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

[bripat9643]

The national popular vote has half the states it needs.

So, we're halfway there.

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.

The SC hasn't ruled on it, so it's unclear whether it's legal.

 

[Nosmo King]

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.

rhey vote for Prime Minister who then forms a government.

How stupid are you?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

rhey vote for Prime Minister who then forms a government.

How stupid are you?

Nope, they don't vote for Prime Minister. Considering what a dumbass you are, you sure like to pontificate on how other governments work.

 

[Nosmo King]

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.

This "impeachment nonsense" is about Trump cheating in the upcoming election. Are you suggesting we allow candidates to cheat then wait until their term expires?

 

[Lakhota]

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.

Funny. That didn't stop NaziCons from impeaching President Clinton for lying about blowjobs.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Letting voters pick presidents makes sense to me.

Allowing less populated states not to be controlled by the voters of more populated states makes sense to me.

 

[Lakhota]

Letting voters pick presidents makes sense to me.

Allowing less populated states not to be controlled by the voters of more populated states makes sense to me.

So, you're for acreage - not people?

 

[Markle]

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

Is it THIS important to you to be a troll? Is your life that lacking in substance that you have to resurrect a dead thread, a beaten topic and look for the same answers proving you're a fool? I'm so sorry!

Nothing has changed in the past 243 years and nothing will change in the next 243.

Seek help!

 

[22lcidw]

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

All of those nations have had nasty wars on their territories repeatedly. For some reason our system has kept the whole Western Hemisphere free of apocalyptic wars up to now. But it is slowly falling apart with you azzes and your agendas. You think that the world that is mean and nasty is an aberration and it will be done right this time to form that perfect utopia. Your own agendas have created massive distortions and massive debts as you do not fix them while you move to the next agenda. The worst part are individuals who believed in much of what equality is and fell victim to it. Changing standards to force jigsaw pieces together that do not fit and destroying many in the process. C*nts and pussies calling others the same who are better and have been judged by the group as to protect what they have. This show has been along for half a century at least. But you have to blame the white guy and the Christian guy because you just do not understand why there are failures. You also now have tens of millions of people who let crimes happen and do not care. Who will let your friends detonate the worst weapons on our territories. Until we are even. Until there is balance…..suey porker...

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Letting voters pick presidents makes sense to me.

Allowing less populated states not to be controlled by the voters of more populated states makes sense to me.

So, you're for acreage - not people?

Acreage? I’m not referring to the number of acres in the state, idiot. I’m referring to the number of PEOPLE in the state. Less populated states don’t want to be controlled by more populated states. The people in Wyoming have many different concerns than the people in California. The entire difference in popular vote in 2016 can be attributed solely to California. 2016 is EXACTLY the reason we want to keep the electoral system.

 

[Markle]

Letting voters pick presidents makes sense to me.

Allowing less populated states not to be controlled by the voters of more populated states makes sense to me.

So, you're for acreage - not people?

Acreage? I’m not referring to the number of acres in the state, idiot. I’m referring to the number of PEOPLE in the state. Less populated states don’t want to be controlled by more populated states. The people in Wyoming have many different concerns than the people in California. The entire difference in popular vote in 2016 can be attributed solely to California. 2016 is EXACTLY the reason we want to keep the electoral system.

Lakhota knows that. He's lonely so he has at least three threads on the same topic insofar as it is the only one for which he has his prepared, stupid points he's been fed by his handlers.

He's a leading troll.

 

[peach174]

Letting voters pick presidents makes sense to me.

Allowing less populated states not to be controlled by the voters of more populated states makes sense to me.

So, you're for acreage - not people?

That acreage is everybody's food & clothing source in this country.
They have a fair right of their votes being counted too.
Dream on if you all think your going to shut up the voters of the backbone of this country on who we all elect as President.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Letting voters pick presidents makes sense to me.

They do you dumbshit.

What the hell did you do Nov 2016.

 

[cnm]

That acreage is everybody's food & clothing source in this country.

Bullshit. That's maize and soy, etc., for export and ethanol. California is the bread basket.

 

[cnm]

What the hell did you do Nov 2016.

He voted for an elector. Don't you know your own system?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

What the hell did you do Nov 2016.

He voted for an elector. Don't you know your own system?

Really ?

Trump and Hillary were not on the ballot.

 

[peach174]

That acreage is everybody's food & clothing source in this country.

Bullshit. That's maize and soy, etc., for export and ethanol. California is the bread basket.

Well you just proved how ill-informed you are.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

Funny. That didn't stop NaziCons from impeaching President Clinton for lying about blowjobs.

Lying under oath you stupid fucker.

It was retarded for the GOP to impeach him.

But Billy did lie.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

By Steven Rosenfeld

A movement to reform the Electoral College and elect the president based on the national popular vote has half the states it needs.

Republican Senator Mitch McConnell calls it “absurd and dangerous.” The Wall Street Journal says it deserves to “die.” The Heritage Foundation calls it “unconstitutional.” The Washington Post calls it “flawed.” A Republican National Committee resolution says it is a radical, un-American, “questionable legal maneuver.”

It is awarding the presidency to the candidate who wins the most votes.

“The United States is not a democracy and shouldn’t be,” said Michael Munger, Duke University’s Political Science Department chairman and a 2008 Libertarian gubernatorial candidate attacking it at a League of Women Voters forum. “There is NO moral force in the majority. It is just what most people happen to think.”

These right-wingers are truly worried that a plan reforming the way the president-electing Electoral College works is gaining legal ground and could bring the biggest change in the political landscape in decades. The National Popular Vote plan would replace the current system, in which states award Electoral College delegates to whomever wins the presidential vote in that state, with a new interstate agreement where a participating state’s delegates would be bound to the national popular vote winner.

In other words, as soon as states with a total of 270 Electoral College delegates sign on—and they are halfway there—presidential elections where one state swayed the outcome, such as Ohio in 2004 and Florida in 2000, would be no more.

“It is born from a frustration of a system that is inherently broken, a system that allots two-thirds to three-fourths of resources in a presidential campaign in the last six or seven weeks to six states. That isn’t democracy,” said Pam Wilmot, Common Cause’s National Popular Vote coordinator. “We cannot and should not have a small number of states deciding the outcome of presidential elections for the rest of us.”

The idea that voters across the country—not just in politically split battleground states—would elect the president scares the Republican Party and arch conservatives on so many levels. It would upend the way candidates and political parties and consultants now work to retain their power and influence. It would force presidential nominees and parties to campaign in more racially diverse states, more cities and suburbs, addressing those communities and their concerns.

“We need to kill it in the cradle before it grows up,” McConnell told a Heritage Foundation audience last December.

Right-wingers say these changes are terrible, and not just because they might empower Democrats and relegate the GOP as it now exists to history’s dustbin. But even worse, they say this is a constitutional coup because the founders’ great insight was that some branches of the government—such as the presidency and Senate—had to be set apart from the passions of majority opinion and the tyranny of mob rule.

Much More: Why the Right Wing Is Petrified of Letting Voters, Instead of the Electoral College, Pick Presidents | Election 2012 | AlterNet

No they're petrified of being ruled by a small urban voting block of nyc and la

Ask red county Ny and California how that worked out for them .....as jp morgan chase packs up and flees NYC for Texas

 

[Kat]

This thread was started in 2012. Closed. There are others.