Electoral or Popular Vote

[M14 Shooter]

What does ignotant mean?

If you can't figure that out, its pretty clear you don't have the capacity to have this discussion.

It's not in the dictionary.

Thank you for proving my point.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why would any small state want to do that?

New Hampshire and Iowa are the only "small states" I can think of that are benefiting from the current system.

They -all- benefit from it. Their voice in choosing the president is magnified.

They all benefit from it as -they- choose the President.

There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that prevents the states from, say, not holding an election at all and always assigning its electors to the GOP candidate

 

[kyzr]

Stupid thread. The EC is here to stay, period.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Al Gore calls for an end to the Electoral College - The Hill's Video

I agree. We should get rid of the archaic system. It's a legacy of slavery, and makes no sense in today's world. Presidential nominees ought to be running national campaigns, not picking and choosing states, like they're playing a game of Risk. All one need do is look at spending to get ones message across. Romney's not going to spend much in New York and Obama's not going to spend much in Texas, because those states minorities aren't worth a damn to either candidate.

I don't care that Obama has a better chance of winning this election because of an electoral strategy. I still believe that the dilution of some votes, and the magnification of others, is a bullshit system. It will take a constitutional amendment to change it, but I'd be pro, regardless.+-

 

[Too Tall]

Hello

The Electoral College was put into the Constitution because our founding fathers did not think the "common people" were smart enough to make such important decisions. In this day and age I do not necessarily think this is true. Therefore I have always been in favor of a Constitutional Amendment repealing the Electoral College and leaving up the people.

Remember on at least two separate occasions the EC has "elected" someone other than who the majority had voted for. It needs to be put to rest.

Wolfman 24

The first sentence is total bullshit, so your conclusion is meaningless.

 

[Too Tall]

You are amusing; that is for sure.

Now you;re just in denial.


None of them, aside from you, believe that the people elect the President

Anyway, the discussion of this thread is what is better; the system we have now or the system where by popular vote would elect the president.

-I- gave my answer. Perhaps you were too busy being ignotant to notiice.

What does ignotant mean?

It means a typo to anyone capable of thought.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Hello

The Electoral College was put into the Constitution because our founding fathers did not think the "common people" were smart enough to make such important decisions. In this day and age I do not necessarily think this is true. Therefore I have always been in favor of a Constitutional Amendment repealing the Electoral College and leaving up the people.

Remember on at least two separate occasions the EC has "elected" someone other than who the majority had voted for. It needs to be put to rest.

Wolfman 24

The first sentence is total bullshit, so your conclusion is meaningless.

True. Our founders put it in, so the 3/5th of slaves would count after the white citizens voted for president. It's an ugly part of our legacy.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Hello

The Electoral College was put into the Constitution because our founding fathers did not think the "common people" were smart enough to make such important decisions. In this day and age I do not necessarily think this is true. Therefore I have always been in favor of a Constitutional Amendment repealing the Electoral College and leaving up the people.

Remember on at least two separate occasions the EC has "elected" someone other than who the majority had voted for. It needs to be put to rest.

Wolfman 24

The first sentence is total bullshit, so your conclusion is meaningless.

True. Our founders put it in, so the 3/5th of slaves would count after the white citizens voted for president. It's an ugly part of our legacy.

Another moron with a backasswards view of the 3/5 Clause. You don't seem to realize, Dickless Fuck, that the 3/5 Clause was a compromise designed to lessen the power of the slaveholding States.

Moron...

 

[Too Tall]

My fervent hope this election is that Obama wins the Electoral vote and Romney wins the popular. Only then will we be able to have a conversation on the EC with Republicans.

That isn't going to happen, but if it did, I would still oppose eliminating the EC. Presidential candidates wouldn't campaign in 80% of the states if that were to become law. And, those same states votes would be required to amend the Constitution, and that isn't going to happen either.

 

[Dick Tuck]

The first sentence is total bullshit, so your conclusion is meaningless.

True. Our founders put it in, so the 3/5th of slaves would count after the white citizens voted for president. It's an ugly part of our legacy.

Another moron with a backasswards view of the 3/5 Clause. You don't seem to realize, Dickless Fuck, that the 3/5 Clause was a compromise designed to lessen the power of the slaveholding States.

Moron...

You stupid motherfucker. The 3/5th Clause would only have lessened the power, if the slave states allowed slaves to vote. Are you really this moronic?

The bottom line is still that the electoral college is a retched legacy of our founding as a half slave holding nation.

 

[kyzr]

My fervent hope this election is that Obama wins the Electoral vote and Romney wins the popular. Only then will we be able to have a conversation on the EC with Republicans.

Never happen...move-on...

 

[Too Tall]

Hello

The Electoral College was put into the Constitution because our founding fathers did not think the "common people" were smart enough to make such important decisions. In this day and age I do not necessarily think this is true. Therefore I have always been in favor of a Constitutional Amendment repealing the Electoral College and leaving up the people.

Remember on at least two separate occasions the EC has "elected" someone other than who the majority had voted for. It needs to be put to rest.

Wolfman 24

The first sentence is total bullshit, so your conclusion is meaningless.

True. Our founders put it in, so the 3/5th of slaves would count after the white citizens voted for president. It's an ugly part of our legacy.

The northern states insisted on the 3/5ths clause, but you did know that. Didn't you? Do you see Electoral College or President mentioned? And, you may have noticed that slaves could NOT VOTE at that time. Now do you understand that your statements are TOTAL bullshit. I suggest you give it up before you look even more foolish.

The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise between Southern and Northern states reached during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 in which three-fifths of the enumerated population of slaves would be counted for representation purposes regarding both the distribution of taxes and the apportionment of the members of the United States House of Representatives. It was proposed by delegates James Wilson and Roger Sherman.

Delegates opposed to slavery generally wished to count only the free inhabitants of each state. Delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, generally wanted to count slaves in their actual numbers. Since slaves could not vote, slaveholders would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House and the Electoral College. The final compromise of counting "all other persons" as only three-fifths of their actual numbers reduced the power of the slave states relative to the original southern proposals, but increased it over the northern position.

Three-Fifths Compromise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Dick Tuck]

The first sentence is total bullshit, so your conclusion is meaningless.

True. Our founders put it in, so the 3/5th of slaves would count after the white citizens voted for president. It's an ugly part of our legacy.

The northern states insisted on the 3/5ths clause, but you did know that. Didn't you? Do you see Electoral College or President mentioned? And, you may have noticed that slaves could NOT VOTE at that time. Now do you understand that your statements are TOTAL bullshit. I suggest you give it up before you look even more foolish.

The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise between Southern and Northern states reached during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 in which three-fifths of the enumerated population of slaves would be counted for representation purposes regarding both the distribution of taxes and the apportionment of the members of the United States House of Representatives. It was proposed by delegates James Wilson and Roger Sherman.

Delegates opposed to slavery generally wished to count only the free inhabitants of each state. Delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, generally wanted to count slaves in their actual numbers. Since slaves could not vote, slaveholders would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House and the Electoral College. The final compromise of counting "all other persons" as only three-fifths of their actual numbers reduced the power of the slave states relative to the original southern proposals, but increased it over the northern position.

Three-Fifths Compromise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why should slaves have been counted at all? The FREE states didn't want it, and a compromise was reached. Considering that the South saw these human beings as nothing more then property, the premise of the compromise made was idiotic. Why the fuck should someones, proclaimed property, enable them to more representation and a magnified vote in national elections?

 

[Too Tall]

True. Our founders put it in, so the 3/5th of slaves would count after the white citizens voted for president. It's an ugly part of our legacy.

Another moron with a backasswards view of the 3/5 Clause. You don't seem to realize, Dickless Fuck, that the 3/5 Clause was a compromise designed to lessen the power of the slaveholding States.

Moron...

You stupid motherfucker. The 3/5th Clause would only have lessened the power, if the slave states allowed slaves to vote. Are you really this moronic?

The bottom line is still that the electoral college is a retched legacy of our founding as a half slave holding nation.

Wrong dumbass! The number of Representatives in the House of Representatives for each state is determined by dividing 435 by the population of each state. If slaves had been counted as one, instead of 3/5ths, the slave states would have been given MORE Representatives, thereby increasing their power. For the simple minded, more people=more Representatives=more power for the state.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Another moron with a backasswards view of the 3/5 Clause. You don't seem to realize, Dickless Fuck, that the 3/5 Clause was a compromise designed to lessen the power of the slaveholding States.

Moron...

You stupid motherfucker. The 3/5th Clause would only have lessened the power, if the slave states allowed slaves to vote. Are you really this moronic?

The bottom line is still that the electoral college is a retched legacy of our founding as a half slave holding nation.

Wrong dumbass! The number of Representatives in the House of Representatives for each state is determined by dividing 435 by the population of each state. If slaves had been counted as one, instead of 3/5ths, the slave states would have been given MORE Representatives, thereby increasing their power. For the simple minded, more people=more Representatives=more power for the state.

You fucking moron. Slaves weren't counted as people. All one need to do is look at the Taney court's decision in Dred Scott. He wasn't even given 3/5th standing. He was given no standing, because the court viewed him as property. Are you really this stupid?

So why, in this society, do we have a method of electing national figures, that's based on this stupid legacy of slavery, and magnify the vote of some individuals and minimize the vote of others?

 

[Too Tall]

True. Our founders put it in, so the 3/5th of slaves would count after the white citizens voted for president. It's an ugly part of our legacy.

The northern states insisted on the 3/5ths clause, but you did know that. Didn't you? Do you see Electoral College or President mentioned? And, you may have noticed that slaves could NOT VOTE at that time. Now do you understand that your statements are TOTAL bullshit. I suggest you give it up before you look even more foolish.

The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise between Southern and Northern states reached during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 in which three-fifths of the enumerated population of slaves would be counted for representation purposes regarding both the distribution of taxes and the apportionment of the members of the United States House of Representatives. It was proposed by delegates James Wilson and Roger Sherman.

Delegates opposed to slavery generally wished to count only the free inhabitants of each state. Delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, generally wanted to count slaves in their actual numbers. Since slaves could not vote, slaveholders would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House and the Electoral College. The final compromise of counting "all other persons" as only three-fifths of their actual numbers reduced the power of the slave states relative to the original southern proposals, but increased it over the northern position.

Three-Fifths Compromise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why should slaves have been counted at all? The FREE states didn't want it, and a compromise was reached. Considering that the South saw these human beings as nothing more then property, the premise of the compromise made was idiotic. Why the fuck should someones, proclaimed property, enable them to more representation and a magnified vote in national elections?

I realize that you consider your self much smarter than the founders, but the 3/5ths compromise had zero effect on the national election vote. When representation was being debated, the total number of human beings was what determined the number of Representatives each state was awarded. They counted Native Americans (Indians) as 3/5ths as well since they were also human beings.

Convicted felons can't vote in some states and they are still counted as part of the population when determining the number of Representatives in each state.

 

[Too Tall]

You stupid motherfucker. The 3/5th Clause would only have lessened the power, if the slave states allowed slaves to vote. Are you really this moronic?

The bottom line is still that the electoral college is a retched legacy of our founding as a half slave holding nation.

Wrong dumbass! The number of Representatives in the House of Representatives for each state is determined by dividing 435 by the population of each state. If slaves had been counted as one, instead of 3/5ths, the slave states would have been given MORE Representatives, thereby increasing their power. For the simple minded, more people=more Representatives=more power for the state.

You fucking moron. Slaves weren't counted as people. All one need to do is look at the Taney court's decision in Dred Scott. He wasn't even given 3/5th standing. He was given no standing, because the court viewed him as property. Are you really this stupid?

So why, in this society, do we have a method of electing national figures, that's based on this stupid legacy of slavery, and magnify the vote of some individuals and minimize the vote of others?

You are a complete waste of bandwidth and I have a pet rock that is a lot smarter than you.

 

[Dick Tuck]

The northern states insisted on the 3/5ths clause, but you did know that. Didn't you? Do you see Electoral College or President mentioned? And, you may have noticed that slaves could NOT VOTE at that time. Now do you understand that your statements are TOTAL bullshit. I suggest you give it up before you look even more foolish.


Three-Fifths Compromise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why should slaves have been counted at all? The FREE states didn't want it, and a compromise was reached. Considering that the South saw these human beings as nothing more then property, the premise of the compromise made was idiotic. Why the fuck should someones, proclaimed property, enable them to more representation and a magnified vote in national elections?

I realize that you consider your self much smarter than the founders, but the 3/5ths compromise had zero effect on the national election vote. When representation was being debated, the total number of human beings was what determined the number of Representatives each state was awarded. They counted Native Americans (Indians) as 3/5ths as well since they were also human beings.

Convicted felons can't vote in some states and they are still counted as part of the population when determining the number of Representatives in each state.

Smarter? I don't know. Perhaps if I were in their place I would have made that devil's deal with the scumbag slave owners. The fact remains that the electoral college is a legacy of slavery, and is based on how much property someone has that decides how much their vote is magnified. The founders knew this, and you even accepted that a compromised was reached.

The issue is how much sense does this make in our current history?

 

[Dick Tuck]

Wrong dumbass! The number of Representatives in the House of Representatives for each state is determined by dividing 435 by the population of each state. If slaves had been counted as one, instead of 3/5ths, the slave states would have been given MORE Representatives, thereby increasing their power. For the simple minded, more people=more Representatives=more power for the state.

You fucking moron. Slaves weren't counted as people. All one need to do is look at the Taney court's decision in Dred Scott. He wasn't even given 3/5th standing. He was given no standing, because the court viewed him as property. Are you really this stupid?

So why, in this society, do we have a method of electing national figures, that's based on this stupid legacy of slavery, and magnify the vote of some individuals and minimize the vote of others?

You are a complete waste of bandwidth and I have a pet rock that is a lot smarter than you.

Whatever you say, sissy boy. The facts I presented are true, and your refutation shows what a mental lightweight you are.

 

[FA_Q2]

No we shouldn't ignore the constitution. It is what it is.

Why am I asking? It's a discussion board.

Why do you think that the President shouldn't have to get a plurality of the popular vote? Shouldn't the public's wishes carry through to selecting the woman or man who will occupy the nation's highest office?

The Popular vote has not mattered since the Constitution was passed. I don't see why it should matter now.

When the Constitution was "passed", women's vote didn't matter. Blacks didn't even exist as full persons when the Constitution was "passed". It was made changeable for a reason. The "reason" for the EC no longer exists. It doesn't take weeks to get information to rural areas. They actually have internet and TVs now, you know.

The EC means that only a half dozen states matter in a Presidential Election. Sure, that's great if you happen to live in one of those states, but what if you don't? How do you feel you're being heard?

Take my little old state, CA...It's Electoral votes will go to the Democratic nominee...but look:

And the current studies show that there would be little difference in a popular vote. The candidates would focus on different places but there would still be very few of them. You are still not going to see a republican in CA, it simply is not going to happen.