Electoral College

[Zander]

New rules!!
If a Republican wins - The EC is no good!!
If a Democrat wins - The EC is working fine!

 

[miketx]

Taco Bell voted as the 'Best Mexican Restaurant of 2018'

 

[JoeB131]

Why we have it

No, that's really not a good reason to have an antiquated system devised by slave rapists to frustrate Democracy.

You look at the Presidents who were picked by the EC over the will of the people, they are all disasters.

/----/ Here, I corrected it for you. No need to thank me.
EC was implemented to placate states who's economies depended on agriculture

Actually, in 1787, all the states depended on agriculture. The purpose was to give smaller states more of a say so they'd want to stay in the union. It included such craziness as counting black people as only 3/5th of a white person and giving them no vote.

What would work a lot better would be to have runoff elections if no candidate gets 50% of the vote. That would give third parties more traction to get their ideas out and shift the debate from the binary.

 

[JoeB131]

New rules!!
If a Republican wins - The EC is no good!!
If a Democrat wins - The EC is working fine!

Naw- it's like this.

If the EC confirms what the people wanted- then it's okay.
When it chooses someone the PEOPLE clearly rejected, it's no good.

Let's leave aside for a moment that it has given us disasters like Trump and Bush-43.

It forces the election to pander to the interests of a few swing states instead of the whole country. If people in California have to spend a lot of money to swing how Nevada turns out, that's kind of a problem, given California has a lot more people.

 

[MAGAman]

Why we have it

The alternative is those tiny unpopulated states having more power than states with 40 times their population

Tiny unpopulated states never have more power than huge populated states.

Try another whine.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Why we have it

Nope. One person, one vote.

EC was implemented to placate states who's economies depended on slavery.

One person, one vote.

Exactly what that map shows.

and California, New York, Texas, and Florida would make all the decisions.

Popular vote. Populous places will have influence.

You know why?

That's where most of the population is!

We live in a Republic which is fifty states that make a Union.

Each State voice matter in the election process and was granted a way to make their State population matter in the process of electing the President.

I know you prefer that States have less say and let the few big States bully the smaller populated States but the founding Fathers were smarter than you when they created this system.

So as you argue the Popular Vote is all that should matter, well it does on your State level but Nationally as a whole for the President it take a back seat to the Electoral College because again we are a Republic of Fifty Individual States and yet you will be daft as usual...

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

New rules!!
If a Republican wins - The EC is no good!!
If a Democrat wins - The EC is working fine!

Naw- it's like this.

If the EC confirms what the people wanted- then it's okay.
When it chooses someone the PEOPLE clearly rejected, it's no good.

Let's leave aside for a moment that it has given us disasters like Trump and Bush-43.

It forces the election to pander to the interests of a few swing states instead of the whole country. If people in California have to spend a lot of money to swing how Nevada turns out, that's kind of a problem, given California has a lot more people.

When you are a Republic like ours that is life in electing the President!

Also when this country was created your voice was the House and not the President.

It is sad how you hate the Republic you live in...

 

[candycorn]

I don't understand the problem with the electoral college. We are nation of states. Each state casts their allotted number of votes for President as determined by the votes of the legal voters that reside within that state. The President receiving the majority of the votes of the states will then be President of those united states. Pretty simple.

/——/ You don’t understand because of your public school education. And it’s been explained many times here.

The lower populated states are mostly agricultural. They have vastly different needs and views than the heavily populated industrial states. You’d have three or four states running roughshod over the rest of the country.

Look at Virginia.The once solid Red State was invaded by Washington elites who moved into Northern Virginia. Because of their dense population they seized control of the state government. Now they are enacting their liberal agenda with gun grabbing and higher taxes.

So you have a problem with the electoral college?

/—-/ I support the EC. Stop playing stupid.

You make it sound like I don't understand why I SHOULD have a problem with the electoral college. Your response to my post is a bit confusing.

Its the reflexive anger of a blob supporter.

 

[candycorn]

If Donnie wins the popular vote but loses the EC, expect a wholesale change in opinions of the EC.

/---/ Actually we accept the EC results - it's Libtards who want to change the rules so they win.

Republicans want to change laws on Electoral College votes, after presidential losses

Wasn't always the case.

 

[candycorn]

If the question is whether or not to have the Popular vote or the Electoral College, I wholly endorse sticking with the Electoral College. For reasons mentioned in the OP. The direct election of the President through voting totals would mean that there would be no candidates campaigning outside of the major population centers. Additionally, while we have two major candidates right now getting most of the votes, a third candidate on the scene who gets 20% or so would result in a President Elect being elected with like 40% of the vote in our fractured nation.

That being said, if I had my druthers, I would make it to where the President Elect had to secure both the Majority of the EC as well as the plurality of the popular vote. If no candidate secures both, the 20th amendment takes over just like it would now if no one candidate gets 270. I like this because it does add weight to the individual vote where as, what we have now, completely obliterates the value of a blue vote in a red state or vice versa. If both were needed, those votes would count.

But if the question is PV or EC...I'm a hard pass on the PV.

 

[Cellblock2429]

If Donnie wins the popular vote but loses the EC, expect a wholesale change in opinions of the EC.

/---/ Actually we accept the EC results - it's Libtards who want to change the rules so they win.

Republicans want to change laws on Electoral College votes, after presidential losses

Wasn't always the case.

/----/ Link?

 

[candycorn]

If Donnie wins the popular vote but loses the EC, expect a wholesale change in opinions of the EC.

/---/ Actually we accept the EC results - it's Libtards who want to change the rules so they win.

Republicans want to change laws on Electoral College votes, after presidential losses

Wasn't always the case.

/----/ Link?

Read the post you responded to.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

New rules!!
If a Republican wins - The EC is no good!!
If a Democrat wins - The EC is working fine!

Naw- it's like this.

If the EC confirms what the people wanted- then it's okay.
When it chooses someone the PEOPLE clearly rejected, it's no good.

Let's leave aside for a moment that it has given us disasters like Trump and Bush-43.

It forces the election to pander to the interests of a few swing states instead of the whole country. If people in California have to spend a lot of money to swing how Nevada turns out, that's kind of a problem, given California has a lot more people.

Let's leave aside for a moment that it has given us disasters like Trump and Bush-43.

Let's also leave aside for a moment that it has prevented even bigger disasters like Gore and Hillary.

 

[Cellblock2429]

If Donnie wins the popular vote but loses the EC, expect a wholesale change in opinions of the EC.

/---/ Actually we accept the EC results - it's Libtards who want to change the rules so they win.

Republicans want to change laws on Electoral College votes, after presidential losses

Wasn't always the case.

/----/ Link?

Read the post you responded to.

/----/ I didn't see the link on my iPhone. But, it's from 2015 and they don't want to eliminate the EC, but change how the votes are distributed. "They instead want Electoral College votes to be divided proportionally, a move that could transform the way the country elects its president." And some states already do this.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Why we have it

No, that's really not a good reason to have an antiquated system devised by slave rapists to frustrate Democracy.

You look at the Presidents who were picked by the EC over the will of the people, they are all disasters.

/----/ Here, I corrected it for you. No need to thank me.
EC was implemented to placate states who's economies depended on agriculture

Actually, in 1787, all the states depended on agriculture. The purpose was to give smaller states more of a say so they'd want to stay in the union. It included such craziness as counting black people as only 3/5th of a white person and giving them no vote.

What would work a lot better would be to have runoff elections if no candidate gets 50% of the vote. That would give third parties more traction to get their ideas out and shift the debate from the binary.

/----/ " frustrate Democracy"
Yes, that was the intent of the Founding Fathers. They wanted to avoid democracy by every means possible, and that is why they set the government up a Representative Republic.

 

[Crepitus]

Why we have it

Nope. One person, one vote.

EC was implemented to placate states who's economies depended on slavery.

One person, one vote.

Exactly what that map shows.

and California, New York, Texas, and Florida would make all the decisions.

Popular vote. Populous places will have influence.

You know why?

That's where most of the population is!

We live in a Republic which is fifty states that make a Union.

Each State voice matter in the election process and was granted a way to make their State population matter in the process of electing the President.

I know you prefer that States have less say and let the few big States bully the smaller populated States but the founding Fathers were smarter than you when they created this system.

So as you argue the Popular Vote is all that should matter, well it does on your State level but Nationally as a whole for the President it take a back seat to the Electoral College because again we are a Republic of Fifty Individual States and yet you will be daft as usual...

Instead we let the minority bully the majority.

Thanks makes a lotta sense.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Why we have it

Nope. One person, one vote.

EC was implemented to placate states who's economies depended on slavery.

One person, one vote.

Exactly what that map shows.

and California, New York, Texas, and Florida would make all the decisions.

Popular vote. Populous places will have influence.

You know why?

That's where most of the population is!

We live in a Republic which is fifty states that make a Union.

Each State voice matter in the election process and was granted a way to make their State population matter in the process of electing the President.

I know you prefer that States have less say and let the few big States bully the smaller populated States but the founding Fathers were smarter than you when they created this system.

So as you argue the Popular Vote is all that should matter, well it does on your State level but Nationally as a whole for the President it take a back seat to the Electoral College because again we are a Republic of Fifty Individual States and yet you will be daft as usual...

Instead we let the minority bully the majority.

Thanks makes a lotta sense.

View attachment 310647

/---/ Care to explain that?

 

[Crepitus]

Nope. One person, one vote.

EC was implemented to placate states who's economies depended on slavery.

One person, one vote.

Exactly what that map shows.

and California, New York, Texas, and Florida would make all the decisions.

Popular vote. Populous places will have influence.

You know why?

That's where most of the population is!

We live in a Republic which is fifty states that make a Union.

Each State voice matter in the election process and was granted a way to make their State population matter in the process of electing the President.

I know you prefer that States have less say and let the few big States bully the smaller populated States but the founding Fathers were smarter than you when they created this system.

So as you argue the Popular Vote is all that should matter, well it does on your State level but Nationally as a whole for the President it take a back seat to the Electoral College because again we are a Republic of Fifty Individual States and yet you will be daft as usual...

Instead we let the minority bully the majority.

Thanks makes a lotta sense.

View attachment 310647

/---/ Care to explain that?

Explain what?

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Why we have it

Nope. One person, one vote.

EC was implemented to placate states who's economies depended on slavery.

One person, one vote.

Exactly what that map shows.

and California, New York, Texas, and Florida would make all the decisions.

Popular vote. Populous places will have influence.

You know why?

That's where most of the population is!

We live in a Republic which is fifty states that make a Union.

Each State voice matter in the election process and was granted a way to make their State population matter in the process of electing the President.

I know you prefer that States have less say and let the few big States bully the smaller populated States but the founding Fathers were smarter than you when they created this system.

So as you argue the Popular Vote is all that should matter, well it does on your State level but Nationally as a whole for the President it take a back seat to the Electoral College because again we are a Republic of Fifty Individual States and yet you will be daft as usual...

Instead we let the minority bully the majority.

Thanks makes a lotta sense.

View attachment 310647

Untrue and you have known that every President has been elected this way, so why is it now you disagree with it?

Simple, you hate the reality that the Majority of States rejected Clinton and want a system you can rig to make sure Democrats never lose...

 

[task0778]

Nope. One person, one vote.

EC was implemented to placate states who's economies depended on slavery.

One person, one vote.

Exactly what that map shows.

and California, New York, Texas, and Florida would make all the decisions.

Popular vote. Populous places will have influence.

You know why?

That's where most of the population is!

We live in a Republic which is fifty states that make a Union.

Each State voice matter in the election process and was granted a way to make their State population matter in the process of electing the President.

I know you prefer that States have less say and let the few big States bully the smaller populated States but the founding Fathers were smarter than you when they created this system.

So as you argue the Popular Vote is all that should matter, well it does on your State level but Nationally as a whole for the President it take a back seat to the Electoral College because again we are a Republic of Fifty Individual States and yet you will be daft as usual...

Instead we let the minority bully the majority.

Thanks makes a lotta sense.

View attachment 310647

Untrue and you have known that every President has been elected this way, so why is it now you disagree with it?

Simple, you hate the reality that the Majority of States rejected Clinton and want a system you can rig to make sure Democrats never lose...

If anyone wants their vote to count more then pack up and move to Wyoming.

BTW, I don't see much bullying going on by the small states, as Creepy suggests. That's a load of crap.