Why Right Wing Is Petrified of Letting Voters, Not Electoral College, Pick Presidents

[Claudette]

Letting voters pick presidents makes sense to me.

Do some research on why we have a bicameral Legislative Branch of government Lakhota. I don't think Rhode Island, Wyoming, Alaska, New Hampshire, Connecticut, etc really feel like being bullied to death by what is in New York and California's best interests.

Yup and if there was no electoral college those States would pick our President every election.

Of course dumbass never bothered to research why the FF added the EC. She'd much Rather have a Dem President with each election.

You can't cure clueless.

 

[kyzr]

It takes 3/4 of the states to ratify, never happen.
Bet that the dems don't even get 2/3 in the House.
The Senate won't even have to vote on it, the score would be 47 for an 53 against

The fact that the dems even tried shows that they can't be trusted with any majority, or the presidency.

 

[22lcidw]

Time to end the archaic and racist Electoral College.

California has 55 Electoral Votes. The one state has more then 20% of the EC needed to elect one of you. So stop crying.

 

[bripat9643]

The national popular vote has half the states it needs.

So, we're halfway there.

What might be a good compromise is to award electors based on which party wins each district. So the popular would decide how an elector for a district votes. The only way a party could win a whole state would be to win every district. Although not a popular vote, it's closer to it.

The popular vote is not a compromise. It's complete leftwing victory.

 

[Flopper]

It would be the best incremental step in breaking the stranglehold the two party system has on our democracy. What if all presidents ran as independents? That suggestion alone is enough to make partisans piss their pants. It's more democracy, more power to an individual vote, I am 100% for it.

There are obvious advantages to electing an independent but there are also disadvantages. First being, voters know what they are getting when they vote for the party. Vote for a republican and the emphasis will be on tax cuts, deregulation, and authoritarianism. Vote for a democrat and emphasis will be on social programs such healthcare, protection of the environment and minorities. Secondly, there are very few real independents. Most people claiming to be an independent are either conservatives or progressives but reject party membership.

 

[Lakhota]

Time to end the Electoral College in favor of Popular Vote!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nah.

 

[Nosmo King]

Letting voters pick presidents makes sense to me.

Where else but America can the candidate receiving fewer votes win an election?

 

[bripat9643]

Letting voters pick presidents makes sense to me.

Where else but America can the candidate receiving fewer votes win an election?

Every other democracy, moron.

 

[Billiejeens]

What does "it has half the states it needs" mean? They are willing to approve a Constitutional Amendment? What?

The way I understand it, individual states would vote to change their election laws to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. Legal as can be and does not touch The Constitution.

Unless they have actually done that, the claim is bullshit. Any state that does do it is just diluting its influence on the national election. It's not in the best interests of any state to do it. Therefore, it will never happen.

Never say never, in this day of media saturation it no longer makes as much sense to make a candidate campaign in person everywhere. The trade-off will be candidates finally able to run on their own ideas rather than party platforms and rigid ideologies. Fresh ideas anyone?

How would it do that?

 

[Billiejeens]

Apparently, the GOP still considers the population to be too uneducated and stupid to choose a President.... which WAS THE REASON for the Electoral College to begin with. Most people couldn't even read back then.

Totally not true.

 

[Nosmo King]

Letting voters pick presidents makes sense to me.

Where else but America can the candidate receiving fewer votes win an election?

Every other democracy, moron.

Really? Name one. One other nation that elects the candidate winning fewer votes. Name one.

 

[Billiejeens]

No surprises here. When a liberal administration is in trouble the radical left claims it wants to overhaul the whole electoral system. Nobody but nut cases and the OWS takes the issue seriously.

you got that right..

You would probably be surprised to learn how many voter think they are voting for a presidential candidate. The only reason we have an electoral college is the founding fathers simply were rather afraid of democracy. The electoral college has no place in a democratic government. We should have got rid of it years ago.

Totally not true.

 

[bripat9643]

Letting voters pick presidents makes sense to me.

Where else but America can the candidate receiving fewer votes win an election?

Every other democracy, moron.

Really? Name one. One other nation that elects the candidate winning fewer votes. Name one.

Britain, France, Italy, Israel, yada, yada, yada.

 

[Nosmo King]

Letting voters pick presidents makes sense to me.

Where else but America can the candidate receiving fewer votes win an election?

Every other democracy, moron.

Really? Name one. One other nation that elects the candidate winning fewer votes. Name one.

Britain, France, Italy, Israel, yada, yada, yada.

They tally up the votes and elect the person receiving the most. That's how elections are supposed to work. Except in America where the person receiving fewer votes can actually win. The people can voice a decision, speak with their votes and get ignored by an arcane system born out of the tradition of slavery and the 18th century. Weird, ain't it?

 

[Lakhota]

Letting voters pick presidents makes sense to me.

Where else but America can the candidate receiving fewer votes win an election?

Every other democracy, moron.

Really? Name one. One other nation that elects the candidate winning fewer votes. Name one.

Britain, France, Italy, Israel, yada, yada, yada.

They tally up the votes and elect the person receiving the most. That's how elections are supposed to work. Except in A,Erica where the person receiving fewer votes can actually win. The people can voice a decision, speak with their votes and get ignored by an arcane system born out of the tradition of slavery and the 18th century. Weird, ain't it?

I agree! I've always thought the EC was a dinosaur. It needs put out of its misery. Two of our worst presidents failed to win the popular vote - Bush Jr. and Trump. A total of FIVE presidents in U.S. history failed to win the popular vote.

United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote - Wikipedia

 

[bripat9643]

Letting voters pick presidents makes sense to me.

Where else but America can the candidate receiving fewer votes win an election?

Every other democracy, moron.

Really? Name one. One other nation that elects the candidate winning fewer votes. Name one.

Britain, France, Italy, Israel, yada, yada, yada.

They tally up the votes and elect the person receiving the most. That's how elections are supposed to work. Except in A,Erica where the person receiving fewer votes can actually win. The people can voice a decision, speak with their votes and get ignored by an arcane system born out of the tradition of slavery and the 18th century. Weird, ain't it?

That isn't how parliamentary elections work, moron. People don't even vote for the head of the government.

 

[bripat9643]

Where else but America can the candidate receiving fewer votes win an election?

Every other democracy, moron.

Really? Name one. One other nation that elects the candidate winning fewer votes. Name one.

Britain, France, Italy, Israel, yada, yada, yada.

They tally up the votes and elect the person receiving the most. That's how elections are supposed to work. Except in A,Erica where the person receiving fewer votes can actually win. The people can voice a decision, speak with their votes and get ignored by an arcane system born out of the tradition of slavery and the 18th century. Weird, ain't it?

I agree! I've always thought the EC was a dinosaur. It needs put out of its misery. Two of our worst presidents failed to win the popular vote - Bush Jr. and Trump. A total of FIVE presidents in U.S. history failed to win the popular vote.

United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote - Wikipedia

We know what you think before you even post it. Nobody cares.

 

[Mike473]

Where else but America can the candidate receiving fewer votes win an election?

Every other democracy, moron.

Really? Name one. One other nation that elects the candidate winning fewer votes. Name one.

Britain, France, Italy, Israel, yada, yada, yada.

They tally up the votes and elect the person receiving the most. That's how elections are supposed to work. Except in A,Erica where the person receiving fewer votes can actually win. The people can voice a decision, speak with their votes and get ignored by an arcane system born out of the tradition of slavery and the 18th century. Weird, ain't it?

I agree! I've always thought the EC was a dinosaur. It needs put out of its misery. Two of our worst presidents failed to win the popular vote - Bush Jr. and Trump. A total of FIVE presidents in U.S. history failed to win the popular vote.

United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote - Wikipedia

It is a good idea to let the people decide. Stop this impeachment non sense and beat Trump head to head if you can.

 

[bripat9643]

No surprises here. When a liberal administration is in trouble the radical left claims it wants to overhaul the whole electoral system. Nobody but nut cases and the OWS takes the issue seriously.

Only a nutcase would allow Congress to overhaul our electoral system.