Elizabeth Warren: 'End Electoral College'

[hadit]

That's not a very good comparison. Try agian, Skippy.

Actually, it is a very good one, because in both cases, you're complaining that a loser who amassed more things that don't determine the winner should be declared the winner. Face it, until the Constitution is changed, individual votes don't elect the president, it simply doesn't matter how many a candidate gains if they don't gain the EC votes necessary.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

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.

Actually, I believe you cannot get rid of government entirely, and all efforts to do so just strengthen the control of those “greater forces” you mentioned.

A balance is needed, and a democratic republic guaranteeing fundamental individual rights is the closest answer available. It can be more or less corrupt, be two-party or multi-party, but it must involve an educated and rational people to succeed. We are right to argue over foreign and domestic policy. We have a “sacred” obligation as citizens to try to rationally improve our old and unfortunately now very troubled republic.

 

[gipper]

Actually, I believe you cannot get rid of government entirely, and many efforts to do so just strengthen the control of those “greater forces” you mentioned.

A balance is needed, and a democratic republic guaranteeing fundamental individual rights is the closest answer available. It can be more or less corrupt, be two-party or multi-party, but it must involve an educated and rational people to succeed. We are right to argue over foreign and domestic policy. We have a “sacred” obligation as citizens to try to rationally improve our old and unfortunately now very troubled republic.

The Founders tried what you are proposing and we know the results.

 

[protectionist]

What you're doing is called projection. Eliminating the electoral college takes away the power to weight elections towards certain States and instead gives the power to the people. Those are facts.

That is what should NOT be done. See the example in post # 1965. Do I have to post it over & over again ? Sheeesh!

We are the United STATES of America, not the United People of America. Get it ?

 

[kyzr]

That is what should NOT be done. See the example in post # 1965. Do I have to post it over & over again ? Sheeesh!

We are the United STATES of America, not the United People of America. Get it ?

Don't discuss the EC. It is PERMANENT, and does NOT ever need to be justified. End of discussion.

See. Very Simple.

 

[Unkotare]

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.

You are so full of shit, fake anarchist. YOU would last two weeks tops without any government and you damn well know it. Your little act is pathetic.

 

[Unkotare]

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

....

Perhaps you're thinking of the 3/5 Compromise.

 

[Markle]

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.

If abolishing the Electoral College would not render thirty-five or forty states silent in presidential elections, why do you support making such a change? Why would candidates bother to campaign in more than ten or fifteen states?

The Electoral College has led to the greatest nation in history. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Our border policies and efforts and those on energy were working well when President Biden took office. Biden immediately signed 94 executive orders reversing the accomplishments of the Trump administration. How has that worked out?

 

[Markle]

Why do you all find your emotional outbursts to be powerful statements?

How is that emotional? It is a simple statement of fact.

 

[gipper]

You are so full of shit, fake anarchist. YOU would last two weeks tops without any government and you damn well know it. Your little act is pathetic.

Hey did you hear dumb teach, the US is an empire. It’s only denied by fools like you.

 

[protectionist]

Hey did you hear dumb teach, the US is an empire. It’s only denied by fools like you.

If the US is an empire, then it must have colonies. So what would those be ?

 

[Unkotare]

Hey did you hear dumb teach, the US is an empire. It’s only denied by fools like you.

Go buy a dictionary, wannabe.

 

[protectionist]

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.

 

[August West]

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.

We're giving political representation to antelopes and prairie dogs but I don`t know how a state can be rational or irrational?