Elizabeth Warren: 'End Electoral College'

[struth]

Except it literally has nothing to do with States at all. The popular vote is about the the person who gets the most votes from people, winning the election.

Why do I need to explain that to you to make my intellectually superior point?

The United States has nothing to do with states?? What?

Haha you don’t think the United States has anything to do with States and you are claiming superior intellectual points…haha you dembots are silly.

You have no idea even what are nation is made of, or a basic grasp of civics

 

[Unkotare]

The democrats are always so desperate to game the system in their favor. You'd think they never win any elections. Flooding the country with illegal aliens is not going to generate endless democrat voters for at least 20 years, if ever. The Electoral College is not going away. It's painfully clear that the democrats want to move further and further to the left and essentially force Americans to buy into it. Not gonna happen. In fact, the democrats are in the process of pushing Americans in the opposite direction.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Except it literally has nothing to do with States at all. The popular vote is about the the person who gets the most votes from people, winning the election.

Why do I need to explain that to you to make my intellectually superior point?

and here you are after denying it admitting you won't work to change what you say is a problem.

 

[Rigby5]

Why are you against the rule of the majority ?
We used that method in the Senate, Congress supreme court the X factor you name it.
And btw California is the biggest economy and best state of the union, Alabama, Mississippi, north Dakota, etc....are is less states.

Majority rule is bad for many reasons.
One is that the majority is not very smart, easily manipulated, and in dense urban environments that promotes crime, insanity, greed, unwarranted sense of urgency, undeserved sense of importance, etc.

We deliberately avoid majority rule on legislation by instead electing representatives who then vote on legislation for us.
Since presidents are even more important and powerful, a system where parliamentary coalition ruled makes more sense than the simplistic 2 party system we have.

In short, the electoral college adds diversity, which is good.

 

[Curried Goats]

The United States has nothing to do with states?? What?

What is right. Is that what I said or are you just dyslexic? I said the popular vote has nothing to do with the States.

Haha you don’t think the United States has anything to do with States and you are claiming superior intellectual points…haha you dembots are silly.

...

I don't mind you rolling around on the floor in costume like a child. Who's this dramatic play for?

You have no idea even what are nation is made of, or a basic grasp of civics

Do you know people can read what I actually wrote?

 

[Rigby5]

Why should a vote in Montana be worth more than a vote in Pennsylvania?

Because crowed states are the least rational.
And more states are like Montana than Pennsylvania.
The crowded states are the most perverse, damaged, irrational, greedy, etc.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Of course originally, when “parties” were thought of as a danger by the Founders and the country as a whole still had a limited property based white and male franchise, nobody expected that any state would pass laws to undercut the independence of individual leading citizens chosen to the Electoral College.

But as parties developed they gradually replaced the original system with a party-based “winner-take-all” system disenfranchising voters of other parties. Once one party started to do this in states it dominated, other parties had to follow suit or lose a tremendous “party political” advantage. So the system was inevitably turned upside down, with a very few noble exceptions.

The many negative results are obvious at close inspection. That so many Americans in states where their candidate cannot win still bother to vote in presidential elections is actually testimony to Americans’ precious and naive belief that somehow their votes matter and our democratic republic can somehow survive despite everything.

I share their hopes.

 

[Curried Goats]

and here you are after denying it admitting you won't work to change what you say is a problem.

Of course I deny your claims that you fail to prove true. Why wouldnt I?

 

[Rigby5]

Why should a states electors go against the majority of a state?

They don't.
Electors used to be more free to do that, but they do not any more.
But that has nothing to do with the electoral college really.

 

[Rigby5]

What is right. Is that what I said or are you just dyslexic? I said the popular vote has nothing to do with the States.

...

I don't mind you rolling around on the floor in costume like a child. Who's this dramatic play for?

Do you know people can read what I actually wrote?

I am not completely sure what you 2 are arguing about, but I think we were better off when we were more of a federation of independent, sovereign states.
Mostly through the IRS, states have been pretty much reduced to nothing, and have to do what the feds say, or get funding cut off.
The BATF, FDA, AMA, Pentagon, etc., have pretty much taken over, and there is little freedom left any more.

 

[Rigby5]

Of course originally, when “parties” were thought of as a danger by the Founders and the country as a whole still had a limited property based white and male franchise, nobody expected that any state would pass laws to undercut the independence of individual leading citizens chosen to the Electoral College.

But as parties developed they gradually replaced the original system with a party-based “winner-take-all” system disenfranchising voters of other parties. Once one party started to do this in states it dominated, other parties had to follow suit or lose a tremendous “party political” advantage. So the system was inevitably turned upside down, with a very few noble exceptions.

The many negative results are obvious at close inspection. That so many Americans in states where their candidate cannot win still bother to vote in presidential elections is actually testimony to American’s precious and naive belief that somehow their votes matter and our democratic republic can somehow survive despite everything.

I share their hopes.

A way to partially fix this problem of corrupt parties, is to just have one, open vote, where voters rank all candidates so that a run off is avoided.
Remove any party influence.
Do not let them cancel any viable candidates.

The main reason that appeals to be goes back to the 2016 election, where the polls said Bernie Sanders could beat Trump by getting republican votes, while Hillary could not get any republican votes and only won the primary with "super delegates".

 

[Rigby5]

Thats the opposite of reality. Thats what happens now with winner take all States. With the popular vote the votes of citizens from every State get added to the total.

Yeah, to protect slavery so what's the point in protecting a system that was solely designed to protect the interest of slave states?

I don't care about what comprises other people made with slavers way back when. I'm talking about the system that should govern us today.

I disagree.
The point of the compromise was to protect agricultural states.
The fact they also back then were associated with slavery is no longer relevant.
The point is that NY and CA actually have the worst values and least representative of the population as a whole.

Maybe this image of what the electoral college protects us from will help.

 

[struth]

What is right. Is that what I said or are you just dyslexic? I said the popular vote has nothing to do with the States.

...

I don't mind you rolling around on the floor in costume like a child. Who's this dramatic play for?

Do you know people can read what I actually wrote?

A popular vote is used in each state

Yes! I know people can read what your wrote, hence why folks are belittling you

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

A way to partially fix this problem of corrupt parties, is to just have one, open vote, where voters rank all candidates so that a run off is avoided.
Remove any party influence.
Do not let them cancel any viable candidates.

The main reason that appeals to be goes back to the 2016 election, where the polls said Bernie Sanders could beat Trump by getting republican votes, while Hillary could not get any republican votes and only won the primary with "super delegates".

I respect your thinking here, and if I understand you correctly this would seem to sweep away the need for parties almost entirely. Well, perhaps you just are speaking of the Presidency … and I agree here that open voting under a “Ranked Choice system” would deal a huge blow to the two professional parties. It would also require the end of the Electoral College system, if I read you right. So I’m sympathetic.

But I believe history shows that a modern democratic republic — on many levels of government — still needs a multi-party system to function well. At every level the ability to throw out the old group in power and replace it with a new group in power is essential. Politics is more than about individuals. There are regularly shifting combines of corporate and oligarchic wealth, regional and class and ethnic alliances … many interest groups that must be able to replace and combine anew with each other.

“Throw the bums out” in a well-working two or multi-party system usually means there is a new “team” or “group of less corrupt bums” ready to replace them. It is rarely just a question of replacing one individual. Indeed, too much reliance on or power wielded by any popular individual can also be dangerous and lead to authoritarian rule.

At least that’s how I see it. But I am certainly for “Ranked Choice Voting” in primaries and elections wherever possible.

 

[gipper]

I respect your thinking here, and if I understand you correctly this would seem to sweep away the need for parties almost entirely. Well, perhaps you just are speaking of the Presidency … and I agree here that open voting under a “Ranked Choice system” would deal a huge blow to the two professional parties. It would also require the end of the Electoral College system, if I read you right. So I’m sympathetic.

But I believe history shows that a modern democratic republic — on many levels of government — still needs a multi-party system to function well. At every level the ability to throw out the old group in power and replace it with a new group in power is essential. Politics is more than about individuals. There are regularly shifting combines of corporate and oligarchic wealth, regional and class and ethnic alliances … many interest groups that must be able to replace and combine anew with each other.

“Throw the bums out” in a well-working two or multi-party system usually means there is a new “team” or “group of less corrupt bums” ready to replace them. It is rarely just a question of replacing one individual. Indeed, too much reliance or power wielded by any popular individual can also be dangerous and lead to authoritarian rule.

At least that’s how I see it. But I am certainly for “Ranked Choice Voting” in primaries and elections where ever possible.

I fear these kinds of “solutions” are merely efforts to prop up a failed system. Tinkering around the edges so to speak.

Government can’t be fixed. It always leads to what we see today. Tyranny, income inequality, injustice, poverty, unfairness, etc…..to say nothing of it’s amazing ability to mass murder millions. Governments in twenty century murdered untold millions of people.

It needs to be eliminated entirely.

 

[Rigby5]

I respect your thinking here, and if I understand you correctly this would seem to sweep away the need for parties almost entirely. Well, perhaps you just are speaking of the Presidency … and I agree here that open voting under a “Ranked Choice system” would deal a huge blow to the two professional parties. It would also require the end of the Electoral College system, if I read you right. So I’m sympathetic.

But I believe history shows that a modern democratic republic — on many levels of government — still needs a multi-party system to function well. At every level the ability to throw out the old group in power and replace it with a new group in power is essential. Politics is more than about individuals. There are regularly shifting combines of corporate and oligarchic wealth, regional and class and ethnic alliances … many interest groups that must be able to replace and combine anew with each other.

“Throw the bums out” in a well-working two or multi-party system usually means there is a new “team” or “group of less corrupt bums” ready to replace them. It is rarely just a question of replacing one individual. Indeed, too much reliance on or power wielded by any popular individual can also be dangerous and lead to authoritarian rule.

At least that’s how I see it. But I am certainly for “Ranked Choice Voting” in primaries and elections wherever possible.

The problem with a 2 party system is that even those who are not corrupt are forced to associate with and join one of the two parties. Third parties have no means of influencing anything. So then there is no clear cut division between who is bad and who is good.
The parliamentarian system works because of the coalitions needed in order for any particular prime minister to get enough votes.
An open single vote allows more neutral candidates to appeal to all parties instead of extremists appealing to just one party, the way it is now, with the closed primaries and voting twice.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

I fear these kinds of “solutions” are merely efforts to prop up a failed system. Tinkering around the edges so to speak.

Government can’t be fixed. It always leads to what we see today. Tyranny, income inequality, injustice, poverty, unfairness, etc…..to say nothing of it’s amazing ability to mass murder millions. Governments in twenty century murdered untold millions of people.

It needs to be eliminated entirely.

Your anarchistic beliefs are totally naive and unrealistic — even if one agrees that governments are inevitably corrupt and large governments tend to fight one another for economic or other reasons at terrible cost to humanity and weaker nations.

Communism actually had, in its “scientific socialist” ideology probably the most thought-out road to a utopian “no government” international future. Communist theory thought a future for humanity without the need for “force” or government was possible — but recognized that it could only happen at the end of a long development in stages. Unfortunately, this ideology, especially when it assumed a necessity for a transitional “dictatorship of the proletariat” … proved to be a rather vicious “God that failed.”

Because it triumphed first in backward Russia, where actually for awhile it gave new life to the collapsing Russian Empire, it proved ultimately a failure even on its own terms. That empire continues to collapse.

Leninist internationalism in the Soviet Union fell victim to nationalism, world capitalism and its own corruption. I have no expectation that China will succeed where the Russian empire failed, even though in theory it might seem not to be burdened as the USSR was by imperial oppression of more advanced subject peoples wanting their own freedom (Eastern Europe, Ukraine, etc.)

In any case the interconnectedness and competitiveness of world economy makes modern anarchism an outdated much too localized concept. It might work for a few survivalists, but not for most in the modern world.

 

[Rigby5]

I fear these kinds of “solutions” are merely efforts to prop up a failed system. Tinkering around the edges so to speak.

Government can’t be fixed. It always leads to what we see today. Tyranny, income inequality, injustice, poverty, unfairness, etc…..to say nothing of it’s amazing ability to mass murder millions. Governments in twenty century murdered untold millions of people.

It needs to be eliminated entirely.

Even if a particular set of government is so corrupt that a revolution is required, you still have to try to define some sort of best choice for a government.
You can't just have continual revolution.
And it is my opinion that the source of most corruption is the 2 party system, because centralist candidates most acceptable to the population, are filtered out by the extremists who control each party.

 

[gipper]

Your anarchistic beliefs are totally naive and unrealistic — even if one agrees that governments are inevitably corrupt and large governments tend to fight one another for economic or other reasons at terrible cost to humanity and weaker nations.

Communism actually had, in its “scientific socialist” ideology, probably the most thought-out road to a utopian international future. They thought a future for humanity without the need for “force” or government was possible — but recognized that it could only happen in stages. Unfortunately, their ideology, especially when it assumed a necessity for a transitional “dictatorship of the proletariat” … proved to be a rather vicious “God that failed.”

Especially because it triumphed first in backward Russia, where it actually for awhile gave new life to the collapsing Russian Empire, it proved ultimately a failure even on its own terms. That empire continues to collapse. I have no expectation that China will succeed where the Russian empire failed, even though in theory it might seem not to be burdened by old fashioned imperial oppression of more advanced subject peoples, wanting their own freedom (Eastern Europe, Ukraine, etc.)

In any case the interconnectedness and competitiveness of world economy makes modern anarchism an outdated much too localized concept. It might work for a few survivalists, but not for most in the modern world.

Thinking government as it’s practiced today can work for the people, is terribly naive.

For most people, anarchy is a disturbing word, suggesting chaos, violence, antinomianism — things they hope the state can control or prevent. The term state, despite its bloody history, doesn’t disturb them. Yet it’s the state that is truly chaotic, because it means the rule of the strong and cunning. They imagine that anarchy would naturally terminate in the rule of thugs. But mere thugs can’t assert a plausible right to rule. Only the state, with its propaganda apparatus, can do that. This is what legitimacy means. Anarchists obviously need a more seductive label.

“But what would you replace the state with?” The question reveals an inability to imagine human society without the state. Yet it would seem that an institution that can take 200,000,000 lives within a century hardly needs to be “replaced.” See this.

 

[gipper]

Even if a particular set of government is so corrupt that a revolution is required, you still have to try to define some sort of best choice for a government.
You can't just have continual revolution.
And it is my opinion that the source of most corruption is the 2 party system, because centralist candidates most acceptable to the population, are filtered out by the extremists who control each party.

I don’t believe we have but two choices. Government or perpetual revolution. Government is the problem, not a solution.

The two parties are certainly corrupt, but they don’t control the country. Greater forces control the country and they aren’t about to allow anyone taking their power. They control government. Get rid of government and these forces lose power.