The MAJOR difference between Medicare and Private Insurance...

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

those polls said hillary had a 90+ chance of winning, they were wrong, she lost.

But she won LA county by the total PV margin. So in your stupidity you want one county in one state to select our presidents? Geez woman, can you get any more stupid?

You're like a masochist. You keep repeating the same lame talking points of Dementia Don despite being proven to be really stupid statements over and over. But hey, I love proving to you how incredibly uniformed you are so here you go again.

It’s true that if California’s vote totals were entirely removed from the equation then Hillary Clinton would lose her popular vote lead, but the logic of that assessment is somewhat flawed. One could, for example, arbitrarily remove the states of New York and Massachusetts from the vote count, docking Clinton roughly 2.6 million votes (and wiping out her popular vote win). Or one could similarly claim that Trump’s electoral vote victory “came entirely from Texas,” since if Clinton had taken the Lone Star state (and its 38 electoral votes), she would also have won the overall election. One could combine any number of states’ vote counts and exclude them from the aggregate, but doing so wouldn’t undo the basic mathematical principle that a vote difference in one state can’t sway the election results to or from a candidate who doesn’t also have significant support from multiple other states. In this case, California wouldn’t have put Clinton over the top in the popular vote total without the additional 61.4 million votes she received in other states.​

without the EC, four areas would pick our presidents-----------LA county, NYC, Houston, and Miami/Dade. the rest of the country would have zero input.

and by the way, Hillary lost the EC. and yes, she won the PV in Cal and NYC. but she still lost and will never sit in the oval office. The election of 2016 saved the USA.

No, without the last vestiges of our slave owning past, we would have an actual small d democracy. One voter, one vote. Every voter's vote having equal weight.

Did you flunk government before joining the Puddle Pilots?

What does slavery have to do with the electoral college?

You're not a history teacher, obviously.

https://www.history.com/news/electoral-college-founding-fathers-constitutional-convention

The connection to the 3/5ths compromise ended with a constitutional amendment. That is a weak and archaic relationship you are working in that is unrelated to modern time.

 

[Redfish]

you are free to move to Canada or the UK, no one is stopping you. If you think socialism is so great maybe North Korea should be your choice.

I would also like to see the source data for that so called poll. who was polled, how many, locations, political leanings, age, income, etc.

anyone can take a poll, I just took one and 95% of USMB posters think you are an idiot. My poll is as valid at this one or the ones that said Hillary had a 97% chance of winning in 2016.

I am also free to make healthcare coverage better and more affordable for my fellow Americans.

I was right, you got more pathetic. Prove the polls wrong. (By the way, the polls weren’t wrong in 2016).

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/11/12/it_wasnt_the_polls_that_missed_it_was_the_pundits_132333.html

those polls said hillary had a 90+ chance of winning, they were wrong, she lost.

But she won LA county by the total PV margin. So in your stupidity you want one county in one state to select our presidents? Geez woman, can you get any more stupid?

You're like a masochist. You keep repeating the same lame talking points of Dementia Don despite being proven to be really stupid statements over and over. But hey, I love proving to you how incredibly uniformed you are so here you go again.

It’s true that if California’s vote totals were entirely removed from the equation then Hillary Clinton would lose her popular vote lead, but the logic of that assessment is somewhat flawed. One could, for example, arbitrarily remove the states of New York and Massachusetts from the vote count, docking Clinton roughly 2.6 million votes (and wiping out her popular vote win). Or one could similarly claim that Trump’s electoral vote victory “came entirely from Texas,” since if Clinton had taken the Lone Star state (and its 38 electoral votes), she would also have won the overall election. One could combine any number of states’ vote counts and exclude them from the aggregate, but doing so wouldn’t undo the basic mathematical principle that a vote difference in one state can’t sway the election results to or from a candidate who doesn’t also have significant support from multiple other states. In this case, California wouldn’t have put Clinton over the top in the popular vote total without the additional 61.4 million votes she received in other states.​

without the EC, four areas would pick our presidents-----------LA county, NYC, Houston, and Miami/Dade. the rest of the country would have zero input.

and by the way, Hillary lost the EC. and yes, she won the PV in Cal and NYC. but she still lost and will never sit in the oval office. The election of 2016 saved the USA.

No, without the last vestiges of our slave owning past, we would have an actual small d democracy. One voter, one vote. Every voter's vote having equal weight.

Just remember, those four places may not always be left wing strongholds, or they may lose their number advantage since people are leaving those high tax places in droves.

the founders got it right when they set up the EC, and it had nothing to do with slavery. your obsession with a delusion about early
America is another sign of minimal intelligence.

 

[Redfish]

Medicare and Tricare aren’t free. The people who get them all paid for them.

Canadians and Brits love their healthcare. Way more than we like ours.

I met a man from UK who told me he had a heart bypass operation.....never got a bill

People in the US go bankrupt if they get seriously ill

No one goes bankrupt solely due to medical bills, there may be medical bills in the bankruptcy filing but there are also credit cards, car payments, mortgages, etc. Hospitals will send you a bill, hound you about it for a while, threaten you with alll kinds of things, and then write it off. You are spouting false talking points that have been refuted many times already.

Many in UK and Canada with money have started medical co-ops which they all pay into because their national systems are so slow and incompetent.

Many "medical" bankruptcies are simply because, due to serious illness, the person is not working!

of course, but the majority of the bankruptcy bills are not due to medical costs.

Yeah, they really are.

Medical Bankruptcy Is Killing The American Middle Class

An article by a single payer supporting Harvard prof proves nothing. except that you post more
BS than any other single poster.

The article twists the facts. Yes, most bankruptcies have some medical bills in them, but to make the claim that medical bills is the biggest source of bankruptcy is not supported by facts or even this left winger from Harvard (from which I happen to have an MBA, but when I went it had not completely fallen off the left cliff)

 

[Seawytch]

You're like a masochist. You keep repeating the same lame talking points of Dementia Don despite being proven to be really stupid statements over and over. But hey, I love proving to you how incredibly uniformed you are so here you go again.

It’s true that if California’s vote totals were entirely removed from the equation then Hillary Clinton would lose her popular vote lead, but the logic of that assessment is somewhat flawed. One could, for example, arbitrarily remove the states of New York and Massachusetts from the vote count, docking Clinton roughly 2.6 million votes (and wiping out her popular vote win). Or one could similarly claim that Trump’s electoral vote victory “came entirely from Texas,” since if Clinton had taken the Lone Star state (and its 38 electoral votes), she would also have won the overall election. One could combine any number of states’ vote counts and exclude them from the aggregate, but doing so wouldn’t undo the basic mathematical principle that a vote difference in one state can’t sway the election results to or from a candidate who doesn’t also have significant support from multiple other states. In this case, California wouldn’t have put Clinton over the top in the popular vote total without the additional 61.4 million votes she received in other states.​

without the EC, four areas would pick our presidents-----------LA county, NYC, Houston, and Miami/Dade. the rest of the country would have zero input.

and by the way, Hillary lost the EC. and yes, she won the PV in Cal and NYC. but she still lost and will never sit in the oval office. The election of 2016 saved the USA.

No, without the last vestiges of our slave owning past, we would have an actual small d democracy. One voter, one vote. Every voter's vote having equal weight.

Did you flunk government before joining the Puddle Pilots?

What does slavery have to do with the electoral college?

You're not a history teacher, obviously.

https://www.history.com/news/electoral-college-founding-fathers-constitutional-convention

The connection to the 3/5ths compromise ended with a constitutional amendment. That is a weak and archaic relationship you are working in that is unrelated to modern time.

It is still one of the reasons we got the undemocratic Electoral College. In fact, all of the reasons that the founders had for establishing the EC do not apply to modern society. It is unpopular (except among white Republican voters) and unnecessary.

 

[Seawytch]

I met a man from UK who told me he had a heart bypass operation.....never got a bill

People in the US go bankrupt if they get seriously ill

No one goes bankrupt solely due to medical bills, there may be medical bills in the bankruptcy filing but there are also credit cards, car payments, mortgages, etc. Hospitals will send you a bill, hound you about it for a while, threaten you with alll kinds of things, and then write it off. You are spouting false talking points that have been refuted many times already.

Many in UK and Canada with money have started medical co-ops which they all pay into because their national systems are so slow and incompetent.

Many "medical" bankruptcies are simply because, due to serious illness, the person is not working!

of course, but the majority of the bankruptcy bills are not due to medical costs.

Yeah, they really are.

Medical Bankruptcy Is Killing The American Middle Class

An article by a single payer supporting Harvard prof proves nothing. except that you post more
BS than any other single poster.

The article twists the facts. Yes, most bankruptcies have some medical bills in them, but to make the claim that medical bills is the biggest source of bankruptcy is not supported by facts or even this left winger from Harvard (from which I happen to have an MBA, but when I went it had not completely fallen off the left cliff)

No Fishy, twisting facts is your bag, baby. That's why you never provide links. There is no web link for your ass...

 

[Seawytch]

I am also free to make healthcare coverage better and more affordable for my fellow Americans.

I was right, you got more pathetic. Prove the polls wrong. (By the way, the polls weren’t wrong in 2016).

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/11/12/it_wasnt_the_polls_that_missed_it_was_the_pundits_132333.html

those polls said hillary had a 90+ chance of winning, they were wrong, she lost.

But she won LA county by the total PV margin. So in your stupidity you want one county in one state to select our presidents? Geez woman, can you get any more stupid?

You're like a masochist. You keep repeating the same lame talking points of Dementia Don despite being proven to be really stupid statements over and over. But hey, I love proving to you how incredibly uniformed you are so here you go again.

It’s true that if California’s vote totals were entirely removed from the equation then Hillary Clinton would lose her popular vote lead, but the logic of that assessment is somewhat flawed. One could, for example, arbitrarily remove the states of New York and Massachusetts from the vote count, docking Clinton roughly 2.6 million votes (and wiping out her popular vote win). Or one could similarly claim that Trump’s electoral vote victory “came entirely from Texas,” since if Clinton had taken the Lone Star state (and its 38 electoral votes), she would also have won the overall election. One could combine any number of states’ vote counts and exclude them from the aggregate, but doing so wouldn’t undo the basic mathematical principle that a vote difference in one state can’t sway the election results to or from a candidate who doesn’t also have significant support from multiple other states. In this case, California wouldn’t have put Clinton over the top in the popular vote total without the additional 61.4 million votes she received in other states.​

without the EC, four areas would pick our presidents-----------LA county, NYC, Houston, and Miami/Dade. the rest of the country would have zero input.

and by the way, Hillary lost the EC. and yes, she won the PV in Cal and NYC. but she still lost and will never sit in the oval office. The election of 2016 saved the USA.

No, without the last vestiges of our slave owning past, we would have an actual small d democracy. One voter, one vote. Every voter's vote having equal weight.

Just remember, those four places may not always be left wing strongholds, or they may lose their number advantage since people are leaving those high tax places in droves.

the founders got it right when they set up the EC, and it had nothing to do with slavery. your obsession with a delusion about early
America is another sign of minimal intelligence.

Of course it did.

Because there won’t always be “distinguished characters” with national recognition who could win a majority of votes, “the people will be sure to vote for some man in their own State, and the largest State will be sure to succeed.” But this will not be Virginia, “since her slaves will have no suffrage.” ~ Hugh Williamson of North Carolina
​

Not a single reason for the EC exists today...except to keep conservative white men in power. That part still holds true...

 

[dblack]

those polls said hillary had a 90+ chance of winning, they were wrong, she lost.

But she won LA county by the total PV margin. So in your stupidity you want one county in one state to select our presidents? Geez woman, can you get any more stupid?

You're like a masochist. You keep repeating the same lame talking points of Dementia Don despite being proven to be really stupid statements over and over. But hey, I love proving to you how incredibly uniformed you are so here you go again.

It’s true that if California’s vote totals were entirely removed from the equation then Hillary Clinton would lose her popular vote lead, but the logic of that assessment is somewhat flawed. One could, for example, arbitrarily remove the states of New York and Massachusetts from the vote count, docking Clinton roughly 2.6 million votes (and wiping out her popular vote win). Or one could similarly claim that Trump’s electoral vote victory “came entirely from Texas,” since if Clinton had taken the Lone Star state (and its 38 electoral votes), she would also have won the overall election. One could combine any number of states’ vote counts and exclude them from the aggregate, but doing so wouldn’t undo the basic mathematical principle that a vote difference in one state can’t sway the election results to or from a candidate who doesn’t also have significant support from multiple other states. In this case, California wouldn’t have put Clinton over the top in the popular vote total without the additional 61.4 million votes she received in other states.​

without the EC, four areas would pick our presidents-----------LA county, NYC, Houston, and Miami/Dade. the rest of the country would have zero input.

and by the way, Hillary lost the EC. and yes, she won the PV in Cal and NYC. but she still lost and will never sit in the oval office. The election of 2016 saved the USA.

No, without the last vestiges of our slave owning past, we would have an actual small d democracy. One voter, one vote. Every voter's vote having equal weight.

Just remember, those four places may not always be left wing strongholds, or they may lose their number advantage since people are leaving those high tax places in droves.

the founders got it right when they set up the EC, and it had nothing to do with slavery. your obsession with a delusion about early
America is another sign of minimal intelligence.

Of course it did.

Because there won’t always be “distinguished characters” with national recognition who could win a majority of votes, “the people will be sure to vote for some man in their own State, and the largest State will be sure to succeed.” But this will not be Virginia, “since her slaves will have no suffrage.” ~ Hugh Williamson of North Carolina
​

Not a single reason for the EC exists today...except to keep conservative white men in power. That part still holds true...

It depends on which facet of the "EC" you're talking about. The distribution of electoral votes that compensates less populous states is still perfectly valid. It punishes politicians and parties who think they can ignore the "flyover states". I didn't like the outcome, but the EC worked as intended in 2016. Democrats decided they could just focus on dense population centers and ignore the rednecks. They were wrong. I still don't think they've absorbed this lesson yet. They're still in denial.

 

[Seawytch]

You're like a masochist. You keep repeating the same lame talking points of Dementia Don despite being proven to be really stupid statements over and over. But hey, I love proving to you how incredibly uniformed you are so here you go again.

It’s true that if California’s vote totals were entirely removed from the equation then Hillary Clinton would lose her popular vote lead, but the logic of that assessment is somewhat flawed. One could, for example, arbitrarily remove the states of New York and Massachusetts from the vote count, docking Clinton roughly 2.6 million votes (and wiping out her popular vote win). Or one could similarly claim that Trump’s electoral vote victory “came entirely from Texas,” since if Clinton had taken the Lone Star state (and its 38 electoral votes), she would also have won the overall election. One could combine any number of states’ vote counts and exclude them from the aggregate, but doing so wouldn’t undo the basic mathematical principle that a vote difference in one state can’t sway the election results to or from a candidate who doesn’t also have significant support from multiple other states. In this case, California wouldn’t have put Clinton over the top in the popular vote total without the additional 61.4 million votes she received in other states.​

without the EC, four areas would pick our presidents-----------LA county, NYC, Houston, and Miami/Dade. the rest of the country would have zero input.

and by the way, Hillary lost the EC. and yes, she won the PV in Cal and NYC. but she still lost and will never sit in the oval office. The election of 2016 saved the USA.

No, without the last vestiges of our slave owning past, we would have an actual small d democracy. One voter, one vote. Every voter's vote having equal weight.

Just remember, those four places may not always be left wing strongholds, or they may lose their number advantage since people are leaving those high tax places in droves.

the founders got it right when they set up the EC, and it had nothing to do with slavery. your obsession with a delusion about early
America is another sign of minimal intelligence.

Of course it did.

Because there won’t always be “distinguished characters” with national recognition who could win a majority of votes, “the people will be sure to vote for some man in their own State, and the largest State will be sure to succeed.” But this will not be Virginia, “since her slaves will have no suffrage.” ~ Hugh Williamson of North Carolina
​

Not a single reason for the EC exists today...except to keep conservative white men in power. That part still holds true...

It depends on which facet of the "EC" you're talking about. The distribution of electoral votes that compensates less populous states is still perfectly valid. It punishes politicians and parties who think they can ignore the "flyover states". I didn't like the outcome, but the EC worked as intended in 2016. Democrats decided they could just focus on dense population centers and ignore the rednecks. They were wrong. I still don't think they've absorbed this lesson yet. They're still in denial.

Bullshit. The "flyover" states have voters and when every single vote counts, every single voter matters. As it is now, only a half dozen States matter. Democrats in Birmingham want their votes to count as much as Republicans in Fresno.

The EC has never worked the way it was intended...except to keep white men in power.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...nt-work-the-way-the-founding-fathers-intended

Here’s Every Defense of the Electoral College — and Why They’re All Wrong

Presidential candidates don’t campaign in rural areas no matter what system is used, simply because there are not a lot of votes to be gained in those areas. Data from the 2016 campaign indicate that 53 percent of campaign events for Trump, Hillary Clinton, Mike Pence and Tim Kaine in the two months before the November election were in only four states: Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Ohio. During that time, 87 percent of campaign visits by the four candidates were in 12 battleground states, and none of the four candidates ever went to 27 states, which includes almost all of rural America.
​

 

[dblack]

The EC has never worked the way it was intended...except to keep white men in power.

It works as intended. You're just frustrated because, currently, it doesn't favor your preferred party. If it did you'd be arguing the other way.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

without the EC, four areas would pick our presidents-----------LA county, NYC, Houston, and Miami/Dade. the rest of the country would have zero input.

and by the way, Hillary lost the EC. and yes, she won the PV in Cal and NYC. but she still lost and will never sit in the oval office. The election of 2016 saved the USA.

No, without the last vestiges of our slave owning past, we would have an actual small d democracy. One voter, one vote. Every voter's vote having equal weight.

Did you flunk government before joining the Puddle Pilots?

What does slavery have to do with the electoral college?

You're not a history teacher, obviously.

https://www.history.com/news/electoral-college-founding-fathers-constitutional-convention

The connection to the 3/5ths compromise ended with a constitutional amendment. That is a weak and archaic relationship you are working in that is unrelated to modern time.

It is still one of the reasons we got the undemocratic Electoral College. In fact, all of the reasons that the founders had for establishing the EC do not apply to modern society. It is unpopular (except among white Republican voters) and unnecessary.

Slept through your classes huh?

 

[colfax_m]

No, without the last vestiges of our slave owning past, we would have an actual small d democracy. One voter, one vote. Every voter's vote having equal weight.

Did you flunk government before joining the Puddle Pilots?

What does slavery have to do with the electoral college?

You're not a history teacher, obviously.

https://www.history.com/news/electoral-college-founding-fathers-constitutional-convention

The connection to the 3/5ths compromise ended with a constitutional amendment. That is a weak and archaic relationship you are working in that is unrelated to modern time.

It is still one of the reasons we got the undemocratic Electoral College. In fact, all of the reasons that the founders had for establishing the EC do not apply to modern society. It is unpopular (except among white Republican voters) and unnecessary.

Slept through your classes huh?

I find it ironic that the intent of the EC was to prevent populist demagogues like Trump from getting elected.

 

[dblack]

Did you flunk government before joining the Puddle Pilots?

What does slavery have to do with the electoral college?

You're not a history teacher, obviously.

https://www.history.com/news/electoral-college-founding-fathers-constitutional-convention

The connection to the 3/5ths compromise ended with a constitutional amendment. That is a weak and archaic relationship you are working in that is unrelated to modern time.

It is still one of the reasons we got the undemocratic Electoral College. In fact, all of the reasons that the founders had for establishing the EC do not apply to modern society. It is unpopular (except among white Republican voters) and unnecessary.

Slept through your classes huh?

I find it ironic that the intent of the EC was to prevent populist demagogues like Trump from getting elected.

Yet that's not the aspect of the EC that dems are complaining about. If we want that part of the EC to work, we actually need to strengthen it to ensure elector independence. What dems are upset about is the fact that the distribution of electoral votes (and representation in the Senate) is skewed to compensate less populous states. They want to be able to ignore the rednecks.

 

[colfax_m]

You're not a history teacher, obviously.

https://www.history.com/news/electoral-college-founding-fathers-constitutional-convention

The connection to the 3/5ths compromise ended with a constitutional amendment. That is a weak and archaic relationship you are working in that is unrelated to modern time.

It is still one of the reasons we got the undemocratic Electoral College. In fact, all of the reasons that the founders had for establishing the EC do not apply to modern society. It is unpopular (except among white Republican voters) and unnecessary.

Slept through your classes huh?

I find it ironic that the intent of the EC was to prevent populist demagogues like Trump from getting elected.

Yet that's not the aspect of the EC that dems are complaining about. If we want that part of the EC to work, we actually need to strengthen it to ensure elector independence. What dems are upset about is the fact that the distribution of electoral votes (and representation in the Senate) is skewed to compensate less populous states. They want to be able to ignore the rednecks.

I don’t think anyone wants to ignore the rednecks, I think they just don’t want the rednecks to be given over representation. If we are going to let people chose the president then it should one man, one vote. Each voter should have the same weight.

I don’t support going back to elector independence, but at least they would be consistent with the purpose of the EC, a purpose which is no longer necessary.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The connection to the 3/5ths compromise ended with a constitutional amendment. That is a weak and archaic relationship you are working in that is unrelated to modern time.

It is still one of the reasons we got the undemocratic Electoral College. In fact, all of the reasons that the founders had for establishing the EC do not apply to modern society. It is unpopular (except among white Republican voters) and unnecessary.

Slept through your classes huh?

I find it ironic that the intent of the EC was to prevent populist demagogues like Trump from getting elected.

Yet that's not the aspect of the EC that dems are complaining about. If we want that part of the EC to work, we actually need to strengthen it to ensure elector independence. What dems are upset about is the fact that the distribution of electoral votes (and representation in the Senate) is skewed to compensate less populous states. They want to be able to ignore the rednecks.

I don’t think anyone wants to ignore the rednecks, I think they just don’t want the rednecks to be given over representation. If we are going to let people chose the president then it should one man, one vote. Each voter should have the same weight.

I don’t support going back to elector independence, but at least they would be consistent with the purpose of the EC, a purpose which is no longer necessary.

The purpose is and remains the same. It prevents one state (or collection of states) from dominating the electoral process. You know that tyranny of the masses thing!

Why should the very few metro areas of of the US get to choose who is president?

 

[dblack]

I don’t think anyone wants to ignore the rednecks, I think they just don’t want the rednecks to be given over representation.

ie representation that can't be ignored

If we are going to let people chose the president then it should one man, one vote. Each voter should have the same weight.

Why? What is inherently good about sheer majority rule? Do you think the majority is always right?

Our Constitution limits the power of the majority significantly. This is on purpose, because they know that the majority will abuse the interests of the minority given the chance. The EC is one of the measures put in place to keep the "will of the people" in check.

I don’t support going back to elector independence, but at least they would be consistent with the purpose of the EC, a purpose which is no longer necessary.

I think it proved entirely necessary in 2016. The whole point of elector independence is to prevent an ambitious populist from stirring up the dummies and taking power.

 

[colfax_m]

It is still one of the reasons we got the undemocratic Electoral College. In fact, all of the reasons that the founders had for establishing the EC do not apply to modern society. It is unpopular (except among white Republican voters) and unnecessary.

Slept through your classes huh?

I find it ironic that the intent of the EC was to prevent populist demagogues like Trump from getting elected.

Yet that's not the aspect of the EC that dems are complaining about. If we want that part of the EC to work, we actually need to strengthen it to ensure elector independence. What dems are upset about is the fact that the distribution of electoral votes (and representation in the Senate) is skewed to compensate less populous states. They want to be able to ignore the rednecks.

I don’t think anyone wants to ignore the rednecks, I think they just don’t want the rednecks to be given over representation. If we are going to let people chose the president then it should one man, one vote. Each voter should have the same weight.

I don’t support going back to elector independence, but at least they would be consistent with the purpose of the EC, a purpose which is no longer necessary.

The purpose is and remains the same. It prevents one state (or collection of states) from dominating the electoral process. You know that tyranny of the masses thing!

Why should the very few metro areas of of the US get to choose who is president?

A collection of states already dominate the process. If you think that’s the goal, then it’s failing miserably.

 

[colfax_m]

ie representation that can't be ignored.

Anyone can be ignore. Hell, most the rednecks are ignored because the Republicans know they’ll vote for them no matter what.

Why? What is inherently good about sheer majority rule? Do you think the majority is always right?.

I think the majority is right more often than not. Majority rule cannot be distorted. One person one vote. The simplest solution. Our current EC lends itself to massive distortion in political power.

Our Constitution limits the power of the majority significantly. This is on purpose, because they know that the majority will abuse the interests of the minority given the chance. The EC is one of the measures put in place to keep the "will of the people" in check..

Great. So we have minority rule who are every bit as capable of abuse the interests of the majors. The EC doesn’t keep the “will of the people” in check. It just changes which “people” are given representation, which is done on an almost entirely arbitrary basis.

I think it proved entirely necessary in 2016. The whole point of elector independence is to prevent an ambitious populist from stirring up the dummies and taking power.

The whole elector independence had two main purposes. One is to prevent a demagogue like Trump from stirring up the crazies. Since our country has proven it is too diverse for a demagogue to garner a majority of votes, that is unnecessary. Two was because the populace couldn’t properly evaluate candidates, which is no longer necessary.

 

[dblack]

The whole elector independence had two main purposes. One is to prevent a demagogue like Trump from stirring up the crazies. Since our country has proven it is too diverse for a demagogue to garner a majority of votes, that is unnecessary. Two was because the populace couldn’t properly evaluate candidates, which is no longer necessary.

Both of these purposes are, quite obviously, still needed.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Slept through your classes huh?

I find it ironic that the intent of the EC was to prevent populist demagogues like Trump from getting elected.

Yet that's not the aspect of the EC that dems are complaining about. If we want that part of the EC to work, we actually need to strengthen it to ensure elector independence. What dems are upset about is the fact that the distribution of electoral votes (and representation in the Senate) is skewed to compensate less populous states. They want to be able to ignore the rednecks.

I don’t think anyone wants to ignore the rednecks, I think they just don’t want the rednecks to be given over representation. If we are going to let people chose the president then it should one man, one vote. Each voter should have the same weight.

I don’t support going back to elector independence, but at least they would be consistent with the purpose of the EC, a purpose which is no longer necessary.

The purpose is and remains the same. It prevents one state (or collection of states) from dominating the electoral process. You know that tyranny of the masses thing!

Why should the very few metro areas of of the US get to choose who is president?

A collection of states already dominate the process. If you think that’s the goal, then it’s failing miserably.

The last election definitively proved otherwise. I suggest you learn from history.

 

[JustAGuy1]

The connection to the 3/5ths compromise ended with a constitutional amendment. That is a weak and archaic relationship you are working in that is unrelated to modern time.

It is still one of the reasons we got the undemocratic Electoral College. In fact, all of the reasons that the founders had for establishing the EC do not apply to modern society. It is unpopular (except among white Republican voters) and unnecessary.

Slept through your classes huh?

I find it ironic that the intent of the EC was to prevent populist demagogues like Trump from getting elected.

Yet that's not the aspect of the EC that dems are complaining about. If we want that part of the EC to work, we actually need to strengthen it to ensure elector independence. What dems are upset about is the fact that the distribution of electoral votes (and representation in the Senate) is skewed to compensate less populous states. They want to be able to ignore the rednecks.

I don’t think anyone wants to ignore the rednecks, I think they just don’t want the rednecks to be given over representation. If we are going to let people chose the president then it should one man, one vote. Each voter should have the same weight.

I don’t support going back to elector independence, but at least they would be consistent with the purpose of the EC, a purpose which is no longer necessary.

No, you want Progs to be over represented.