The Electoral College

[TheOldSchool]

Maybe. I guess the Supreme Court could decide to legislate that states cannot determine how to award their own electoral votes. If it ever comes to that, it will be funny to see Gorsuch twist himself into knots trying to justify ignoring the constitution.

It wont be ignoring the Constitution it is patently Undemocratic to make a States vote go for a person the State did not vote for.

We are a Republic, not a Democracy. Go and tell Nebraska and Maine that it's "ignoring the constitution" to give some of their electoral votes to the loser.

That is not undemocratic since it is proportional and based on congressional districts, flipping a State vote from one candidate that won the State to one that LOST is in fact undemocratic and unrepublican both protected and promised to the States BY the Constitution.

Not true. States can allocate their electoral votes any way that they want.

No they can not violate the protections of the Constitution which specifically protects the states form of Government.

The Constitution says nothing about what candidate electors should vote for.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It wont be ignoring the Constitution it is patently Undemocratic to make a States vote go for a person the State did not vote for.

We are a Republic, not a Democracy. Go and tell Nebraska and Maine that it's "ignoring the constitution" to give some of their electoral votes to the loser.

That is not undemocratic since it is proportional and based on congressional districts, flipping a State vote from one candidate that won the State to one that LOST is in fact undemocratic and unrepublican both protected and promised to the States BY the Constitution.

Not true. States can allocate their electoral votes any way that they want.

No they can not violate the protections of the Constitution which specifically protects the states form of Government.

The Constitution says nothing about what candidate electors should vote for.

Unless a State abolishes the vote for President then the clause that states a State must have a republican form of Government invalidates any effort to invalidate the vote in that State.

 

[Doc1]

It wont be ignoring the Constitution it is patently Undemocratic to make a States vote go for a person the State did not vote for.

We are a Republic, not a Democracy. Go and tell Nebraska and Maine that it's "ignoring the constitution" to give some of their electoral votes to the loser.

That is not undemocratic since it is proportional and based on congressional districts, flipping a State vote from one candidate that won the State to one that LOST is in fact undemocratic and unrepublican both protected and promised to the States BY the Constitution.

Not true. States can allocate their electoral votes any way that they want.

No they can not violate the protections of the Constitution which specifically protects the states form of Government.

The Constitution says nothing about what candidate electors should vote for.

LOL, try and get away with that.

 

[TheOldSchool]

We are a Republic, not a Democracy. Go and tell Nebraska and Maine that it's "ignoring the constitution" to give some of their electoral votes to the loser.

That is not undemocratic since it is proportional and based on congressional districts, flipping a State vote from one candidate that won the State to one that LOST is in fact undemocratic and unrepublican both protected and promised to the States BY the Constitution.

Not true. States can allocate their electoral votes any way that they want.

No they can not violate the protections of the Constitution which specifically protects the states form of Government.

The Constitution says nothing about what candidate electors should vote for.

Unless a State abolishes the vote for President then the clause that states a State must have a republican form of Government invalidates any effort to invalidate the vote in that State.

That has nothing to do with how a state allocates its electoral votes.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Constitution protects and affirms that a State will have a Republican form of Government if a State votes predominantly for person A and it does not have proportional assignment but it gives all its electoral votes to person B that is a VIOLATION of the Republican form of Government and is in direct conflict with what the Federal Government must protect via the Constitution.

 

[TheOldSchool]

The Constitution protects and affirms that a State will have a Republican form of Government if a State votes predominantly for person A and it does not have proportional assignment but it gives all its electoral votes to person B that is a VIOLATION of the Republican form of Government and is in direct conflict with what the Federal Government must protect via the Constitution.

That's an interpretation offered by nobody but you

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Abrogating the vote of the majority is in direct conflict with the republican form of democracy protected by the Constitution.

 

[talksalot]

The electoral college is based on the US being an agrarian society, something it no longer is. Today 62.7 percent of the US population lives in urban areas. The founding fathers did not foresee this. The electoral college favors rural areas and gives them more vote per person than people in urban areas. They are also as a population less educated than urban people. They also tend to be more conservative. This is the reason why the two elections in recent times where someone has won the presidency not by the popular vote but by the electoral college have gone to Republicans. Of course Republicans favor keeping the electoral college, not because it is the 'right' thing to do, not because the US is a republic rather than a democracy, but because it favors conservatives over liberals. It's like affirmative action, which they hate. It is affirmative action for conservatives.

The electoral college doesn't take into account what you do for a living or your education or whether you're a liberal or conservative. It simply gives equal voice to those living in smaller states.
Two elements of the “Great Compromise” among the large and small states led to the ratification of the Constitution. A House of Representatives would reflect the popular vote—disadvantaging the small states—but a Senate would give the small states equal representation with the large ones.

This idea was carried through to the Electoral College, where each state’s allocation of electoral votes is simply the total of its representation in the House and Senate. This again gave the smaller states some additional power in the important choice of the president.

Leaving aside the fact that a deal is a deal, there are very practical reasons why we will always need the Electoral College under our current constitutional system.

Bill Clinton won both presidential elections with less of the popular vote than Donald Trump received.

It doesn't give equal voice to anyone.

In the Presidential Election only 12 states get to decide the President, and most of these states are in the top 50% for population. Let's just say Wyoming doesn't get a say at all, even with 3 times the voting power of those in California.

You want equality, give it through PR, so every individual gets a say in how their OWN COUNTRY gets run.

View attachment 167770

This what the electoral college reflects. Even you can't honestly say that Hillary Clinton should have won, based on the popular vote.

Maybe that picture misleads you, but it doesn't mislead me. It shows a lot of red covering areas that are not highly populated and blue covering areas that are highly populated. She won the popular vote by millions. Three more million Americans voted for her than for the orange clown.

Donald Trump received 48 percent of the popular vote, Bill Clinton received 43 percent of the popular vote. Both won the election(s) in the electoral college. When Bill Clinton won, were you up in arms about the EC? We both know the answer is NO.

Look at the map. The EC is all about the representation, not the numbers...and 2.8 million crammed into one or two states is neither a huge margin or fair representation.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The electoral college is based on the US being an agrarian society, something it no longer is. Today 62.7 percent of the US population lives in urban areas. The founding fathers did not foresee this. The electoral college favors rural areas and gives them more vote per person than people in urban areas. They are also as a population less educated than urban people. They also tend to be more conservative. This is the reason why the two elections in recent times where someone has won the presidency not by the popular vote but by the electoral college have gone to Republicans. Of course Republicans favor keeping the electoral college, not because it is the 'right' thing to do, not because the US is a republic rather than a democracy, but because it favors conservatives over liberals. It's like affirmative action, which they hate. It is affirmative action for conservatives.

The electoral college doesn't take into account what you do for a living or your education or whether you're a liberal or conservative. It simply gives equal voice to those living in smaller states.
Two elements of the “Great Compromise” among the large and small states led to the ratification of the Constitution. A House of Representatives would reflect the popular vote—disadvantaging the small states—but a Senate would give the small states equal representation with the large ones.

This idea was carried through to the Electoral College, where each state’s allocation of electoral votes is simply the total of its representation in the House and Senate. This again gave the smaller states some additional power in the important choice of the president.

Leaving aside the fact that a deal is a deal, there are very practical reasons why we will always need the Electoral College under our current constitutional system.

Bill Clinton won both presidential elections with less of the popular vote than Donald Trump received.

It doesn't give equal voice to anyone.

In the Presidential Election only 12 states get to decide the President, and most of these states are in the top 50% for population. Let's just say Wyoming doesn't get a say at all, even with 3 times the voting power of those in California.

You want equality, give it through PR, so every individual gets a say in how their OWN COUNTRY gets run.

View attachment 167770

This what the electoral college reflects. Even you can't honestly say that Hillary Clinton should have won, based on the popular vote.

Maybe that picture misleads you, but it doesn't mislead me. It shows a lot of red covering areas that are not highly populated and blue covering areas that are highly populated. She won the popular vote by millions. Three more million Americans voted for her than for the orange clown.

Donald Trump received 48 percent of the popular vote, Bill Clinton received 43 percent of the popular vote. Both won the election(s) in the electoral college. When Bill Clinton won, were you up in arms about the EC? We both know the answer is NO.

Look at the map. The EC is all about the representation, not the numbers...and 2.8 million crammed into one or two states is neither a huge margin or fair representation.

If you did some research you'd see how long I've been talking about PR on this forum, and yes, it was before Trump got elected.

Clinton won more votes than anyone else. That's why it's not seen as such a bad thing. However I could name much better systems.

From 2014

So, the Republican Party is corrupt, not interested in the voters but the money.
The Democratic Party is corrupt, not interested in the voters but the money.

$6.5 billion was spent at the last federal elections, mostly on telling people what to thing and mostly aimed at stopping other parties standing any chance what so ever.

Now, with PR, people would feel like they could vote other parties because it would not be FPTP and basically a choice of two. If only one person voted in Washington State for a party, it would actually count as a vote, whereas now it only counts for their little area.

The Presidency is the obvious place where PR would have a small impact, it would still be a rep-dem toss up. The House would be where it could have the greatest impact with smaller parties able to at least get close to having a seat.

I like the German system. Half PR half FPTP.

So you vote both. For a constituency candidate and for a party. The make up of parliament has to match PR more or less. All the constituency winners are automatically put on the top of the list, then the rest of the list is added if there are more seats for that party.

It leads to far more parties taking part, FPTP often leads to 2 or 3 parties, PR to 4 or 5 at least.

So your "No" is a little presumptuous!!!

 

[talksalot]

The electoral college doesn't take into account what you do for a living or your education or whether you're a liberal or conservative. It simply gives equal voice to those living in smaller states.
Two elements of the “Great Compromise” among the large and small states led to the ratification of the Constitution. A House of Representatives would reflect the popular vote—disadvantaging the small states—but a Senate would give the small states equal representation with the large ones.

This idea was carried through to the Electoral College, where each state’s allocation of electoral votes is simply the total of its representation in the House and Senate. This again gave the smaller states some additional power in the important choice of the president.

Leaving aside the fact that a deal is a deal, there are very practical reasons why we will always need the Electoral College under our current constitutional system.

Bill Clinton won both presidential elections with less of the popular vote than Donald Trump received.

It doesn't give equal voice to anyone.

In the Presidential Election only 12 states get to decide the President, and most of these states are in the top 50% for population. Let's just say Wyoming doesn't get a say at all, even with 3 times the voting power of those in California.

You want equality, give it through PR, so every individual gets a say in how their OWN COUNTRY gets run.

View attachment 167770

This what the electoral college reflects. Even you can't honestly say that Hillary Clinton should have won, based on the popular vote.

Maybe that picture misleads you, but it doesn't mislead me. It shows a lot of red covering areas that are not highly populated and blue covering areas that are highly populated. She won the popular vote by millions. Three more million Americans voted for her than for the orange clown.

Donald Trump received 48 percent of the popular vote, Bill Clinton received 43 percent of the popular vote. Both won the election(s) in the electoral college. When Bill Clinton won, were you up in arms about the EC? We both know the answer is NO.

Look at the map. The EC is all about the representation, not the numbers...and 2.8 million crammed into one or two states is neither a huge margin or fair representation.

If you did some research you'd see how long I've been talking about PR on this forum, and yes, it was before Trump got elected.

Clinton won more votes than anyone else. That's why it's not seen as such a bad thing. However I could name much better systems.

From 2014

So, the Republican Party is corrupt, not interested in the voters but the money.
The Democratic Party is corrupt, not interested in the voters but the money.

$6.5 billion was spent at the last federal elections, mostly on telling people what to thing and mostly aimed at stopping other parties standing any chance what so ever.

Now, with PR, people would feel like they could vote other parties because it would not be FPTP and basically a choice of two. If only one person voted in Washington State for a party, it would actually count as a vote, whereas now it only counts for their little area.

The Presidency is the obvious place where PR would have a small impact, it would still be a rep-dem toss up. The House would be where it could have the greatest impact with smaller parties able to at least get close to having a seat.

I like the German system. Half PR half FPTP.

So you vote both. For a constituency candidate and for a party. The make up of parliament has to match PR more or less. All the constituency winners are automatically put on the top of the list, then the rest of the list is added if there are more seats for that party.

It leads to far more parties taking part, FPTP often leads to 2 or 3 parties, PR to 4 or 5 at least.

So your "No" is a little presumptuous!!!

LOL! I'll admit to not being familiar with the history of your opinions but vigorously protesting the EC win of Bill Clinton seems out of character for you.

And other systems seem very far from the straight majority vote you seem to be pushing for.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It doesn't give equal voice to anyone.

In the Presidential Election only 12 states get to decide the President, and most of these states are in the top 50% for population. Let's just say Wyoming doesn't get a say at all, even with 3 times the voting power of those in California.

You want equality, give it through PR, so every individual gets a say in how their OWN COUNTRY gets run.

View attachment 167770

This what the electoral college reflects. Even you can't honestly say that Hillary Clinton should have won, based on the popular vote.

Maybe that picture misleads you, but it doesn't mislead me. It shows a lot of red covering areas that are not highly populated and blue covering areas that are highly populated. She won the popular vote by millions. Three more million Americans voted for her than for the orange clown.

Donald Trump received 48 percent of the popular vote, Bill Clinton received 43 percent of the popular vote. Both won the election(s) in the electoral college. When Bill Clinton won, were you up in arms about the EC? We both know the answer is NO.

Look at the map. The EC is all about the representation, not the numbers...and 2.8 million crammed into one or two states is neither a huge margin or fair representation.

If you did some research you'd see how long I've been talking about PR on this forum, and yes, it was before Trump got elected.

Clinton won more votes than anyone else. That's why it's not seen as such a bad thing. However I could name much better systems.

From 2014

So, the Republican Party is corrupt, not interested in the voters but the money.
The Democratic Party is corrupt, not interested in the voters but the money.

$6.5 billion was spent at the last federal elections, mostly on telling people what to thing and mostly aimed at stopping other parties standing any chance what so ever.

Now, with PR, people would feel like they could vote other parties because it would not be FPTP and basically a choice of two. If only one person voted in Washington State for a party, it would actually count as a vote, whereas now it only counts for their little area.

The Presidency is the obvious place where PR would have a small impact, it would still be a rep-dem toss up. The House would be where it could have the greatest impact with smaller parties able to at least get close to having a seat.

I like the German system. Half PR half FPTP.

So you vote both. For a constituency candidate and for a party. The make up of parliament has to match PR more or less. All the constituency winners are automatically put on the top of the list, then the rest of the list is added if there are more seats for that party.

It leads to far more parties taking part, FPTP often leads to 2 or 3 parties, PR to 4 or 5 at least.

So your "No" is a little presumptuous!!!

LOL! I'll admit to not being familiar with the history of your opinions but vigorously protesting the EC win of Bill Clinton seems out of character for you.

And other systems seem very far from the straight majority vote you seem to be pushing for.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at with this reply.

First, "but vigorously protesting the EC win of Bill Clinton seems out of character for you."

What are you talking about? Clinton gained the most votes. Clinton gained 44 million votes to Bush's 37.4%.

I don't like the system that rewards such a low percentage, it discourages people to vote for who they actually want to vote for.

Your second point seems to imply that because some other systems don't have a straight majority vote, therefore... therefore.... what?

Do you know what PR is?

 

[Markle]

That's the point: Red areas are rural areas with conservative populations. The electoral college gives them more vote pers [sic] person, which tilts the election in favor of the conservative candidate.That is why in the elections where the winner does not have the popular vote but wins the electoral vote the conservative candidate wins. No wonder you people don't want to get ride [sic] of the electoral college.

Gee, go figure.

Why would the entire nation put their destiny, their choice of government in the hands of a dozen or fewer progressive, cesspool cities? They can't run their cities, why should they be entrusted to run the country and decide what everyone should pay them?

 

[Markle]

What are you talking about? Clinton gained the most votes. Clinton gained 44 million votes to Bush's 37.4%.

Clinton . . . . .43%
Bush . . . . . . 37.4%
Ross Perot . 18.9%

Were Ross Perot not in the race, Bush would have won the election.

 

[Markle]

This is the thing about the cons here: you cannot conduct a discussion without being incredibly disgusting. It clarifies the level of your intelligence and intent. The electoral college gives rural areas more weight per individual vote than urban areas. That is a fact. It is tilted to favor conservative areas: fact. I'm done here. I don't discuss anything with loutish neanderthals.

Promise?

 

[Esmeralda]

That's the point: Red areas are rural areas with conservative populations. The electoral college gives them more vote pers [sic] person, which tilts the election in favor of the conservative candidate.That is why in the elections where the winner does not have the popular vote but wins the electoral vote the conservative candidate wins. No wonder you people don't want to get ride [sic] of the electoral college.

Gee, go figure.

Why would the entire nation put their destiny, their choice of government in the hands of a dozen or fewer progressive, cesspool cities? They can't run their cities, why should they be entrusted to run the country and decide what everyone should pay them?

The way you are looking at it is bizarre and ridiculous. Each vote represents one voter (in the popular vote). It isn't one city or one state electing the president. It is the majority of the people, whoever they are, wherever they live, whatever time zone they live in doesn't make any difference.

 

[Esmeralda]

LOL You're ridiculous. It doesn't matter when the vote was counted; the overall vote across the country is what counts. It's just amazing your brain power isn't enough to understand this simple issue. California votes later because it is in a later time zone. Their votes are counted later. It's the overall vote that counts. Across the country. Good God, it is too simple. Maybe ask someone to help you out with this: maybe a statistician or mathematician.

The red text is in error. If you believe that, why discuss the topic with you?

Oh please. Come on. Are you that stupid too? The overall vote is what counts. Not the amount of votes in one state or when those votes are counted.

Where did you get that stupid idea? Read your Constitution dumb ass!

That's what the thread is about. Do you have your head so far up your own ass that you cannot see?

This is the thing about the cons here: you cannot conduct a discussion without being incredibly disgusting. It clarifies the level of your intelligence and intent. The electoral college gives rural areas more weight per individual vote than urban areas. That is a fact. It is tilted to favor conservative areas: fact. I'm done here. I don't discuss anything with loutish neanderthals.

Good riddance. Perhaps you can find solace in the arms of your useful idiot liberal friends. From conservatives, you will be habitually exposed to the raw truth. Liberalism is a fucking mental disorder.

LMAO The real truth is that you are too insane to see the real truth to the point of even counting votes correctly.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The red text is in error. If you believe that, why discuss the topic with you?

Oh please. Come on. Are you that stupid too? The overall vote is what counts. Not the amount of votes in one state or when those votes are counted.

Where did you get that stupid idea? Read your Constitution dumb ass!

That's what the thread is about. Do you have your head so far up your own ass that you cannot see?

This is the thing about the cons here: you cannot conduct a discussion without being incredibly disgusting. It clarifies the level of your intelligence and intent. The electoral college gives rural areas more weight per individual vote than urban areas. That is a fact. It is tilted to favor conservative areas: fact. I'm done here. I don't discuss anything with loutish neanderthals.

Good riddance. Perhaps you can find solace in the arms of your useful idiot liberal friends. From conservatives, you will be habitually exposed to the raw truth. Liberalism is a fucking mental disorder.

LMAO The real truth is that you are too insane to see the real truth to the point of even counting votes correctly.

The fact is that because California and several LIBERAL cities with large populations control a large number of people does not mean that they get to decide for everyone in the US. The electoral College ensures a couple large States don't get to decide for everyone

 

[asaratis]

The red text is in error. If you believe that, why discuss the topic with you?

Oh please. Come on. Are you that stupid too? The overall vote is what counts. Not the amount of votes in one state or when those votes are counted.

Where did you get that stupid idea? Read your Constitution dumb ass!

That's what the thread is about. Do you have your head so far up your own ass that you cannot see?

This is the thing about the cons here: you cannot conduct a discussion without being incredibly disgusting. It clarifies the level of your intelligence and intent. The electoral college gives rural areas more weight per individual vote than urban areas. That is a fact. It is tilted to favor conservative areas: fact. I'm done here. I don't discuss anything with loutish neanderthals.

Good riddance. Perhaps you can find solace in the arms of your useful idiot liberal friends. From conservatives, you will be habitually exposed to the raw truth. Liberalism is a fucking mental disorder.

LMAO The real truth is that you are too insane to see the real truth to the point of even counting votes correctly.

Apparently, you lie a lot. You said you were done here....yet you keep popping back up...like a weed.

 

[Markle]

That's the point: Red areas are rural areas with conservative populations. The electoral college gives them more vote pers [sic] person, which tilts the election in favor of the conservative candidate.That is why in the elections where the winner does not have the popular vote but wins the electoral vote the conservative candidate wins. No wonder you people don't want to get ride [sic] of the electoral college.

Gee, go figure.

Why would the entire nation put their destiny, their choice of government in the hands of a dozen or fewer progressive, cesspool cities? They can't run their cities, why should they be entrusted to run the country and decide what everyone should pay them?

The way you are looking at it is bizarre and ridiculous. Each vote represents one voter (in the popular vote). It isn't one city or one state electing the president. It is the majority of the people, whoever they are, wherever they live, whatever time zone they live in doesn't make any difference.

So you lied. You promised you were out of here.

A dozen of the largest failing cities would constitute enough votes for a Progressive that none of the other popular votes would matter.

 

[Esmeralda]

Oh please. Come on. Are you that stupid too? The overall vote is what counts. Not the amount of votes in one state or when those votes are counted.

Where did you get that stupid idea? Read your Constitution dumb ass!

That's what the thread is about. Do you have your head so far up your own ass that you cannot see?

This is the thing about the cons here: you cannot conduct a discussion without being incredibly disgusting. It clarifies the level of your intelligence and intent. The electoral college gives rural areas more weight per individual vote than urban areas. That is a fact. It is tilted to favor conservative areas: fact. I'm done here. I don't discuss anything with loutish neanderthals.

Good riddance. Perhaps you can find solace in the arms of your useful idiot liberal friends. From conservatives, you will be habitually exposed to the raw truth. Liberalism is a fucking mental disorder.

LMAO The real truth is that you are too insane to see the real truth to the point of even counting votes correctly.

The fact is that because California and several LIBERAL cities with large populations control a large number of people does not mean that they get to decide for everyone in the US. The electoral College ensures a couple large States don't get to decide for everyone

That's just absurd. I have no patience for idiots who can't even count. Under no circumstances using the popular vote does one city, or state, or region elect a president: it's one vote per person no matter where they live. Jesus, you people are stupid. Really, really stupid.

It's the electoral college that skews the vote giving people in rural areas more than one vote each. And it skews the vote in favor of conservatives because rural areas are more conservative. It's cheating in favor of the conservative vote. If overall, throughout the country, there are more people who vote for the democratic candidate then that is who should win. It isn't about one state or another electing a president. God you people are dense. DENSE!