Electoral College. Just why?

[mvymvy]

Since 1824 there have been 16 presidential elections in which a candidate was elected or reelected without gaining a majority of the popular vote.-- including Lincoln (1860), Wilson (1912 and 1916), Truman (1948), Kennedy (1960), Nixon (1968), and Clinton (1992 and 1996).

You need to tell whoever updates the propaganda on your website that they are behind the times.

What is outdated?

Bush, 2000.
Funny you do not know that.

I said:
"Since 1824 there have been 16 presidential elections in which a candidate was elected or reelected without gaining a majority of the popular vote.-- including Lincoln (1860), Wilson (1912 and 1916), Truman (1948), Kennedy (1960), Nixon (1968), and Clinton (1992 and 1996)."
"including" meant I would mention just some of them, as I did. I noted eight. It was not a complete listing.

You mean you copied the examples from some website, the authors of which either did not know the 2000 election fit into the category or did not feel the need to update the inforation once it happened.

No. The "16" includes 2000. The statement and number is up-to-date.
Nothing I said is outdated.

 

[Spare_change]

You need to tell whoever updates the propaganda on your website that they are behind the times.

What is outdated?

Bush, 2000.
Funny you do not know that.

I said:
"Since 1824 there have been 16 presidential elections in which a candidate was elected or reelected without gaining a majority of the popular vote.-- including Lincoln (1860), Wilson (1912 and 1916), Truman (1948), Kennedy (1960), Nixon (1968), and Clinton (1992 and 1996)."
"including" meant I would mention just some of them, as I did. I noted eight. It was not a complete listing.

You mean you copied the examples from some website, the authors of which either did not know the 2000 election fit into the category or did not feel the need to update the inforation once it happened.

No. The "16" includes 2000. The statement and number is up-to-date.
Nothing I said is outdated.

Nope ... just intellectually wrong and politically ridiculous.

But, hey .... we all need our own life preserver.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Which would be a mob rule, a democracy with no representation for the minority.

National Popular Vote has NOTHING TO DO with pure democracy.
Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all policy initiatives directly.
With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government

The National Popular Vote bill would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the "mob" in the current handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, while the "mobs" of the vast majority of states are ignored.

9 states determined the 2012 election.

Analysts already say that only the 2016 winner of Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire is not a foregone conclusion. So less than a handful of states again will dominate and determine the presidential general election.

10 of the original 13 states are politically irrelevant in presidential campaigns now. They aren’t polled or visited.

None of the 10 most rural states matter

24 of the 27 lowest population states, that are non-competitive are ignored, in presidential elections.

4 out of 5 Americans were ignored in the 2012 presidential election. After being nominated, Obama visited just eight closely divided battleground states, and Romney visited only 10. These 10 states accounted for 98% of the $940 million spent on campaign advertising.

Candidates do not bother to advertise or organize in 80% of the states.

The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,991 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 17 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome.
The electors are and will be dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).

Okay...

Here is a map of the travels of the candidates after their parties conventions:

Here is a map of the campaign money spent:

And Romney:

The only thing that seems to be different about your system is that LA, NY, and CHI, and Houston will see advertising dollars instead of Reno, Jacksonville, all of Wisconsin, IA, CO, Nevada, NH, or Maine.

Again, why would you visit Nevada in your system if you're a candidate?

Because every voter, everywhere would be equal and matter to each candidate.

The political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows, is that when and where every voter is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

That ignores reality. When millions of voters are gathered in one place, it's a heck of a lot easier to campaign to them then when they are spread out over large areas. Take away the EC and all the campaigning goes to the big cities.

I lived in rural places in large states (Texas). Its not as if the governor spent a lot of time in Odessa or Amarillo.

The reality is that they already appeal to the masses when they can

Well, they only have so much time to work with, to be fair. The question is really less whether or not candidates visit certain places, than whether or not they address the concerns of the people who live there in their policies. If candidates were elected solely by the people in large urban areas, the policies of the US would be tailored solely to favor the concerns of people in those areas.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The United States is the only country that elects a politically powerful president via an electoral college and the only one in which a candidate can become president without having obtained the highest number of votes in the sole or final round of popular voting.
—George C. Edwards, 2011

Why do we need to stick to outdated legislation when it comes to one of the most important political decisions in the life of the whole country? Why not popular vote? We believe in equality and democracy but for some reason let somebody decide the fate of of this country for us.

Well you are entitled to your opinion and you are not alone but this is a pure legalism and for better or worse the founders decided to do it this way in the constitution. And you would have to amend the constitution to change it but the amendment would require the approval of a lot of the states that are protected by the electoral college which arguably gives greater say to the smaller states and that is why they wont allow a change. do away with it and presidential campaigns would be concentrated in the large population centers while ignoring most of the rest of the country. so its great to criticize but it sint going to change

Anyone who supports the current presidential election system, believing it is what the Founders intended and that it is in the Constitution, is mistaken. The current presidential election system does not function, at all, the way that the Founders thought that it would.

The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.

The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution, and enacting National Popular Vote would not need an amendment. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, were eventually enacted by 48 states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.

National Popular Vote is based on Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives each state legislature the right to decide how to appoint its own electors.Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states:
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes, and thus the presidency, to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by replacing state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes in the enacting states.

Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.

In 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions after Mitt Romney became the presumptive Republican nominee on April 11. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined.

Voters in states that are reliably red or blue don't matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.

The indefensible reality is that more than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the only ten competitive states in 2012. Within those states the big cities do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida. In the 4 states that accounted for over two-thirds of all general-election activity in the 2012 presidential election, rural areas, suburbs, exurbs, and cities all received attention—roughly in proportion to their population.

The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states, including polling, organizing, and ad spending) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every voter is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

NationalPopularVote.com

Is anyone else immensely tired of this dork's cut-and-paste parroting of talking points?

 

[|electric|foxy|]

 

[hadit]

National Popular Vote has NOTHING TO DO with pure democracy.
Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all policy initiatives directly.
With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government

The National Popular Vote bill would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the "mob" in the current handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, while the "mobs" of the vast majority of states are ignored.

9 states determined the 2012 election.

Analysts already say that only the 2016 winner of Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire is not a foregone conclusion. So less than a handful of states again will dominate and determine the presidential general election.

10 of the original 13 states are politically irrelevant in presidential campaigns now. They aren’t polled or visited.

None of the 10 most rural states matter

24 of the 27 lowest population states, that are non-competitive are ignored, in presidential elections.

4 out of 5 Americans were ignored in the 2012 presidential election. After being nominated, Obama visited just eight closely divided battleground states, and Romney visited only 10. These 10 states accounted for 98% of the $940 million spent on campaign advertising.

Candidates do not bother to advertise or organize in 80% of the states.

The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,991 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 17 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome.
The electors are and will be dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).

Okay...

Here is a map of the travels of the candidates after their parties conventions:

Here is a map of the campaign money spent:

And Romney:

The only thing that seems to be different about your system is that LA, NY, and CHI, and Houston will see advertising dollars instead of Reno, Jacksonville, all of Wisconsin, IA, CO, Nevada, NH, or Maine.

Again, why would you visit Nevada in your system if you're a candidate?

Because every voter, everywhere would be equal and matter to each candidate.

The political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows, is that when and where every voter is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

That ignores reality. When millions of voters are gathered in one place, it's a heck of a lot easier to campaign to them then when they are spread out over large areas. Take away the EC and all the campaigning goes to the big cities.

I lived in rural places in large states (Texas). Its not as if the governor spent a lot of time in Odessa or Amarillo.

The reality is that they already appeal to the masses when they can

Well, they only have so much time to work with, to be fair. The question is really less whether or not candidates visit certain places, than whether or not they address the concerns of the people who live there in their policies. If candidates were elected solely by the people in large urban areas, the policies of the US would be tailored solely to favor the concerns of people in those areas.

Exactly.

 

[hadit]

The United States is the only country that elects a politically powerful president via an electoral college and the only one in which a candidate can become president without having obtained the highest number of votes in the sole or final round of popular voting.
—George C. Edwards, 2011

Why do we need to stick to outdated legislation when it comes to one of the most important political decisions in the life of the whole country? Why not popular vote? We believe in equality and democracy but for some reason let somebody decide the fate of of this country for us.

Well you are entitled to your opinion and you are not alone but this is a pure legalism and for better or worse the founders decided to do it this way in the constitution. And you would have to amend the constitution to change it but the amendment would require the approval of a lot of the states that are protected by the electoral college which arguably gives greater say to the smaller states and that is why they wont allow a change. do away with it and presidential campaigns would be concentrated in the large population centers while ignoring most of the rest of the country. so its great to criticize but it sint going to change

Anyone who supports the current presidential election system, believing it is what the Founders intended and that it is in the Constitution, is mistaken. The current presidential election system does not function, at all, the way that the Founders thought that it would.

The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.

The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution, and enacting National Popular Vote would not need an amendment. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, were eventually enacted by 48 states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.

National Popular Vote is based on Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives each state legislature the right to decide how to appoint its own electors.Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states:
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes, and thus the presidency, to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by replacing state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes in the enacting states.

Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.

In 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions after Mitt Romney became the presumptive Republican nominee on April 11. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined.

Voters in states that are reliably red or blue don't matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.

The indefensible reality is that more than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the only ten competitive states in 2012. Within those states the big cities do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida. In the 4 states that accounted for over two-thirds of all general-election activity in the 2012 presidential election, rural areas, suburbs, exurbs, and cities all received attention—roughly in proportion to their population.

The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states, including polling, organizing, and ad spending) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every voter is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

NationalPopularVote.com

Is anyone else immensely tired of this dork's cut-and-paste parroting of talking points?

Yup. Especially the pointless repetition.

 

[imawhosure]

It appears that all someone is trying to do here is------>take more power from the states, and move it to Washington! What people seem to not understand is---->the constitution was set up to make the states powerful, not weak. Many states have their own particular problem, and Presidential candidates must address them if they want to win their electoral votes. Theoretically under popular vote, a candidate could win every state in the union by 100,000 votes, and lose the election because he/she won California big. Makes a whole lot of sense to me.

Here is a better idea........how about we split electoral votes by the % of the popular vote that each candidate gets in the state? Now you will hear every liberal on here complain, because they just lost the slam dunk they get from California and New York!

 

[regent]

It appears that all someone is trying to do here is------>take more power from the states, and move it to Washington! What people seem to not understand is---->the constitution was set up to make the states powerful, not weak. Many states have their own particular problem, and Presidential candidates must address them if they want to win their electoral votes. Theoretically under popular vote, a candidate could win every state in the union by 100,000 votes, and lose the election because he/she won California big. Makes a whole lot of sense to me.

Here is a better idea........how about we split electoral votes by the % of the popular vote that each candidate gets in the state? Now you will hear every liberal on here complain, because they just lost the slam dunk they get from California and New York!

The Constitution took tremendous powers from the states and awarded them to the new national government.

 

[candycorn]

It appears that all someone is trying to do here is------>take more power from the states, and move it to Washington! What people seem to not understand is---->the constitution was set up to make the states powerful, not weak. Many states have their own particular problem, and Presidential candidates must address them if they want to win their electoral votes. Theoretically under popular vote, a candidate could win every state in the union by 100,000 votes, and lose the election because he/she won California big. Makes a whole lot of sense to me.

Here is a better idea........how about we split electoral votes by the % of the popular vote that each candidate gets in the state? Now you will hear every liberal on here complain, because they just lost the slam dunk they get from California and New York!

Not necessarily. If you get 40% in Orange County or LA County vs, 80% in Medicino County, you will likely get 80-95% of the Electoral votes....

But yeah, the large blocks the GOP, for some reason, happily lets go will be gone.

More or less however it won't be the liberals crowing about it; it will be the small states that will get bypassed altogether.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It appears that all someone is trying to do here is------>take more power from the states, and move it to Washington! What people seem to not understand is---->the constitution was set up to make the states powerful, not weak. Many states have their own particular problem, and Presidential candidates must address them if they want to win their electoral votes. Theoretically under popular vote, a candidate could win every state in the union by 100,000 votes, and lose the election because he/she won California big. Makes a whole lot of sense to me.

Here is a better idea........how about we split electoral votes by the % of the popular vote that each candidate gets in the state? Now you will hear every liberal on here complain, because they just lost the slam dunk they get from California and New York!

The Constitution took tremendous powers from the states and awarded them to the new national government.

Not exactly.

The Americans of the Founding Generation wisely created a National government and Federal Constitution to safeguard the liberties of all citizens, regardless their states of residence; the Federal government, its laws, and the rulings of Federal courts were made supreme at the behest of the people, who sought a relationship with their National government absent interference by the states.

 

[Spare_change]

It appears that all someone is trying to do here is------>take more power from the states, and move it to Washington! What people seem to not understand is---->the constitution was set up to make the states powerful, not weak. Many states have their own particular problem, and Presidential candidates must address them if they want to win their electoral votes. Theoretically under popular vote, a candidate could win every state in the union by 100,000 votes, and lose the election because he/she won California big. Makes a whole lot of sense to me.

Here is a better idea........how about we split electoral votes by the % of the popular vote that each candidate gets in the state? Now you will hear every liberal on here complain, because they just lost the slam dunk they get from California and New York!

The Constitution took tremendous powers from the states and awarded them to the new national government.

Guess you never read it, huh?

 

[TooTall]

It appears that all someone is trying to do here is------>take more power from the states, and move it to Washington! What people seem to not understand is---->the constitution was set up to make the states powerful, not weak. Many states have their own particular problem, and Presidential candidates must address them if they want to win their electoral votes. Theoretically under popular vote, a candidate could win every state in the union by 100,000 votes, and lose the election because he/she won California big. Makes a whole lot of sense to me.

Here is a better idea........how about we split electoral votes by the % of the popular vote that each candidate gets in the state? Now you will hear every liberal on here complain, because they just lost the slam dunk they get from California and New York!

The Constitution took tremendous powers from the states and awarded them to the new national government.

You need to read the Tenth Amendment and then eat your words.

 

[dcraelin]

Because we're a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy - and thankfully so.

Because the Constitution guarantees the states a republican form of government.

Popular election of the chief executive does not determine whether a government is a republic or democracy. At the time of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island conducted popular elections for Governor. If popular election of a state’s chief executive meant that these four states were not a “republic,” then all four would have been in immediate violation of the Constitution’s Guarantee Clause (“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”). If the states were not “republics,” the delegates from these four states would not have voted for the Constitution at the Convention and these four states would never have ratified the Constitution.

Madison’s definition of a “republic” in Federalist No. 14: “in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents.” Also Federalist No. 10.

The United States would be neither more nor less a “republic” if its chief executive is elected under the current state-by-state winner-take-all method (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each separate state), under a district system (such as used by Maine and Nebraska), or under the proposed national popular vote system (in which the winner would be the candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia).

No one ever said the EC 'makes' the United States a Constitutional Republic; the United States is a Constitutional Republic because that was the Framers' intent, to wisely eschew a direct democracy and referenda and opt for representative democracy where the people are subject solely to the rule of law, not the tyranny of the majority:

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government...” Article VI, Section 4, US Constitution.

The EC, therefore, reflects the Framers' intent to create a Republic, where the EC is consistent with a republican form of government, as guaranteed by the Constitution, ensuring the states equal and full participation when electing a president.

Wow, this is very coherent and well-stated.

Did someone hack your account?

no it isnt...California is way way more equal than the rest based on the way things are done....and the small eastern states have relatively too much power also...it means the fly-over states get screwed.

And basing elections strictly on a majority in a popular vote would improve that how?

Thats not what I'm proposing

 

[dcraelin]

One Person, One Vote.

Except when electing the President.
Then, its 1 person = 0 votes.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

With National Popular Vote, every voter in every state would equal 1 vote.
The winner of the most national popular votes would win the presidency.

Which would be a mob rule, a democracy with no representation for the minority.

the minority have no say now ...unless yo mean the filthy rich minority.

 

[dcraelin]

One Person, One Vote.

Except when electing the President.
Then, its 1 person = 0 votes.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

With National Popular Vote, every voter in every state would equal 1 vote.
The winner of the most national popular votes would win the presidency.

Which would be a mob rule, a democracy with no representation for the minority.

National Popular Vote has NOTHING TO DO with pure democracy.
Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all policy initiatives directly.
With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government

The National Popular Vote bill would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the "mob" in the current handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, while the "mobs" of the vast majority of states are ignored.

9 states determined the 2012 election.

Analysts already say that only the 2016 winner of Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire is not a foregone conclusion. So less than a handful of states again will dominate and determine the presidential general election.

10 of the original 13 states are politically irrelevant in presidential campaigns now. They aren’t polled or visited.

None of the 10 most rural states matter

24 of the 27 lowest population states, that are non-competitive are ignored, in presidential elections.

4 out of 5 Americans were ignored in the 2012 presidential election. After being nominated, Obama visited just eight closely divided battleground states, and Romney visited only 10. These 10 states accounted for 98% of the $940 million spent on campaign advertising.

Candidates do not bother to advertise or organize in 80% of the states.

The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,991 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 17 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome.
The electors are and will be dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).

I never said one word about a pure Democracy.
Getting rid of the electoral college vote cancels out the rural minority votes in our nation and makes just the larger cities voices heard, which is a form of democracy and not a representative republic.

Democracy = Republicanism...see my picture gallery fro evidence

 

[peach174]

One Person, One Vote.

Except when electing the President.
Then, its 1 person = 0 votes.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

With National Popular Vote, every voter in every state would equal 1 vote.
The winner of the most national popular votes would win the presidency.

Which would be a mob rule, a democracy with no representation for the minority.

the minority have no say now ...unless yo mean the filthy rich minority.

And if the EC is removed then it will be none at all.

 

[dcraelin]

One Person, One Vote.

Except when electing the President.
Then, its 1 person = 0 votes.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

With National Popular Vote, every voter in every state would equal 1 vote.
The winner of the most national popular votes would win the presidency.

Which would be a mob rule, a democracy with no representation for the minority.

the minority have no say now ...unless yo mean the filthy rich minority.

And if the EC is removed then it will be none at all.

Well Im not for totally removing the EC....but the idea that it somehow gives representation to the minority, as set up now, is pure bunk.

 

[peach174]

Except when electing the President.
Then, its 1 person = 0 votes.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

With National Popular Vote, every voter in every state would equal 1 vote.
The winner of the most national popular votes would win the presidency.

Which would be a mob rule, a democracy with no representation for the minority.

the minority have no say now ...unless yo mean the filthy rich minority.

And if the EC is removed then it will be none at all.

Well Im not for totally removing the EC....but the idea that it somehow gives representation to the minority, as set up now, is pure bunk.

Don't take my word for it, do some research on it yourself.
There are too many in this nation who do not understand it at all.

 

[dcraelin]

With National Popular Vote, every voter in every state would equal 1 vote.
The winner of the most national popular votes would win the presidency.

Which would be a mob rule, a democracy with no representation for the minority.

the minority have no say now ...unless yo mean the filthy rich minority.

And if the EC is removed then it will be none at all.

Well Im not for totally removing the EC....but the idea that it somehow gives representation to the minority, as set up now, is pure bunk.

Don't take my word for it, do some research on it yourself.
There are too many in this nation who do not understand it at all.

someone above gave some pretty interesting stats on how "battleground" states get more federal largess....and those aren't the flyover states....