times has the party with less votes won the presidential election.
We are tipping the scales toward less populous states in 2 ways. The allocation of 2 senators regardless of state size gives more representation to those living in less populous states. The number of votes needed to earn an electoral vote in the presidential elections is substantially higher in larger states, again giving more representation to those living in less populous states. The bottom line is the tail is wagging the dog.

 

[Redfish]

No, should your vote count more because you live in a big city? The EC was designed to give all areas of the country proportional value in selecting our presidents. Its not perfect by a long shot, we do not live in a pure democracy. Electing presidents using PV would virtually give no say to anyone except the big city dwellers.

Is that how it works in every other country in the world where voters who elect a head of state do it with a direct popular vote? Hm?

Oh wait, not every other country does that; there's one that does it indirectly like we do. Pakistan.
They know what they're doin' huh? Damn Karachi-Democrats, they want to run everything.

But this is nothing but an academic discussion. A constitutional amendment to eliminate the EC would never get 38 states to ratify it.

That's (a) a self-fulfilling prophecy fallacy; declare something "will never work", therefore throw up one's hands and make no attempt. It's ghey.

And (b) it isn't necessary to eliminate the EC anyway -- how the EC votes is up to the several states. There's no part of the Constitution anywhere that dictates they have to vote "winner take all". None. Zero. Two states already don't; they happen to subdivide by Congresscritter district but they could do it any way they like including proportional to the state's PV.

So changing how the shitstem works doesn't require 38 states. It just requires one at a time.

'
bullshit, it would take a constitutional amendment ratified by 38 states. allocating EC votes is not the same as doing away with it. But since you like the state by state idea, how about allocating California's EC votes based on how all of the voters in that state vote?
Why should Trump voters in California have no voice?

NO SHIT SHERLOCK. That's what I've been saying all year about this shit. Including all over this thread.



I just wanna reach into the screen and SHAKE some of you cretins....

I get it, since you have been destroyed by facts and knowledge, you change sides. Now you agree with us. Have you ever had an original thought?

 

[jon_berzerk]

The electoral college is a disaster for democracy

not hardly

but it is a good thing for the peoples

 

[Redfish]

The democrats are dedicated to disenfranchising voters in 48 states.

Without the EC, New York and California alone would decide EVERY presidential election. The rest of the nation may as well stay home, their votes no longer matter.

This is what the democrats want, to disenfranchise most of the nation.

That's an exaggeration. Only 4 times has the party with less votes won the presidential election.
We are tipping the scales toward less populous states in 2 ways. The allocation of 2 senators regardless of state size gives more representation to those living in less populous states. The number of votes needed to earn an electoral vote in the presidential elections is substantially higher in larger states, again giving more representation to those living in less populous states. The bottom line is the tail is wagging the dog.

The lets allocate the EC votes in each state based on how the people of that state vote. Why should Trump voters in California and New York have no voice in the presidential elections?

 

[Pogo]

No, should your vote count more because you live in a big city? The EC was designed to give all areas of the country proportional value in selecting our presidents. Its not perfect by a long shot, we do not live in a pure democracy. Electing presidents using PV would virtually give no say to anyone except the big city dwellers.

Is that how it works in every other country in the world where voters who elect a head of state do it with a direct popular vote? Hm?

Oh wait, not every other country does that; there's one that does it indirectly like we do. Pakistan.
They know what they're doin' huh? Damn Karachi-Democrats, they want to run everything.

But this is nothing but an academic discussion. A constitutional amendment to eliminate the EC would never get 38 states to ratify it.

That's (a) a self-fulfilling prophecy fallacy; declare something "will never work", therefore throw up one's hands and make no attempt. It's ghey.

And (b) it isn't necessary to eliminate the EC anyway -- how the EC votes is up to the several states. There's no part of the Constitution anywhere that dictates they have to vote "winner take all". None. Zero. Two states already don't; they happen to subdivide by Congresscritter district but they could do it any way they like including proportional to the state's PV.

So changing how the shitstem works doesn't require 38 states. It just requires one at a time.

'
bullshit, it would take a constitutional amendment ratified by 38 states. allocating EC votes is not the same as doing away with it. But since you like the state by state idea, how about allocating California's EC votes based on how all of the voters in that state vote?
Why should Trump voters in California have no voice?

NO SHIT SHERLOCK. That's what I've been saying all year about this shit. Including all over this thread.



I just wanna reach into the screen and SHAKE some of you cretins....

I get it, since you have been destroyed by facts and knowledge, you change sides. Now you agree with us. Have you ever had an original thought?

Holy SHIT -- read my posts on this for the last eight months, ya flaming moron.

FINALLY you get my point, and now you don't have the balls to admit it, concocting this twisted Doublethink Bizarro world where you can "win".

Whatever. You're pathetic but the important thing is you're coming around. Baby steps.

The democrats are dedicated to disenfranchising voters in 48 states.

Without the EC, New York and California alone would decide EVERY presidential election. The rest of the nation may as well stay home, their votes no longer matter.

This is what the democrats want, to disenfranchise most of the nation.

That's an exaggeration. Only 4 times has the party with less votes won the presidential election.
We are tipping the scales toward less populous states in 2 ways. The allocation of 2 senators regardless of state size gives more representation to those living in less populous states. The number of votes needed to earn an electoral vote in the presidential elections is substantially higher in larger states, again giving more representation to those living in less populous states. The bottom line is the tail is wagging the dog.

The lets allocate the EC votes in each state based on how the people of that state vote. Why should Trump voters in California and New York have no voice in the presidential elections?

Indeed that's what JustAnotherNut was suggesting in her thread -- proportional EC voting. And there's no Constitutional reason they can't do it (Maine and Nebraska already hint at it).

At that point I pointed out to her that yes that's a step in the right direction but by doing it you're effectively observing the PV anyway so it amounts to the same thing -- using a popular vote.

At that point she accused me of sedition and gave me the finger, so she's got some of the same growing up to do as you have.

As we've been noting there's NO prescript anywhere that declares they MUST vote winner-take-all. My state for example has 15 EVs and they will all go (traditionally) to Rump. Were they allocated proportionally according to actual PV, they'd go 8 for Rump and 7 for Clinton --- clearly this state did not vote unanimously, and such a state has never existed. And THAT is the main complaint and why I've been posting on these pages since last Spring that voters in a locked-red or locked-blue state in effect have no vote if their Electors are going to ignore the minority and vote against their interests.

Good to see that point finally start to sink in.

 

[Flopper]

The democrats are dedicated to disenfranchising voters in 48 states.

Without the EC, New York and California alone would decide EVERY presidential election. The rest of the nation may as well stay home, their votes no longer matter.

This is what the democrats want, to disenfranchise most of the nation.

That's an exaggeration. Only 4 times has the party with less votes won the presidential election.
We are tipping the scales toward less populous states in 2 ways. The allocation of 2 senators regardless of state size gives more representation to those living in less populous states. The number of votes needed to earn an electoral vote in the presidential elections is substantially higher in larger states, again giving more representation to those living in less populous states. The bottom line is the tail is wagging the dog.

The lets allocate the EC votes in each state based on how the people of that state vote. Why should Trump voters in California and New York have no voice in the presidential elections?

The individual voters in those have a voice but it's a small voice regardless of who they vote for.

 

[Redfish]

bottom line:

while the EC has some flaws, it remains the best compromise. Going to a pure PV or allocated EC votes will have the affect of disenfranchising some voters (as does the EC) But fewer are disenfranchised by the EC than the other options. The EC and PV have been consistent in almost every presidential election, and the EC is much less susceptible to fraud than the other methods.

AND, doing away with it would take ratification by congress and 38 states, that won't happen.

Nice discussion, but time to move on.

 

[Pogo]

bottom line:

while the EC has some flaws, it remains the best compromise. Going to a pure PV or allocated EC votes will have the affect of disenfranchising some voters (as does the EC) But fewer are disenfranchised by the EC than the other options. The EC and PV have been consistent in almost every presidential election, and the EC is much less susceptible to fraud than the other methods.

AND, doing away with it would take ratification by congress and 38 states, that won't happen.

Nice discussion, but time to move on.

Once again --- I know you need this served up in tiny spoonfuls but you've managed to get one down --- it's not necessary to change the Constitution and entirely eliminate it, to repair what's broke.

-- Even if it would be more effective and shut out many variables to do it that way.

It's a nice discussion that comes up every four years, and four years hence will be with us yet again. The fact that it does recur every four years alone tells us something about the dissatisfaction with it. But there's no reason we should start over from square one every time.

The goodly thing about this thread -- titled by Donald Rump from a tweet four years ago --- is that 4200 sets of eyeballs (so far) have looked into the matter, just in this thread. That's getting the issue on the table. And obviously if it weren't a point of concern for this country this thread wouldn't still be going.

 

[Flopper]

bottom line:

while the EC has some flaws, it remains the best compromise. Going to a pure PV or allocated EC votes will have the affect of disenfranchising some voters (as does the EC) But fewer are disenfranchised by the EC than the other options. The EC and PV have been consistent in almost every presidential election, and the EC is much less susceptible to fraud than the other methods.

AND, doing away with it would take ratification by congress and 38 states, that won't happen.

Nice discussion, but time to move on.

Once again --- I know you need this served up in tiny spoonfuls but you've managed to get one down --- it's not necessary to change the Constitution and entirely eliminate it, to repair what's broke.

-- Even if it would be more effective and shut out many variables to do it that way.

It's a nice discussion that comes up every four years, and four years hence will be with us yet again. The fact that it does recur every four years alone tells us something about the dissatisfaction with it. But there's no reason we should start over from square one every time.

The goodly thing about this thread -- titled by Donald Rump from a tweet four years ago --- is that 4200 sets of eyeballs (so far) have looked into the matter, just in this thread. That's getting the issue on the table. And obviously if it weren't a point of concern for this country this thread wouldn't still be going.

About half of the adults do not understand the electoral college at all. 43% don't know it's a constitutional requirement. Only 1 in 10 knew that the House of Representatives would select a president if the vote in the EC was tied. No wonder so many people are so upset when a candidate loses the popular vote and wins the presidency. They suffer from the illusion that the election is a democratic process.
Study: Americans Don't Know Much About History

 

[Rustic]

bottom line:

while the EC has some flaws, it remains the best compromise. Going to a pure PV or allocated EC votes will have the affect of disenfranchising some voters (as does the EC) But fewer are disenfranchised by the EC than the other options. The EC and PV have been consistent in almost every presidential election, and the EC is much less susceptible to fraud than the other methods.

AND, doing away with it would take ratification by congress and 38 states, that won't happen.

Nice discussion, but time to move on.

Once again --- I know you need this served up in tiny spoonfuls but you've managed to get one down --- it's not necessary to change the Constitution and entirely eliminate it, to repair what's broke.

-- Even if it would be more effective and shut out many variables to do it that way.

It's a nice discussion that comes up every four years, and four years hence will be with us yet again. The fact that it does recur every four years alone tells us something about the dissatisfaction with it. But there's no reason we should start over from square one every time.

The goodly thing about this thread -- titled by Donald Rump from a tweet four years ago --- is that 4200 sets of eyeballs (so far) have looked into the matter, just in this thread. That's getting the issue on the table. And obviously if it weren't a point of concern for this country this thread wouldn't still be going.

The EC is going nowhere, righty so.
A pure popular vote is mob rule...

 

[Rustic]

bottom line:

while the EC has some flaws, it remains the best compromise. Going to a pure PV or allocated EC votes will have the affect of disenfranchising some voters (as does the EC) But fewer are disenfranchised by the EC than the other options. The EC and PV have been consistent in almost every presidential election, and the EC is much less susceptible to fraud than the other methods.

AND, doing away with it would take ratification by congress and 38 states, that won't happen.

Nice discussion, but time to move on.

Once again --- I know you need this served up in tiny spoonfuls but you've managed to get one down --- it's not necessary to change the Constitution and entirely eliminate it, to repair what's broke.

-- Even if it would be more effective and shut out many variables to do it that way.

It's a nice discussion that comes up every four years, and four years hence will be with us yet again. The fact that it does recur every four years alone tells us something about the dissatisfaction with it. But there's no reason we should start over from square one every time.

The goodly thing about this thread -- titled by Donald Rump from a tweet four years ago --- is that 4200 sets of eyeballs (so far) have looked into the matter, just in this thread. That's getting the issue on the table. And obviously if it weren't a point of concern for this country this thread wouldn't still be going.

About half of the adults do not understand the electoral college at all. 43% don't know it's a constitutional requirement. Only 1 in 10 knew that the House of Representatives would select a president if the vote in the EC was tied. No wonder so many people are so upset when a candidate loses the popular vote and wins the presidency. They suffer from the illusion that the election is a democratic process.
Study: Americans Don't Know Much About History

This is a republic or at least supposed to be, not a shit eating democracy. Shit for brains LOL

 

[Pogo]

bottom line:

while the EC has some flaws, it remains the best compromise. Going to a pure PV or allocated EC votes will have the affect of disenfranchising some voters (as does the EC) But fewer are disenfranchised by the EC than the other options. The EC and PV have been consistent in almost every presidential election, and the EC is much less susceptible to fraud than the other methods.

AND, doing away with it would take ratification by congress and 38 states, that won't happen.

Nice discussion, but time to move on.

Once again --- I know you need this served up in tiny spoonfuls but you've managed to get one down --- it's not necessary to change the Constitution and entirely eliminate it, to repair what's broke.

-- Even if it would be more effective and shut out many variables to do it that way.

It's a nice discussion that comes up every four years, and four years hence will be with us yet again. The fact that it does recur every four years alone tells us something about the dissatisfaction with it. But there's no reason we should start over from square one every time.

The goodly thing about this thread -- titled by Donald Rump from a tweet four years ago --- is that 4200 sets of eyeballs (so far) have looked into the matter, just in this thread. That's getting the issue on the table. And obviously if it weren't a point of concern for this country this thread wouldn't still be going.

The EC is going nowhere, righty so.
A pure popular vote is mob rule...

And yet ---- you still can't explain why that would be.
Or why it's not "mob rule" when we elect a Governor.
Or a Senator.
Or a Congresscritter.
Or a mayor.
Or a city council.
Or a county commissioner.
Or a sheriff.
Or a judge.
Or a Commissioner of Paper Clips.

Or how a "mob rule" is even possible when everybody's got the same choices on the ballot.

But if you ever come up with an answer you be sure to run back here lickety-split.