why we need electoral college:Los Angeles county is home to more people than each of these 41 states

[The Derp]

I have rarely seen anything as intrinsically worthless as the post above. All democracies today, with very few exceptions, are led by minority parties, relying instead on coalitions. The entire point is that the US is no worse than the European parliamentary system where a party with as little as 20% of the electorate can elect a prime minister.

Well, those countries have multiple parties forming coalitions, not two like here. We don't have a Parliamentary Democracy because we don't vote that way. Personally, I think a Parliamentary Democracy is the way to go...where people vote for the political parties' platform instead of a specific candidate, and representation in Parliament is determined by your share of the overall vote. That does away with the need to have Congressional Districts. The House instead will have its seats divided up based on the parties' share of the total vote. And then a President or Prime Minister is chosen by a majority coalition of parties. I like that idea a lot better and it also totally removes the incentives special interests and wealthy donors have.

 

[Meathead]

State law has nothing to do with it but states' rights have everything to do with it. Most of the arguments against the EC are founded on complete ignorance of American history and specifically why states agreed to join the union.

So this post is just a flood of jabberwocky nonsense.

States' Rights have nothing to do with the Electoral College. The rules governing the electoral college were written at a time when commerce didn't routinely happen across state borders, instantaneous communication was smoke signals, carrier pigeons, or men on horseback, and fast travel was two months it took to go from Boston to Georgia in a horse-drawn carriage.

You don't cure cancer with leeches, so why do you apply 18th century thinking to government?

Give it up Derp. You are way out of your league in so many ways. You have little better than some convoluted rationale of centralized economies, smoke signals and horse-drawn carriages and leeches to support what you cannot possibly fathom.

Move on and pick your fights based on things you might have a tenuous inkling instead,

 

[The Derp]

Give it up Derp. You are way out of your league in so many ways. You have little better than some convoluted rationale of centralized economies, smoke signals and horse-drawn carriages and leeches to support what you cannot possibly fathom.

Well, for one, it's clear you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

For two, you cannot even address the argument I'm making because you're a propagandist and they haven't covered that in your training yet.

For three, it makes little sense in this day and age to operate under 18th century thinking when we live in a 21st century world.

You wouldn't treat your cancer with leeches, so do you apply 18th century thinking to other aspects of your life or just politics? Do you use carrier pigeons instead of e-mail? Do you travel via horseback instead of by plane? Do you play with a hoop-and-stick for entertainment or do you watch TV and movies?

Other than government, what parts of your life do you subject to 18th century thinking?

Move on and pick your fights based on things you might have a tenuous inkling instead,

Stop using words you don't understand to make shitty points no one cares about.

 

[Meathead]

Give it up Derp. You are way out of your league in so many ways. You have little better than some convoluted rationale of centralized economies, smoke signals and horse-drawn carriages and leeches to support what you cannot possibly fathom.

Well, for one, it's clear you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

For two, you cannot even address the argument I'm making because you're a propagandist and they haven't covered that in your training yet.

For three, it makes little sense in this day and age to operate under 18th century thinking when we live in a 21st century world.

You wouldn't treat your cancer with leeches, so do you apply 18th century thinking to other aspects of your life or just politics? Do you use carrier pigeons instead of e-mail? Do you travel via horseback instead of by plane? Do you play with a hoop-and-stick for entertainment or do you watch TV and movies?

Other than government, what parts of your life do you subject to 18th century thinking?

Move on and pick your fights based on things you might have a tenuous inkling instead,

Stop using words you don't understand to make shitty points no one cares about.

Sorry derp, you have nothing except some incongruous and scattered bites you keep trying to coalesce into a cohesive argument. I've been around far too long to entertain any validity into such puniness.

Be well.

 

[HappyJoy]

why we need electoral college:Los Angeles county is home to more people than each of these 41 states

One person, one vote. People vote - not acres. Or, are acres now people, too? That would make humans competing with corporations and acres.

Only in the world's most advanced democracy can one gather fewer votes and yet win.

And it is telling that some posters on this thread hold their fellow Americans in such disdain. Are they arguing there is a "real America" and a "contemptible America" existing side by side?

As for me, I'll take the places with universities, concert halls, museums and art galleries. The places with major sports franchises and restaurants and cosmopolitan outlooks. They can keep the soy bean fields, the cattle ranches and the trailer parks.

I'm happy so many of you love to be crammed together like sardines in polluted crime infested cities. Makes life so much more enjoyable for the rest of us to spend a quite morning watching the sunrise.

Where is that? Looks like Napa.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I have rarely seen anything as intrinsically worthless as the post above. All democracies today, with very few exceptions, are led by minority parties, relying instead on coalitions. The entire point is that the US is no worse than the European parliamentary system where a party with as little as 20% of the electorate can elect a prime minister.

Well, those countries have multiple parties forming coalitions, not two like here. We don't have a Parliamentary Democracy because we don't vote that way. Personally, I think a Parliamentary Democracy is the way to go...where people vote for the political parties' platform instead of a specific candidate, and representation in Parliament is determined by your share of the overall vote. That does away with the need to have Congressional Districts. The House instead will have its seats divided up based on the parties' share of the total vote. And then a President or Prime Minister is chosen by a majority coalition of parties. I like that idea a lot better and it also totally removes the incentives special interests and wealthy donors have.

The idea that individual Congressmen and women go in and vote with their conscience is a good one, however the reality in the modern era is that often their conscience is sold to the highest bidder.

Multiple parties is better, then people are more likely to understand what each party stands for.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Enough already, the founding fathers voiced their concerns and fears long ago, the system is just, works, and nothing has changed other than politics as usual.

But it doesn't work.

Only 12 states get to vote for the US President, that's 20% of the people. That is not under my definition of "it works".

Congress is being sold to the highest bidders. Partisan politics is destroying everything.

People vote negatively and don't have choice of who they vote for a certainly don't have politicians trying to represent their concerns because two parties for 330 million people is not enough. In much smaller countries they'll have at least 6 parties representing different views in parliament.

 

[frigidweirdo]

`
`
I have no problem with the Electoral College and neither did the democrats, until Hillary got beat.

Democratic winning presidents have always won the popular vote along with winning the electoral college....

The Republican presidents as of late, not so much...and that's when it's the issue...when a president doesn't even come close to winning the popular vote of the people yet wins the presidency through the electoral college only...and not by its citizen's choice too or even close to its citizen's choice too....

And it makes sense for there to be discontent among citizens, when that happens....imo

Great. This is a republic, not a democracy. Not sure why you advocate for mob rule.

Do you know what the long term consequences Are?


Take the time from your disappointment from last November and consider it.

Still have no clue how a person that claims to follow Christ could possibly vote for the Clintons.

We are a democratic Republic, which does not mean we allow the minority rule over the majority, but that we give the minority a shot, to be heard.

Only a PURE Democracy allows the majority to always win, and the people vote on every issue to decide....

THERE ARE NO pure democracies anywhere in the whole world....

But there are lots of different kinds of Democracies among all the Nation's in the world that are not PURE Democracies and the USA is one of them.

Also all 50 state govts are Democracies

The thing is, take Germany, nobody wins. The CDU has been head of a coalition for quite a while now, but they NEVER gained 50% of the seats in the Bundestag. They never "won". They could implement some of their policies in coalition with other parties who would also get some of their policies in place, and over a period of time quite a few parties have managed to get their policies implemented and it all WORKS.

You don't need pure Democracy. You need CHOICE.

It's funny, one person on here, call RayofCleveland say "choice is freedom" and then I told him about PR being choice and he hated it. That's the American way I guess. Say whatever to convince people of one point, and turn around and reject it all them next minute.

 

[frigidweirdo]

State law has nothing to do with it but states' rights have everything to do with it. Most of the arguments against the EC are founded on complete ignorance of American history and specifically why states agreed to join the union.

So this post is just a flood of jabberwocky nonsense.

States' Rights have nothing to do with the Electoral College. The rules governing the electoral college were written at a time when commerce didn't routinely happen across state borders, instantaneous communication was smoke signals, carrier pigeons, or men on horseback, and fast travel was two months it took to go from Boston to Georgia in a horse-drawn carriage.

You don't cure cancer with leeches, so why do you apply 18th century thinking to government?

Yes, it's funny they go on about states' rights.

Only 12 states get to decide the Presidential election. Only 12 states get money spent on them and attention from presidential candidates.

Of those 12 states only 3 of them are in the bottom 50% of population figures. The rest are larger states. Wyoming has the best voting power in the union and no one gives a damn about Wyoming.

PR would actually make smaller states stronger.

 

[rightwinger]

rta potty on a hot summer day.

Crime is very low, Central Park is a beautiful park with lots of trees
Street are clean and well maintained

Guiliani cleaned up the tourist districts alright. Go to Bed-Sty.[/QUOTE]
Better yet...go to Harlem

 

[rightwinger]

why we need electoral college:Los Angeles county is home to more people than each of these 41 states

One person, one vote. People vote - not acres. Or, are acres now people, too? That would make humans competing with corporations and acres.

Only in the world's most advanced democracy can one gather fewer votes and yet win.

And it is telling that some posters on this thread hold their fellow Americans in such disdain. Are they arguing there is a "real America" and a "contemptible America" existing side by side?

As for me, I'll take the places with universities, concert halls, museums and art galleries. The places with major sports franchises and restaurants and cosmopolitan outlooks. They can keep the soy bean fields, the cattle ranches and the trailer parks.

Oooohhhh--you really messed that one up with your final sentence. You can't eat without them. Be very, very grateful for them.

I wrote that as a response to folks who love to post maps of the United,States after elections. Huge swaths of the nation are depicted in red while blue shows up on the coasts and as isolated dots where there are major cities and/or college towns.

All that red, yet nobody lives there! There are more people in Brooklyn than there are in North Dakota. Yet North Dakota shows up as a mass of red in the central northern part of the map while Brooklyn shows up like the period at the end of this sentence.

So you don't realize that is the exact reason that we have an Electoral College?

The reason was to convince lowly populated states to join the union by bribing them with unwarranted political power

 

[Pogo]

Actually, I've heard arguments and seen petitions for eliminating the Electoral College for years. It happens every time there is an election.I think we could do away with it, because it is just plain nonsense that if you live in a certain place you will automatically vote a certain way. That's just the Republicans being afraid of wasting all the gerrymandering efforts they went through in order to get an edge on the elections, is what I hear. Every other election in this country is now one-human-one-vote and we certainly have the technology and logistical capability to do it without any problem.

`
`
Again, let me reiterate; outside of fringe element types, the EC was NEVER a national issue, until Hillary lost.

And let me reiterate, it's been a problem since before James Madison called for a Constitutional Amendment making WTA illegal.

 

[Pogo]

I have rarely seen anything as intrinsically worthless as the post above. All democracies today, with very few exceptions, are led by minority parties, relying instead on coalitions. The entire point is that the US is no worse than the European parliamentary system where a party with as little as 20% of the electorate can elect a prime minister.

Well, those countries have multiple parties forming coalitions, not two like here. We don't have a Parliamentary Democracy because we don't vote that way. Personally, I think a Parliamentary Democracy is the way to go...where people vote for the political parties' platform instead of a specific candidate, and representation in Parliament is determined by your share of the overall vote. That does away with the need to have Congressional Districts. The House instead will have its seats divided up based on the parties' share of the total vote. And then a President or Prime Minister is chosen by a majority coalition of parties. I like that idea a lot better and it also totally removes the incentives special interests and wealthy donors have.

Multiple parties --- anything beyond the entrenched Duopoly --- are an impossibility here.

And the Electrical College is a prime force that ensures it stays that way. And that's just one of the big arguments against it.

 

[Care4all]

`
`
I have no problem with the Electoral College and neither did the democrats, until Hillary got beat.

Democratic winning presidents have always won the popular vote along with winning the electoral college....

The Republican presidents as of late, not so much...and that's when it's the issue...when a president doesn't even come close to winning the popular vote of the people yet wins the presidency through the electoral college only...and not by its citizen's choice too or even close to its citizen's choice too....

And it makes sense for there to be discontent among citizens, when that happens....imo

Great. This is a republic, not a democracy. Not sure why you advocate for mob rule.

Do you know what the long term consequences Are?


Take the time from your disappointment from last November and consider it.

Still have no clue how a person that claims to follow Christ could possibly vote for the Clintons.

We are a democratic Republic, which does not mean we allow the minority rule over the majority, but that we give the minority a shot, to be heard.

Only a PURE Democracy allows the majority to always win, and the people vote on every issue to decide....

THERE ARE NO pure democracies anywhere in the whole world....

But there are lots of different kinds of Democracies among all the Nation's in the world that are not PURE Democracies and the USA is one of them.

Also all 50 state govts are Democracies

I have rarely seen anything as intrinsically worthless as the post above. All democracies today, with very few exceptions, are led by minority parties, relying instead on coalitions.

The entire point is that the US is no worse than the European parliamentary system where a party with as little as 20% of the electorate can elect a prime minister.

So you agree with me and not theowl, we ARE a democracy....

 

[Care4all]

Actually, I've heard arguments and seen petitions for eliminating the Electoral College for years. It happens every time there is an election.I think we could do away with it, because it is just plain nonsense that if you live in a certain place you will automatically vote a certain way. That's just the Republicans being afraid of wasting all the gerrymandering efforts they went through in order to get an edge on the elections, is what I hear. Every other election in this country is now one-human-one-vote and we certainly have the technology and logistical capability to do it without any problem.

`
`
Again, let me reiterate; outside of fringe element types, the EC was NEVER a national issue, until Hillary lost.

That's not true, it was an issue with the BUSH vs GORE contested election in 2000....Al Gore won the popular vote by 500,000..... You were probably a child, thus the reason you don't remember....

It has only happened 4 times in our entire history, and two of them in my lifetime....which is 2, too many

It's just so easy and intellectually lazy of you to blame your boogeyman Hillary....

 

[Issa]

If ever there was an argument for the Electoral College... this may be it.

We are more productive than most of those states. We are also diverse and accepting.
We are not affected by trumps racism, we have illegals who are decent people that came here to better their lives. Leave us alone.

The rest of the country is leaving you assholes alone. Check out the stats on the number of businesses/people AKA$$$$$$$$$$!!!!!!! leaving your shithole.
Whenever the subject of the EC is brought up a good question is: What do you think the people in the small states would think if the EC was removed?

I live here, we make more than most states....We drive expensive cars....we live in perfect weather and we are enjoying our lives. We don't hate on nobody and we don't car what a miserable racist red neck think of us.

 

[NoNukes]

`
`
I have no problem with the Electoral College and neither did the democrats, until Hillary got beat.

Do you not remember Bush's victory? A Republican has not won the Presidency with the popular vote for quite some time.

2004 was sooooooooooo long ago! With Ohbummer in office in the middle, it was not that long since we only have elections every 4

Idiot!

Democratic winning presidents have always won the popular vote along with winning the electoral college....

The Republican presidents as of late, not so much...and that's when it's the issue...when a president doesn't even come close to winning the popular vote of the people yet wins the presidency through the electoral college only...and not by its citizen's choice too or even close to its citizen's choice too....

And it makes sense for there to be discontent among citizens, when that happens....imo

Democrats all reside in very few states. Imagine if the Senate was like the House and based on population by political parties. The Democrats would have about 40 votes. You libs should be thankful that the Senate is as close as it is, or you would become irrelevant.

the problem with the electoral college is the States changed the way they count electoral votes from the original way they were used by our founding fathers....

the Political parties in power, changed their States so that no one or near no one in any of the independent parties can garner any electoral votes, because the states decided to make laws to protect the big two parties within the State.....and made their electoral college votes for the State, as winner takes all electoral votes....

As example, Ross Perot garnered 20 MILLION votes but the way the parties set it up within the states, he got ZERO electoral votes.

THIS IS THE OPPOSITE of what our founding fathers created with the electoral college and Madison's and Adam's intent.....

Also the only electoral advantage of smaller states was suppose to be the 2 extra electors each state was given for their 2 senators....just like in the Senate, small states have equal voice as the largest states because all get just 2 senators.... the advantage given to small states was only suppose to be these two electors given for their two senators.

It's the way the parties manipulated the electoral college in each state, that makes the system not work in allowing the best and the brightest have a chance, becuase of this winner take all electors crud.

Don't like it? Change your state laws or move to Nebraska or Maine.

State law has nothing to do with it but states' rights have everything to do with it. Most of the arguments against the EC are founded on complete ignorance of American history and specifically why states agreed to join the union.

State laws determine how electoral votes are won by the candidates. Nebraska and Maine use Congressional district winners to award their electoral votes. The popular vote winner gets 2 votes and the winner in each district can get the others.

I was talking about 2000. You are the idiot.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

`
`
I have no problem with the Electoral College and neither did the democrats, until Hillary got beat.

Do you not remember Bush's victory? A Republican has not won the Presidency with the popular vote for quite some time.

2004 was sooooooooooo long ago! With Ohbummer in office in the middle, it was not that long since we only have elections every 4

Idiot!

Democrats all reside in very few states. Imagine if the Senate was like the House and based on population by political parties. The Democrats would have about 40 votes. You libs should be thankful that the Senate is as close as it is, or you would become irrelevant.

the problem with the electoral college is the States changed the way they count electoral votes from the original way they were used by our founding fathers....

the Political parties in power, changed their States so that no one or near no one in any of the independent parties can garner any electoral votes, because the states decided to make laws to protect the big two parties within the State.....and made their electoral college votes for the State, as winner takes all electoral votes....

As example, Ross Perot garnered 20 MILLION votes but the way the parties set it up within the states, he got ZERO electoral votes.

THIS IS THE OPPOSITE of what our founding fathers created with the electoral college and Madison's and Adam's intent.....

Also the only electoral advantage of smaller states was suppose to be the 2 extra electors each state was given for their 2 senators....just like in the Senate, small states have equal voice as the largest states because all get just 2 senators.... the advantage given to small states was only suppose to be these two electors given for their two senators.

It's the way the parties manipulated the electoral college in each state, that makes the system not work in allowing the best and the brightest have a chance, becuase of this winner take all electors crud.

Don't like it? Change your state laws or move to Nebraska or Maine.

State law has nothing to do with it but states' rights have everything to do with it. Most of the arguments against the EC are founded on complete ignorance of American history and specifically why states agreed to join the union.

State laws determine how electoral votes are won by the candidates. Nebraska and Maine use Congressional district winners to award their electoral votes. The popular vote winner gets 2 votes and the winner in each district can get the others.

I was talking about 2000. You are the idiot.

In 2004, George W Bush beat Kerry with wins in the Electoral College and the popular vote. Had Kerry won Ohio, he would have been President and Dems would have never complained about the EC again!

 

[NoNukes]

`
`
I have no problem with the Electoral College and neither did the democrats, until Hillary got beat.

Do you not remember Bush's victory? A Republican has not won the Presidency with the popular vote for quite some time.

2004 was sooooooooooo long ago! With Ohbummer in office in the middle, it was not that long since we only have elections every 4

Idiot!

the problem with the electoral college is the States changed the way they count electoral votes from the original way they were used by our founding fathers....

the Political parties in power, changed their States so that no one or near no one in any of the independent parties can garner any electoral votes, because the states decided to make laws to protect the big two parties within the State.....and made their electoral college votes for the State, as winner takes all electoral votes....

As example, Ross Perot garnered 20 MILLION votes but the way the parties set it up within the states, he got ZERO electoral votes.

THIS IS THE OPPOSITE of what our founding fathers created with the electoral college and Madison's and Adam's intent.....

Also the only electoral advantage of smaller states was suppose to be the 2 extra electors each state was given for their 2 senators....just like in the Senate, small states have equal voice as the largest states because all get just 2 senators.... the advantage given to small states was only suppose to be these two electors given for their two senators.

It's the way the parties manipulated the electoral college in each state, that makes the system not work in allowing the best and the brightest have a chance, becuase of this winner take all electors crud.

Don't like it? Change your state laws or move to Nebraska or Maine.

State law has nothing to do with it but states' rights have everything to do with it. Most of the arguments against the EC are founded on complete ignorance of American history and specifically why states agreed to join the union.

State laws determine how electoral votes are won by the candidates. Nebraska and Maine use Congressional district winners to award their electoral votes. The popular vote winner gets 2 votes and the winner in each district can get the others.

I was talking about 2000. You are the idiot.

In 2004, George W Bush beat Kerry with wins in the Electoral College and the popular vote. Had Kerry won Ohio, he would have been President and Dems would have never complained about the EC again!

Bush would not have been involved in this election if he had not won 2000 because of the electoral college. Is this so hard for you to understand>

 

[BrokeLoser]

If ever there was an argument for the Electoral College... this may be it.

We are more productive than most of those states. We are also diverse and accepting.
We are not affected by trumps racism, we have illegals who are decent people that came here to better their lives. Leave us alone.

The rest of the country is leaving you assholes alone. Check out the stats on the number of businesses/people AKA$$$$$$$$$$!!!!!!! leaving your shithole.
Whenever the subject of the EC is brought up a good question is: What do you think the people in the small states would think if the EC was removed?

I live here, we make more than most states....We drive expensive cars....we live in perfect weather and we are enjoying our lives. We don't hate on nobody and we don't car what a miserable racist red neck think of us.

When you say "we" are you referring to the high iQ tech folks of Silicon Valley, the wack-jobs of Hollyweird and a few others that make the spread sheet look good?
It doesn't matter how many times you make your retarded proclamation...it won't become truth or fact....everyone knows that Mexifornia is full of low iQ, disgusting Mexicans...that's why it's become such a shithole on paper and otherwise. A Mexifornia without all the filthy wetbacks is a nicer, safer, more productive CALIFORNIA....this isn't an opinion, the data proves it...Here are some of those things you hate...FACTS!

CA=12% of the nations population...33% of the nations welfare recipients
CA=20.6% of residents live in poverty, the highest rate in the nation
CA=Home to more illegals than any other state...coincidence?
CA=Crime rates off the charts
CA=Home to more incarcerated than any other state
Any questions?