The National Popular vote, myths of small pop states and cities.

[flacaltenn]

Time to get rid of the Electoral College:

Myths About Big Cities

That is a straw man argument. It’s not about the cities, it’s about the 50 United States. There were several factors why our founders preferred the electoral system. One factor- electoral college was a compromise made by the largely populated states to the smaller states in order to appease the concern from the small states about being controlled by the voters in other states.

Here is a link which will help the OP understand what the founders were thinking. Read it, and burn your straw man while you’re at it.

Reward Center

The current use of the electoral college bears no resemblance to what the founders set up,

The flaw in the current use of the electoral college is that almost all the states award all the electoral votes to the winning candidate, no matter how small a margin he or she won the state by.

Well you might be mathematically challenged if you can't see that PROPORTIONING the e-votes is almost redundant to a straight pop vote. It's just a more inaccurate popular vote if you do that. Except in the states with ONLY 1 or 3 e-votes. Then ---- the fun begins and the VOTE becomes HIGHLY inaccurate under proportioning. Especially with the FOUR party system that this nation OUGHT to have.

Wow do I wish we had at least 4 legitimate parties to choose from!

You have almost ZERO at the moment. So there's LOTS of room for improvement.

Dem party is split, Repub party is split. But because of the duopoly, 1/2 the party membership is disenfranchised at any one time. .

 

[flacaltenn]

The current use of the electoral college bears no resemblance to what the founders set up,

The flaw in the current use of the electoral college is that almost all the states award all the electoral votes to the winning candidate, no matter how small a margin he or she won the state by.

Well you might be mathematically challenged if you can't see that PROPORTIONING the e-votes is almost redundant to a straight pop vote. It's just a more inaccurate popular vote if you do that. Except in the states with ONLY 1 or 3 e-votes. Then ---- the fun begins and the VOTE becomes HIGHLY inaccurate under proportioning. Especially with the FOUR party system that this nation OUGHT to have.

Wow do I wish we had at least 4 legitimate parties to choose from!

And the second one with the most votes becomes the VP.

I would have no problem with that, more checks and balances!

We should have all independents.

Americans need to stop voting for "winners" and SUPPORT Indies and 3rd parties. Would do more for "equalizing representation" to have a dozen INDIES in Congress than any screwing with the election rules.

 

[Penelope]

Well you might be mathematically challenged if you can't see that PROPORTIONING the e-votes is almost redundant to a straight pop vote. It's just a more inaccurate popular vote if you do that. Except in the states with ONLY 1 or 3 e-votes. Then ---- the fun begins and the VOTE becomes HIGHLY inaccurate under proportioning. Especially with the FOUR party system that this nation OUGHT to have.

Wow do I wish we had at least 4 legitimate parties to choose from!

And the second one with the most votes becomes the VP.

I would have no problem with that, more checks and balances!

We should have all independents.

Americans need to stop voting for "winners" and SUPPORT Indies and 3rd parties. Would do more for "equalizing representation" to have a dozen INDIES in Congress than any screwing with the election rules.

By winner I think you are referring to Trump. I do not think he is a winner. Look at the mess he has created.

Bush and Trump won by a hair on their chin, and with purple states, both were coups, one done with foreign help and one done with US help , I so remember when the Romney's family were counting votes, and his brother was governor.

Neither Bush Jr or Trump won the popular vote. The EC is going to end and so is the extreme gerrymandering.

 

[Penelope]

Liberals have no idea where food comes from, try to get rid of the EC so you can impose your will on us we'll starve you fools into submission.

think you have a point, you might not be able to win the pop vote, shows how unpopular you are.

California held a popular vote, they voted to ban gay marriage. The left refused to accept the results of that popular vote. You clowns are not fooling anyone, you are only for something so long as it gives you the result you want, next week when it doesn't you are against it.

1st amendment.

 

[Penelope]

The Republicans are so scared of the maj vote. They might even win.

The Republicans are scared of the "tyranny of the majority" we were warned about and see around the world today in Islamic nations. Crimes go unpunished, people are killed, girls and boys are raped all for being in the minority. You will never get equal justice again.

You apparently prefer something like that. No thanks bonehead.

So you admit the maj are not republicans. I could careless about the republicans actually. They treated Clinton like crap even before his Monica affair and I voted for Bush Sr., they treated Kerry like crap, they now treat McCain like crap (who I voted for) and they treated Obama like crap and still are, and CPAC
Even chanted "Lock her UP" referring to Hillary when Trump was talking.

I think there are many sick people that went to Cpac to do that.

PS: Trump is nepotism, and Kushner does not have security clearance. That is fine with you Pubs though, every thing is fine with you pubs. Your true colors are shinning through.

 

[Meathead]

By winner I think you are referring to Trump. I do not think he is a winner. Look at the mess he has created.

Bush and Trump won by a hair on their chin, and with purple states, both were coups, one done with foreign help and one done with US help , I so remember when the Romney's family were counting votes, and his brother was governor.

What mess? The rest is a veritable train-wreck of information.

It is not enough to spew. One must have at least an inkling of what they're spewing.

 

[asaratis]

If the left wants elections decided by majority rules so bad let’s elect the President by who wins the most states.

So with a minority of the popular vote again? No, dumbass.

Giving the elections to the national popular vote means giving the elections to the large liberal shithole cities.....forever. Fuck that!

 

[asaratis]

The Republicans are so scared of the maj vote. They might even win.

The Republicans are scared of the "tyranny of the majority" we were warned about and see around the world today in Islamic nations. Crimes go unpunished, people are killed, girls and boys are raped all for being in the minority. You will never get equal justice again.

You apparently prefer something like that. No thanks bonehead.

So you admit the maj are not republicans. I could careless about the republicans actually. They treated Clinton like crap even before his Monica affair and I voted for Bush Sr., they treated Kerry like crap, they now treat McCain like crap (who I voted for) and they treated Obama like crap and still are, and CPAC
Even chanted "Lock her UP" referring to Hillary when Trump was talking.

I think there are many sick people that went to Cpac to do that.

PS: Trump is nepotism, and Kushner does not have security clearance. That is fine with you Pubs though, every thing is fine with you pubs. Your true colors are shinning through.

Obama IS crap, you dummy! Hillary SHOULD be locked up, you dummy! The real sickos went to the Democratic Convention, you dummy! Hillary had security clearance and misused it, along with most of her staff and the asshole Obama, you dummy!

Liberals are such goddamned hypocrites!

 

[Meathead]

If the left wants elections decided by majority rules so bad let’s elect the President by who wins the most states.

So with a minority of the popular vote again? No, dumbass.

Giving the elections to the national popular vote means giving the elections to the large liberal shithole cities.....forever. Fuck that!

Even though the founding fathers lived in a rural country, they were "afeared" of too much power of the cities. It was a legacy of England and repressive government.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If the left wants elections decided by majority rules so bad let’s elect the President by who wins the most states.

So with a minority of the popular vote again? No, dumbass.

Giving the elections to the national popular vote means giving the elections to the large liberal shithole cities.....forever. Fuck that!

Even though the founding fathers lived in a rural country, they were "afeared" of too much power of the cities. It was a legacy of England and repressive government.

The founders also didn't want women or people without property to vote. Let's stop pretending that this is the 18th century.

 

[mikegriffith1]

This is another prime example of liberals' ignorance of their own country's founding and form of government. Being students of history, the framers sought to avoid pure majority rule, knowing that the tyranny of the majority can be every bit as oppressive and ruinous as the tyranny of a corrupt king.

If you abolished the electoral college, many states would be ignored, outright ignored, which means that the millions of people in those states would effectively lose their voice in choosing a president.

As has been pointed out, the argument about "big cities" is a strawman. The point is that states with larger populations would get most of the attention, while other states would get little attention, and while other states would get no attention.

 

[asaratis]

If the left wants elections decided by majority rules so bad let’s elect the President by who wins the most states.

So with a minority of the popular vote again? No, dumbass.

Giving the elections to the national popular vote means giving the elections to the large liberal shithole cities.....forever. Fuck that!

Even though the founding fathers lived in a rural country, they were "afeared" of too much power of the cities. It was a legacy of England and repressive government.

The founders also didn't want women or people without property to vote. Let's stop pretending that this is the 18th century.

We're over both of those hurdles already. Now anyone can vote. Some even vote two or three times. Some are illegal voters. Some are illegal aliens. Some are legally dead. It's amazing how many votes the liberals can drum up. Now they want the liberal shithole cities to run the nation.

 

[Meathead]

States entered the Union under the conditions outlined in the Constitution. Repeal of any amendment which diminishes the rights of the states would be just excuse for cessation which could well result in a second civil war.

People like the OP, who is one of the most vacuuous posters on this site anyway, are incapable of seeing beyond the tips of their noses. The EC isn't going anywhere and butt hurt over a lost election is not grounds for another civil war.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If the left wants elections decided by majority rules so bad let’s elect the President by who wins the most states.

So with a minority of the popular vote again? No, dumbass.

Giving the elections to the national popular vote means giving the elections to the large liberal shithole cities.....forever. Fuck that!

You see by the above that this is not about any principles other than the conservative desire to jigger the system in a way that they think gives their conservative minority disproportionate power.

If the left wants elections decided by majority rules so bad let’s elect the President by who wins the most states.

So with a minority of the popular vote again? No, dumbass.

Giving the elections to the national popular vote means giving the elections to the large liberal shithole cities.....forever. Fuck that!

Even though the founding fathers lived in a rural country, they were "afeared" of too much power of the cities. It was a legacy of England and repressive government.

The founders also didn't want women or people without property to vote. Let's stop pretending that this is the 18th century.

We're over both of those hurdles already. Now anyone can vote. Some even vote two or three times. Some are illegal voters. Some are illegal aliens. Some are legally dead. It's amazing how many votes the liberals can drum up. Now they want the liberal shithole cities to run the nation.

did you just take a stand against women's suffrage? lolol, classic rightwing nuttery.

How about the coloreds? Want to bring back founding fathers' ideas on them?

 

[asaratis]

If the left wants elections decided by majority rules so bad let’s elect the President by who wins the most states.

So with a minority of the popular vote again? No, dumbass.

Giving the elections to the national popular vote means giving the elections to the large liberal shithole cities.....forever. Fuck that!

You see by the above that this is not about any principles other than the conservative desire to jigger the system in a way that they think gives their conservative minority disproportionate power.

So with a minority of the popular vote again? No, dumbass.

Giving the elections to the national popular vote means giving the elections to the large liberal shithole cities.....forever. Fuck that!

Even though the founding fathers lived in a rural country, they were "afeared" of too much power of the cities. It was a legacy of England and repressive government.

The founders also didn't want women or people without property to vote. Let's stop pretending that this is the 18th century.

We're over both of those hurdles already. Now anyone can vote. Some even vote two or three times. Some are illegal voters. Some are illegal aliens. Some are legally dead. It's amazing how many votes the liberals can drum up. Now they want the liberal shithole cities to run the nation.

did you just take a stand against women's suffrage? lolol, classic rightwing nuttery.

How about the coloreds? Want to bring back founding fathers' ideas on them?

You dumb fuck! I described the bans against women and non-property owners voting as "hurdles", a commonly used reference to "a problem". By all means, all registered US citizens of proper age, sound mind and no felony convictions should be allowed one vote per election. Ethnicity has nothing to do with it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If the left wants elections decided by majority rules so bad let’s elect the President by who wins the most states.

So with a minority of the popular vote again? No, dumbass.

Giving the elections to the national popular vote means giving the elections to the large liberal shithole cities.....forever. Fuck that!

You see by the above that this is not about any principles other than the conservative desire to jigger the system in a way that they think gives their conservative minority disproportionate power.

Giving the elections to the national popular vote means giving the elections to the large liberal shithole cities.....forever. Fuck that!

Even though the founding fathers lived in a rural country, they were "afeared" of too much power of the cities. It was a legacy of England and repressive government.

The founders also didn't want women or people without property to vote. Let's stop pretending that this is the 18th century.

We're over both of those hurdles already. Now anyone can vote. Some even vote two or three times. Some are illegal voters. Some are illegal aliens. Some are legally dead. It's amazing how many votes the liberals can drum up. Now they want the liberal shithole cities to run the nation.

did you just take a stand against women's suffrage? lolol, classic rightwing nuttery.

How about the coloreds? Want to bring back founding fathers' ideas on them?

You dumb fuck! I described the bans against women and non-property owners voting as "hurdles", a commonly used reference to "a problem". By all means, all registered US citizens of proper age, sound mind and no felony convictions should be allowed one vote per election. Ethnicity has nothing to do with it.

You're touting 'founding fathes' ideas as if they were gods.

btw, if people living in urban areas need to have their right to vote diminished, shouldn't we stop electing governors by popular vote?

 

[Meathead]

If the left wants elections decided by majority rules so bad let’s elect the President by who wins the most states.

So with a minority of the popular vote again? No, dumbass.

Giving the elections to the national popular vote means giving the elections to the large liberal shithole cities.....forever. Fuck that!

You see by the above that this is not about any principles other than the conservative desire to jigger the system in a way that they think gives their conservative minority disproportionate power.

So with a minority of the popular vote again? No, dumbass.

Giving the elections to the national popular vote means giving the elections to the large liberal shithole cities.....forever. Fuck that!

Even though the founding fathers lived in a rural country, they were "afeared" of too much power of the cities. It was a legacy of England and repressive government.

The founders also didn't want women or people without property to vote. Let's stop pretending that this is the 18th century.

We're over both of those hurdles already. Now anyone can vote. Some even vote two or three times. Some are illegal voters. Some are illegal aliens. Some are legally dead. It's amazing how many votes the liberals can drum up. Now they want the liberal shithole cities to run the nation.

did you just take a stand against women's suffrage? lolol, classic rightwing nuttery.

How about the coloreds? Want to bring back founding fathers' ideas on them?

The founding fathers were the radicals of their time. Before them, the thought of democratic rule had only been contemplated since antiquity and thus they founded the very principles and institutions which brought about the emancipation of slaves and universal sufferage. Take a moment to reflect on that before you set about on your usual petulant whining about how everything is unfair and everybody who is not a white male is a victim.

In other words, grow up. Whiny and ignorant should not go on forever.

 

[Meathead]

If the left wants elections decided by majority rules so bad let’s elect the President by who wins the most states.

So with a minority of the popular vote again? No, dumbass.

Giving the elections to the national popular vote means giving the elections to the large liberal shithole cities.....forever. Fuck that!

You see by the above that this is not about any principles other than the conservative desire to jigger the system in a way that they think gives their conservative minority disproportionate power.

Even though the founding fathers lived in a rural country, they were "afeared" of too much power of the cities. It was a legacy of England and repressive government.

The founders also didn't want women or people without property to vote. Let's stop pretending that this is the 18th century.

We're over both of those hurdles already. Now anyone can vote. Some even vote two or three times. Some are illegal voters. Some are illegal aliens. Some are legally dead. It's amazing how many votes the liberals can drum up. Now they want the liberal shithole cities to run the nation.

did you just take a stand against women's suffrage? lolol, classic rightwing nuttery.

How about the coloreds? Want to bring back founding fathers' ideas on them?

You dumb fuck! I described the bans against women and non-property owners voting as "hurdles", a commonly used reference to "a problem". By all means, all registered US citizens of proper age, sound mind and no felony convictions should be allowed one vote per election. Ethnicity has nothing to do with it.

You're touting 'founding fathes' ideas as if they were gods.

btw, if people living in urban areas need to have their right to vote diminished, shouldn't we stop electing governors by popular vote?

States have a right to elect their own governors and legisatures and to alot their alotment of electoral votes as they see fit.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If the left wants elections decided by majority rules so bad let’s elect the President by who wins the most states.

So with a minority of the popular vote again? No, dumbass.

Giving the elections to the national popular vote means giving the elections to the large liberal shithole cities.....forever. Fuck that!

You see by the above that this is not about any principles other than the conservative desire to jigger the system in a way that they think gives their conservative minority disproportionate power.

Giving the elections to the national popular vote means giving the elections to the large liberal shithole cities.....forever. Fuck that!

Even though the founding fathers lived in a rural country, they were "afeared" of too much power of the cities. It was a legacy of England and repressive government.

The founders also didn't want women or people without property to vote. Let's stop pretending that this is the 18th century.

We're over both of those hurdles already. Now anyone can vote. Some even vote two or three times. Some are illegal voters. Some are illegal aliens. Some are legally dead. It's amazing how many votes the liberals can drum up. Now they want the liberal shithole cities to run the nation.

did you just take a stand against women's suffrage? lolol, classic rightwing nuttery.

How about the coloreds? Want to bring back founding fathers' ideas on them?

The founding fathers were the radicals of their time. Before them, the thought of democratic rule had only been contemplated since antiquity and thus they founded the very principles and institutions which brought about the emancipation of slaves and universal sufferage. Take a moment to reflect on that before you set about on your usual petulant whining about how everything is unfair and everybody who is not a white male is a victim.

In other words, grow up. Whiny and ignorant should not go on forever.

England abolished slavery before the US did, dumbass.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So with a minority of the popular vote again? No, dumbass.

Giving the elections to the national popular vote means giving the elections to the large liberal shithole cities.....forever. Fuck that!

You see by the above that this is not about any principles other than the conservative desire to jigger the system in a way that they think gives their conservative minority disproportionate power.

The founders also didn't want women or people without property to vote. Let's stop pretending that this is the 18th century.

We're over both of those hurdles already. Now anyone can vote. Some even vote two or three times. Some are illegal voters. Some are illegal aliens. Some are legally dead. It's amazing how many votes the liberals can drum up. Now they want the liberal shithole cities to run the nation.

did you just take a stand against women's suffrage? lolol, classic rightwing nuttery.

How about the coloreds? Want to bring back founding fathers' ideas on them?

You dumb fuck! I described the bans against women and non-property owners voting as "hurdles", a commonly used reference to "a problem". By all means, all registered US citizens of proper age, sound mind and no felony convictions should be allowed one vote per election. Ethnicity has nothing to do with it.

You're touting 'founding fathes' ideas as if they were gods.

btw, if people living in urban areas need to have their right to vote diminished, shouldn't we stop electing governors by popular vote?

States have a right to elect their own governors and legisatures and to alot their alotment of electoral votes as they see fit.

So? Why does that make it right, according to your reasoning?