Candycorn's Idea for Changing the Way We Elect Candidates For President.

[Nuthin' Fancy]

You really pretending to be too retarded to understand the obvious meaning?

So, it's fine for governors, senators and Congress people?

Immigrants from the shitty third world, who are now here, voting, with American paperwork but with shitty third world cultures and politics.

Sure..........LOL.
You're delusional.

So, of course, almost exclusively voting for dems. Which is poison for this great nation and it's people.


What part of that did you not understand? Or were you just spamming shit talk, to buy time while you tried to think of... someway to sleaze out of this conversation?

YOU.

You haven't called me racist yet. Standard Response One for leftards. Just a suggestion.

I don't have to, moron.

Get rid of your dear leader's wife and the couch fuckers wife,

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Looks quite peaceful doesnt it How about some de crat funded ICE riots
View attachment 1188159
View attachment 1188160
View attachment 1188161

Why on earth would you think that is peaceful?

Why would you post it, if it was?

 

[Hafar1014]

Why on earth would you think that is peaceful?

Why would you post it, if it was?

You missed the point

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I think we need to revamp the system by which we elect Presidents.

First and foremost we need to change the number of electoral votes to an odd number. Having the possibility of a tie (269 to 269) is just stupid.

Secondly, we need to expand the requirements to become President Elect from a simple majority of the electoral college (currently 270) to also include a plurality of the popular vote (more votes than anyone else on the ballot nationwide). In this day and age, the will of the people can be known well before the mid-December deadline. If there is a disagreement between the electoral college winner and the popular vote winner, the parameters of the 12 amendment kick in to decide who is the President-elect.

Lastly, the scheduling of state primaries to award delegates is mind bogglingly idiotic. Iowa or South Carolina, New Hampshire, Nevada…these 3 states get to weed out a very high percentage of candidates before larger populations get to weigh in on their efficacy. What I propose is not one super Tuesday but five of them involving 9-11 states each.

On the 2nd Tuesday in January, February, March, April and May have 9-11 states go to the polls at once. Have the 2nd Tuesday in June as a stand-by in case there are states who couldn’t hold the elections on schedule due to blizzards, tropical storms, etc… Just as an example… (remember this is for the primaries)

January: ME, NH, MA, CT, RI, NY, NJ, PA, DE

February: WA, CA, OR, HI, AK, AZ, NV, ID, UT, MT, WY, NM

March: FL, GA, SC, NC, MD, VA, WVA, KY, TN, AL, MS

April: TX, AR, OK, CO, KS, NE, ND, SD, LA,

May; IL, MN, WI, MI, OH, IN, IA, MO,

States with over 10M in population are listed in bold. You spread out the votes between urban and rural, between large cities and small towns, between industrial and agrarian, between coastal (when you can) and landlocked. Candidates no longer have to jump through hoops to please a single demographic and can play to their strengths.

Ridiculous

 

[Correll]

No, that's you, your cult and your dear leader.

View attachment 1188158

No, it's you people. With your anti-American beleifs and behavior.

YOu are scum of the earth anti-Americans.

 

[Darkwind]

I think we need to revamp the system by which we elect Presidents.

First and foremost we need to change the number of electoral votes to an odd number. Having the possibility of a tie (269 to 269) is just stupid.

Secondly, we need to expand the requirements to become President Elect from a simple majority of the electoral college (currently 270) to also include a plurality of the popular vote (more votes than anyone else on the ballot nationwide). In this day and age, the will of the people can be known well before the mid-December deadline. If there is a disagreement between the electoral college winner and the popular vote winner, the parameters of the 12 amendment kick in to decide who is the President-elect.

Lastly, the scheduling of state primaries to award delegates is mind bogglingly idiotic. Iowa or South Carolina, New Hampshire, Nevada…these 3 states get to weed out a very high percentage of candidates before larger populations get to weigh in on their efficacy. What I propose is not one super Tuesday but five of them involving 9-11 states each.

On the 2nd Tuesday in January, February, March, April and May have 9-11 states go to the polls at once. Have the 2nd Tuesday in June as a stand-by in case there are states who couldn’t hold the elections on schedule due to blizzards, tropical storms, etc… Just as an example… (remember this is for the primaries)

January: ME, NH, MA, CT, RI, NY, NJ, PA, DE

February: WA, CA, OR, HI, AK, AZ, NV, ID, UT, MT, WY, NM

March: FL, GA, SC, NC, MD, VA, WVA, KY, TN, AL, MS

April: TX, AR, OK, CO, KS, NE, ND, SD, LA,

May; IL, MN, WI, MI, OH, IN, IA, MO,

States with over 10M in population are listed in bold. You spread out the votes between urban and rural, between large cities and small towns, between industrial and agrarian, between coastal (when you can) and landlocked. Candidates no longer have to jump through hoops to please a single demographic and can play to their strengths.

Okay, I'm sober now and can reply.



No!

There you go.

 

[Correll]

So, it's fine for governors, senators and Congress people?

Sure..........LOL.
You're delusional.

YOU.

I don't have to, moron.

Get rid of your dear leader's wife and the couch fuckers wife,

I see that you have expressed... something....

My point stands. YOu want more weight for the third world voters that have foolishly been allowed to migrate here.


That's just you lefards wanting to make America into a third world shithole, so that your side can rule like a one party state.


Filthy anti-American scum.

 

[Captain Caveman]

The nation isn't "flooded with foreigners"...you've been brainwashed

You're incredibly moronic.

As of January 2025, immigrants make up approximately 15.8% of the total U.S. population, which is a record high. This figure includes legal permanent residents, naturalized citizens, and those residing in the U.S. without authorization.

 

[jotathought]

I think we need to revamp the system by which we elect Presidents.

First and foremost we need to change the number of electoral votes to an odd number. Having the possibility of a tie (269 to 269) is just stupid.

Secondly, we need to expand the requirements to become President Elect from a simple majority of the electoral college (currently 270) to also include a plurality of the popular vote (more votes than anyone else on the ballot nationwide). In this day and age, the will of the people can be known well before the mid-December deadline. If there is a disagreement between the electoral college winner and the popular vote winner, the parameters of the 12 amendment kick in to decide who is the President-elect.

Lastly, the scheduling of state primaries to award delegates is mind bogglingly idiotic. Iowa or South Carolina, New Hampshire, Nevada…these 3 states get to weed out a very high percentage of candidates before larger populations get to weigh in on their efficacy. What I propose is not one super Tuesday but five of them involving 9-11 states each.

On the 2nd Tuesday in January, February, March, April and May have 9-11 states go to the polls at once. Have the 2nd Tuesday in June as a stand-by in case there are states who couldn’t hold the elections on schedule due to blizzards, tropical storms, etc… Just as an example… (remember this is for the primaries)

January: ME, NH, MA, CT, RI, NY, NJ, PA, DE

February: WA, CA, OR, HI, AK, AZ, NV, ID, UT, MT, WY, NM

March: FL, GA, SC, NC, MD, VA, WVA, KY, TN, AL, MS

April: TX, AR, OK, CO, KS, NE, ND, SD, LA,

May; IL, MN, WI, MI, OH, IN, IA, MO,

States with over 10M in population are listed in bold. You spread out the votes between urban and rural, between large cities and small towns, between industrial and agrarian, between coastal (when you can) and landlocked. Candidates no longer have to jump through hoops to please a single demographic and can play to their strengths.

I appreciate the time and thought you’ve put into this — it’s rare to see someone outline reform ideas this clearly. That said, I have a different perspective. The Electoral College wasn’t designed to be “efficient” or “modern.” It was designed to balance federalism and democracy — ensuring that a few urban centers didn’t drown out the voices of smaller, less populous states. The Founders understood the danger of pure majority rule and crafted a republic that preserves both popular input and state sovereignty.

On your first point about making the total number of electoral votes odd:
The system already has a built-in constitutional safeguard: if there’s a tie, the election goes to the House of Representatives. Ties are rare, and when they occur, the process ensures each state still has an equal vote, preserving the balance the Framers intended. So while an even number may look “awkward” on paper, it isn’t a flaw — it’s a feature of checks and balances.

On expanding the requirement to include a popular-vote plurality:
This would fundamentally change the structure of our republic. A nationwide popular vote does not choose the president for a reason: the Founders didn’t want large population centers like California, New York, or Texas to dictate the outcome for the entire nation. The Electoral College ensures that candidates must build broad, cross-state coalitions rather than catering to a handful of metropolitan areas. That’s what gives the system its legitimacy — every state matters, not just every headcount.

On your idea for restructuring the primary calendar:
You raise a fair point — the current primary system is messy and gives a few early states outsized influence. But that’s not a problem created by the Electoral College; that’s a function of how political parties, not the Constitution, manage their nomination processes. Parties can already adjust their primary calendars without any constitutional amendment. So reforming that process doesn’t require overhauling how we elect presidents.

In short:
The Electoral College is one of the most misunderstood — yet most brilliant — mechanisms of our constitutional system. It forces candidates to appeal to diverse regions, not just dense populations. It prevents mob rule, preserves state identity, and strengthens the union by balancing national and local interests. The system isn’t outdated; it’s timeless in principle.

As Madison, Hamilton, and the other Framers knew, pure democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner. The Electoral College ensures the sheep still have a say.

 

[Crepitus]

I think we need to revamp the system by which we elect Presidents.

First and foremost we need to change the number of electoral votes to an odd number. Having the possibility of a tie (269 to 269) is just stupid.

Secondly, we need to expand the requirements to become President Elect from a simple majority of the electoral college (currently 270) to also include a plurality of the popular vote (more votes than anyone else on the ballot nationwide). In this day and age, the will of the people can be known well before the mid-December deadline. If there is a disagreement between the electoral college winner and the popular vote winner, the parameters of the 12 amendment kick in to decide who is the President-elect.

Lastly, the scheduling of state primaries to award delegates is mind bogglingly idiotic. Iowa or South Carolina, New Hampshire, Nevada…these 3 states get to weed out a very high percentage of candidates before larger populations get to weigh in on their efficacy. What I propose is not one super Tuesday but five of them involving 9-11 states each.

On the 2nd Tuesday in January, February, March, April and May have 9-11 states go to the polls at once. Have the 2nd Tuesday in June as a stand-by in case there are states who couldn’t hold the elections on schedule due to blizzards, tropical storms, etc… Just as an example… (remember this is for the primaries)

January: ME, NH, MA, CT, RI, NY, NJ, PA, DE

February: WA, CA, OR, HI, AK, AZ, NV, ID, UT, MT, WY, NM

March: FL, GA, SC, NC, MD, VA, WVA, KY, TN, AL, MS

April: TX, AR, OK, CO, KS, NE, ND, SD, LA,

May; IL, MN, WI, MI, OH, IN, IA, MO,

States with over 10M in population are listed in bold. You spread out the votes between urban and rural, between large cities and small towns, between industrial and agrarian, between coastal (when you can) and landlocked. Candidates no longer have to jump through hoops to please a single demographic and can play to their strengths.

Proportioned delegates rather than winner takes all.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

No, it's you people. With your anti-American beleifs and behavior.

You're FOS, TRAITOR.

Who tried to overthrow an election?
Trump and his stupid, gullible cult.

Who is trying to overthrow the next one?

Trump on Texas redistricting: 'We are entitled to 5 more seats'​

Politico
https://www.politico.com › news › 2025/08/05 › trump...
Aug 5, 2025 — Democrats are trying to block the redraw in the state by denying the state legislature a quorum.

YOu are scum of the earth anti-Americans.

That you, your dear leader and his treasonous, gas lighting cult.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

I appreciate the time and thought you’ve put into this — it’s rare to see someone outline reform ideas this clearly. That said, I have a different perspective. The Electoral College wasn’t designed to be “efficient” or “modern.” It was designed to balance federalism and democracy — ensuring that a few urban centers didn’t drown out the voices of smaller, less populous states. The Founders understood the danger of pure majority rule and crafted a republic that preserves both popular input and state sovereignty.

On your first point about making the total number of electoral votes odd:
The system already has a built-in constitutional safeguard: if there’s a tie, the election goes to the House of Representatives. Ties are rare, and when they occur, the process ensures each state still has an equal vote, preserving the balance the Framers intended. So while an even number may look “awkward” on paper, it isn’t a flaw — it’s a feature of checks and balances.

On expanding the requirement to include a popular-vote plurality:
This would fundamentally change the structure of our republic. A nationwide popular vote does not choose the president for a reason: the Founders didn’t want large population centers like California, New York, or Texas to dictate the outcome for the entire nation. The Electoral College ensures that candidates must build broad, cross-state coalitions rather than catering to a handful of metropolitan areas. That’s what gives the system its legitimacy — every state matters, not just every headcount.

On your idea for restructuring the primary calendar:
You raise a fair point — the current primary system is messy and gives a few early states outsized influence. But that’s not a problem created by the Electoral College; that’s a function of how political parties, not the Constitution, manage their nomination processes. Parties can already adjust their primary calendars without any constitutional amendment. So reforming that process doesn’t require overhauling how we elect presidents.

In short:
The Electoral College is one of the most misunderstood — yet most brilliant — mechanisms of our constitutional system. It forces candidates to appeal to diverse regions, not just dense populations. It prevents mob rule, preserves state identity, and strengthens the union by balancing national and local interests. The system isn’t outdated; it’s timeless in principle.

As Madison, Hamilton, and the other Framers knew, pure democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner. The Electoral College ensures the sheep still have a say.

Then why didn't they use the same electoral college system, for governors, senators or congress people?

 

[candycorn]

Yes, there is a reason. If we went to a straight national democracy in electing the president, the candidates would care only about New York, California, and Illinois - ironically, the blue states with the most illegals and crime - and focus his or her attention there, ignoring the needs and interests of the rest of the country.

We would be a nation ruled by Chicago, NY, LA, and SF - the same cities that allow violent criminals to roam the streets, fight for illegal lowlifes to remain here, and indoctrinate their students into hating the very values that made America great. Is this what you really want?

That isn’t my plan.

 

[candycorn]

Ridiculous

Ok.

 

[candycorn]

Okay, I'm sober now and can reply.



No!

There you go.

Ok. Any particular reason why? Having an even number of electors invites a tie in a two party system…..

 

[candycorn]

I appreciate the time and thought you’ve put into this — it’s rare to see someone outline reform ideas this clearly. That said, I have a different perspective. The Electoral College wasn’t designed to be “efficient” or “modern.” It was designed to balance federalism and democracy — ensuring that a few urban centers didn’t drown out the voices of smaller, less populous states. The Founders understood the danger of pure majority rule and crafted a republic that preserves both popular input and state sovereignty.

On your first point about making the total number of electoral votes odd:
The system already has a built-in constitutional safeguard: if there’s a tie, the election goes to the House of Representatives. Ties are rare, and when they occur, the process ensures each state still has an equal vote, preserving the balance the Framers intended. So while an even number may look “awkward” on paper, it isn’t a flaw — it’s a feature of checks and balances.

On expanding the requirement to include a popular-vote plurality:
This would fundamentally change the structure of our republic. A nationwide popular vote does not choose the president for a reason: the Founders didn’t want large population centers like California, New York, or Texas to dictate the outcome for the entire nation. The Electoral College ensures that candidates must build broad, cross-state coalitions rather than catering to a handful of metropolitan areas. That’s what gives the system its legitimacy — every state matters, not just every headcount.

On your idea for restructuring the primary calendar:
You raise a fair point — the current primary system is messy and gives a few early states outsized influence. But that’s not a problem created by the Electoral College; that’s a function of how political parties, not the Constitution, manage their nomination processes. Parties can already adjust their primary calendars without any constitutional amendment. So reforming that process doesn’t require overhauling how we elect presidents.

In short:
The Electoral College is one of the most misunderstood — yet most brilliant — mechanisms of our constitutional system. It forces candidates to appeal to diverse regions, not just dense populations. It prevents mob rule, preserves state identity, and strengthens the union by balancing national and local interests. The system isn’t outdated; it’s timeless in principle.

As Madison, Hamilton, and the other Framers knew, pure democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner. The Electoral College ensures the sheep still have a say.

The “sheep” as you put it have much more of a say when they can have their votes counted. In the current system they don’t so turnout is abysmal.

I agree that if the question was direct election by the people vs the EC, I would prefer we stick to the EC. My plan is the best of both worlds because candidates would still have to get a majority of electoral votes to win.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Ok.

If only real life were this easy

 

[Hafar1014]

As of January 2025, immigrants make up approximately 15.8% of the total U.S. population, which is a record high. This figure includes legal permanent residents, naturalized citizens, and those residing in the U.S. without authorization.

The good news is that there are less every day.

 

[Captain Caveman]

That isn’t my plan.

Thicko.

 

[BS Filter]

Oh bullshit. Of the states with 10M+ (there are 10 of them), the blob won 7 of them.

Again it was just my idea to bring some sanity and uniformity to the electoral process. I understand that some are not going to agree.

The process has worked very well for 250 years.