Electoral College

[Pop23]

Just get rid of the EC. Most infrastructure if there is any is going to be done in the most populated states, NY and CA, and CA and NY pay the most in taxes.

Our votes are not equal, and this old way of doing things is not working today. The politicians get to redraw district and pick the EC in my state.

Wyoming doesn't really matter.

If Wyoming really doesn't really matter, neither do New York, or California.

Yes the 1/2 million in Wyoming should count as 1/2 million votes, not 625,000 votes to one vote in MI.

1 vote in Wy = about 625,000 votes in Mi. What is wrong with that picture, tell me how my vote counts. Tell the people in NY and CA (who pay the most in taxes) tell them how their vote counts.

The votes in Wyoming only count in Wyoming, the votes in California only count in California.

The winning person in those respective states get the electoral votes for those states.

Clinton got 2 million more votes in California than Trump?

Only matters in California.

Doesn't affect the vote in Wyoming, Utah, Ohio, or any other states.

Or do you believe only Blue states should have a voice?

Liberals need to keep changing the rules until they win all of the elections.

One , I'm not a liberal, I'm very conservative, and two, I want the elections to be fair and they are not.

They are entirely fair under a representative republic form of government.

But you want a democracy. Once you get rid of the most undemocratic part of our system, the Supreme Court, then we can talk.

 

[Pop23]

If Wyoming really doesn't really matter, neither do New York, or California.

Yes the 1/2 million in Wyoming should count as 1/2 million votes, not 625,000 votes to one vote in MI.

1 vote in Wy = about 625,000 votes in Mi. What is wrong with that picture, tell me how my vote counts. Tell the people in NY and CA (who pay the most in taxes) tell them how their vote counts.

The votes in Wyoming only count in Wyoming, the votes in California only count in California.

The winning person in those respective states get the electoral votes for those states.

Clinton got 2 million more votes in California than Trump?

Only matters in California.

Doesn't affect the vote in Wyoming, Utah, Ohio, or any other states.

Or do you believe only Blue states should have a voice?

I understand how it works, but it doesn't work well and votes are not equal. Wyoming and Vermont should have 1 EC , not 3. Cal should count more than Wy.

The EC has got to go.

Every state should have one vote.

Just like it would if it were to go to the House.

(psst, California does count more than Wyoming. California has 55, Wyoming only 3)

Votes in Ca count less than vote in Wy. the EC needs to go. Lets have a vote on it. Pop vote wins.

The will of the people? Then no need for a Supreme Court.

 

[OKTexas]

"Every vote in this country should have equal weight. The Electoral College is a relic of a bygone era, and we need to change this system," said Connecticut state Sen. Mae Flexer, who filed a bill with several fellow Democrats requiring Connecticut to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

Since 2006, 11 states have signed onto the compact, which require their Electoral College voters to cast ballots for the national popular vote winner. In theory it would take effect once it involves states representing at least 270 electoral votes, the threshold to win the presidency.

Just get rid of the EC. Most infrastructure if there is any is going to be done in the most populated states, NY and CA, and CA and NY pay the most in taxes.

Our votes are not equal, and this old way of doing things is not working today. The politicians get to redraw district and pick the EC in my state.

Wyoming doesn't really matter.

If Wyoming really doesn't really matter, neither do New York, or California.

Yes the 1/2 million in Wyoming should count as 1/2 million votes, not 625,000 votes to one vote in MI.

1 vote in Wy = about 625,000 votes in Mi. What is wrong with that picture, tell me how my vote counts. Tell the people in NY and CA (who pay the most in taxes) tell them how their vote counts.

The votes in Wyoming only count in Wyoming, the votes in California only count in California.

The winning person in those respective states get the electoral votes for those states.

Clinton got 2 million more votes in California than Trump?

Only matters in California.

Doesn't affect the vote in Wyoming, Utah, Ohio, or any other states.

Or do you believe only Blue states should have a voice?

I understand how it works, but it doesn't work well and votes are not equal. Wyoming and Vermont should have 1 EC , not 3. Cal should count more than Wy.

The EC has got to go.

Feel free to get right on that, all it takes is to get 75% of the States to abdicate their power to select the president. Good luck with that. And this little flim-flam some blue States are contemplating will never pass constitutional muster.

 

[candycorn]

I don’t see it going anywhere either. Why would the electors of a state care about the national outcome?

I saw one idea that we should move the electoral votes to the congressional districts and award the “bonus” 2 votes to the winner of the State popular vote. So if you have 10 electoral votes; you have 8 due to the # of reps in the house and 2 because of your senators. So if Candidate A wins Districts 2,3,4,5,8 and Candidate B wins 1, 6 and 7 but districts 1, 6 and 7 deliver a greater number of votes…you win the same number of votes as Candidate A; 5 and 5.

The only reason I like this is that it makes an audit of the vote easier. Statistically, there are many blue areas in which an audit of the vote should be done. If the Michigan recount showed us anything, it is that vote manipulation is alive and well.

How so?

Many of the blue precincts had more votes than voters. The entire precinct would have been voided.
Records: Too many votes in 37% of Detroit’s precincts

I was unaware of that. Makes you wonder what type of shenanigans are going on in Rural America where the good old boy network is alive and well.

 

[Pop23]

I don’t see it going anywhere either. Why would the electors of a state care about the national outcome?

I saw one idea that we should move the electoral votes to the congressional districts and award the “bonus” 2 votes to the winner of the State popular vote. So if you have 10 electoral votes; you have 8 due to the # of reps in the house and 2 because of your senators. So if Candidate A wins Districts 2,3,4,5,8 and Candidate B wins 1, 6 and 7 but districts 1, 6 and 7 deliver a greater number of votes…you win the same number of votes as Candidate A; 5 and 5.

The only reason I like this is that it makes an audit of the vote easier. Statistically, there are many blue areas in which an audit of the vote should be done. If the Michigan recount showed us anything, it is that vote manipulation is alive and well.

How so?

Many of the blue precincts had more votes than voters. The entire precinct would have been voided.
Records: Too many votes in 37% of Detroit’s precincts

I was unaware of that. Makes you wonder what type of shenanigans are going on in Rural America where the good old boy network is alive and well.

The "good old boy" network has not been caught. The blue boy network has.

Plus caught giving debate questions to the queen bee

And in California, during an election that was supposed to have low voter turnout, the Queen out voted Obamas 2008 and 2012 totals?

I got a bridge I could sell ya

 

[Montrovant]

If Wyoming really doesn't really matter, neither do New York, or California.

Yes the 1/2 million in Wyoming should count as 1/2 million votes, not 625,000 votes to one vote in MI.

1 vote in Wy = about 625,000 votes in Mi. What is wrong with that picture, tell me how my vote counts. Tell the people in NY and CA (who pay the most in taxes) tell them how their vote counts.

The votes in Wyoming only count in Wyoming, the votes in California only count in California.

The winning person in those respective states get the electoral votes for those states.

Clinton got 2 million more votes in California than Trump?

Only matters in California.

Doesn't affect the vote in Wyoming, Utah, Ohio, or any other states.

Or do you believe only Blue states should have a voice?

Liberals need to keep changing the rules until they win all of the elections.

One , I'm not a liberal, I'm very conservative, and two, I want the elections to be fair and they are not.

They are entirely fair under a representative republic form of government.

But you want a democracy. Once you get rid of the most undemocratic part of our system, the Supreme Court, then we can talk.

The way the president is elected is the determining factor in whether the country is representative or a democracy?

What makes you think we are not a representative democracy already (just not a direct democracy)?

 

[jc456]

More states consider working around the Electoral College

"In states including Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Ohio and New Mexico, legislators have said they plan to introduce legislation that would require their state's Electoral College voters cast ballots for the presidential candidate who earns the most votes nationwide, regardless of the statewide results."

These idiots want to ignore the will of the people of the state, and cast the electoral votes for the winner of the national popular vote?

"Hey, Nevada, what you want doesn't matter, you voted overwhelmingly for Smith, but the COUNTRY wants Jones. Tough luck"

"Hey, Ohio. doesn't matter if you voted 7-3 for Smith, California and New York voted 3-1 for Jones, so HE gets your electoral votes"

Mass stupidity, IMO.

Comments?
Thoughts?

Could you provide a link, especially to PA even discussing the subject? I have heard of no such discussion.

Read the link provided in the OP.

How's that evidence?

 

[Pop23]

Yes the 1/2 million in Wyoming should count as 1/2 million votes, not 625,000 votes to one vote in MI.

1 vote in Wy = about 625,000 votes in Mi. What is wrong with that picture, tell me how my vote counts. Tell the people in NY and CA (who pay the most in taxes) tell them how their vote counts.

The votes in Wyoming only count in Wyoming, the votes in California only count in California.

The winning person in those respective states get the electoral votes for those states.

Clinton got 2 million more votes in California than Trump?

Only matters in California.

Doesn't affect the vote in Wyoming, Utah, Ohio, or any other states.

Or do you believe only Blue states should have a voice?

Liberals need to keep changing the rules until they win all of the elections.

One , I'm not a liberal, I'm very conservative, and two, I want the elections to be fair and they are not.

They are entirely fair under a representative republic form of government.

But you want a democracy. Once you get rid of the most undemocratic part of our system, the Supreme Court, then we can talk.

The way the president is elected is the determining factor in whether the country is representative or a democracy?

What makes you think we are not a representative democracy already (just not a direct democracy)?

Democracy is a system.

Republic is a different system.

A democracy is a majority rule process. In a democracy there is no need for a constitution. It's made up as we go. Without a constitution there is no need for a Supreme Court.

A republic has a check and a balance to everything.

You want democracy. Then take it for what it is. Inherently evil.

 

[Montrovant]

The votes in Wyoming only count in Wyoming, the votes in California only count in California.

The winning person in those respective states get the electoral votes for those states.

Clinton got 2 million more votes in California than Trump?

Only matters in California.

Doesn't affect the vote in Wyoming, Utah, Ohio, or any other states.

Or do you believe only Blue states should have a voice?

Liberals need to keep changing the rules until they win all of the elections.

One , I'm not a liberal, I'm very conservative, and two, I want the elections to be fair and they are not.

They are entirely fair under a representative republic form of government.

But you want a democracy. Once you get rid of the most undemocratic part of our system, the Supreme Court, then we can talk.

The way the president is elected is the determining factor in whether the country is representative or a democracy?

What makes you think we are not a representative democracy already (just not a direct democracy)?

Democracy is a system.

Republic is a different system.

A democracy is a majority rule process. In a democracy there is no need for a constitution. It's made up as we go. Without a constitution there is no need for a Supreme Court.

A republic has a check and a balance to everything.

You want democracy. Then take it for what it is. Inherently evil.

It depends on how you define democracy and republic.

Using your definition, having the president elected by popular vote would not make us a democracy, as we would still legislate through representation. So, to get back to the point, why would you think that someone who wants to do away with the Electoral College wants a democracy?

 

[owebo]

Liberals need to keep changing the rules until they win all of the elections.

One , I'm not a liberal, I'm very conservative, and two, I want the elections to be fair and they are not.

They are entirely fair under a representative republic form of government.

But you want a democracy. Once you get rid of the most undemocratic part of our system, the Supreme Court, then we can talk.

The way the president is elected is the determining factor in whether the country is representative or a democracy?

What makes you think we are not a representative democracy already (just not a direct democracy)?

Democracy is a system.

Republic is a different system.

A democracy is a majority rule process. In a democracy there is no need for a constitution. It's made up as we go. Without a constitution there is no need for a Supreme Court.

A republic has a check and a balance to everything.

You want democracy. Then take it for what it is. Inherently evil.

It depends on how you define democracy and republic.

Using your definition, having the president elected by popular vote would not make us a democracy, as we would still legislate through representation. So, to get back to the point, why would you think that someone who wants to do away with the Electoral College wants a democracy?

Democracy is mob rule....which is why we are a republic...

 

[Montrovant]

One , I'm not a liberal, I'm very conservative, and two, I want the elections to be fair and they are not.

They are entirely fair under a representative republic form of government.

But you want a democracy. Once you get rid of the most undemocratic part of our system, the Supreme Court, then we can talk.

The way the president is elected is the determining factor in whether the country is representative or a democracy?

What makes you think we are not a representative democracy already (just not a direct democracy)?

Democracy is a system.

Republic is a different system.

A democracy is a majority rule process. In a democracy there is no need for a constitution. It's made up as we go. Without a constitution there is no need for a Supreme Court.

A republic has a check and a balance to everything.

You want democracy. Then take it for what it is. Inherently evil.

It depends on how you define democracy and republic.

Using your definition, having the president elected by popular vote would not make us a democracy, as we would still legislate through representation. So, to get back to the point, why would you think that someone who wants to do away with the Electoral College wants a democracy?

Democracy is mob rule....which is why we are a republic...

That's fine, but electing the president by popular vote would not make the country run by mob rule.

 

[sealybobo]

More states consider working around the Electoral College

"In states including Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Ohio and New Mexico, legislators have said they plan to introduce legislation that would require their state's Electoral College voters cast ballots for the presidential candidate who earns the most votes nationwide, regardless of the statewide results."

These idiots want to ignore the will of the people of the state, and cast the electoral votes for the winner of the national popular vote?

"Hey, Nevada, what you want doesn't matter, you voted overwhelmingly for Smith, but the COUNTRY wants Jones. Tough luck"

"Hey, Ohio. doesn't matter if you voted 7-3 for Smith, California and New York voted 3-1 for Jones, so HE gets your electoral votes"

Mass stupidity, IMO.

Comments?
Thoughts?

Why isn't California worth more? If there are that many people in Cali it should be worth more. The popular vote proves that the system is rigged.

 

[gipper]

More states consider working around the Electoral College

"In states including Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Ohio and New Mexico, legislators have said they plan to introduce legislation that would require their state's Electoral College voters cast ballots for the presidential candidate who earns the most votes nationwide, regardless of the statewide results."

These idiots want to ignore the will of the people of the state, and cast the electoral votes for the winner of the national popular vote?

"Hey, Nevada, what you want doesn't matter, you voted overwhelmingly for Smith, but the COUNTRY wants Jones. Tough luck"

"Hey, Ohio. doesn't matter if you voted 7-3 for Smith, California and New York voted 3-1 for Jones, so HE gets your electoral votes"

Mass stupidity, IMO.

Comments?
Thoughts?

Why isn't California worth more? If there are that many people in Cali it should be worth more. The popular vote proves that the system is rigged.

It is worth more dummy. Since it has the highest population, it also has the highest number of electoral votes.

Accept the fact that your party is now a the party of elitism and is a regional party.

 

[sealybobo]

More states consider working around the Electoral College

"In states including Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Ohio and New Mexico, legislators have said they plan to introduce legislation that would require their state's Electoral College voters cast ballots for the presidential candidate who earns the most votes nationwide, regardless of the statewide results."

These idiots want to ignore the will of the people of the state, and cast the electoral votes for the winner of the national popular vote?

"Hey, Nevada, what you want doesn't matter, you voted overwhelmingly for Smith, but the COUNTRY wants Jones. Tough luck"

"Hey, Ohio. doesn't matter if you voted 7-3 for Smith, California and New York voted 3-1 for Jones, so HE gets your electoral votes"

Mass stupidity, IMO.

Comments?
Thoughts?

Why isn't California worth more? If there are that many people in Cali it should be worth more. The popular vote proves that the system is rigged.

It is worth more dummy. Since it has the highest population, it also has the highest number of electoral votes.

Accept the fact that your party is now a the party of elitism and is a regional party.

It should be worth more than it is. When it gives us more votes it is clearly under represented

 

[gipper]

More states consider working around the Electoral College

"In states including Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Ohio and New Mexico, legislators have said they plan to introduce legislation that would require their state's Electoral College voters cast ballots for the presidential candidate who earns the most votes nationwide, regardless of the statewide results."

These idiots want to ignore the will of the people of the state, and cast the electoral votes for the winner of the national popular vote?

"Hey, Nevada, what you want doesn't matter, you voted overwhelmingly for Smith, but the COUNTRY wants Jones. Tough luck"

"Hey, Ohio. doesn't matter if you voted 7-3 for Smith, California and New York voted 3-1 for Jones, so HE gets your electoral votes"

Mass stupidity, IMO.

Comments?
Thoughts?

Why isn't California worth more? If there are that many people in Cali it should be worth more. The popular vote proves that the system is rigged.

It is worth more dummy. Since it has the highest population, it also has the highest number of electoral votes.

Accept the fact that your party is now a the party of elitism and is a regional party.

It should be worth more than it is. When it gives us more votes it is clearly under represented

Prove it.

CA has about 38M people and 55 EC votes.
TX has 26.5M people and 38 EC votes
NY has 19.5M people and 29 EC votes

See? EC votes are exactly proportional to population.

Did you flunk math class?

 

[sealybobo]

More states consider working around the Electoral College

"In states including Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Ohio and New Mexico, legislators have said they plan to introduce legislation that would require their state's Electoral College voters cast ballots for the presidential candidate who earns the most votes nationwide, regardless of the statewide results."

These idiots want to ignore the will of the people of the state, and cast the electoral votes for the winner of the national popular vote?

"Hey, Nevada, what you want doesn't matter, you voted overwhelmingly for Smith, but the COUNTRY wants Jones. Tough luck"

"Hey, Ohio. doesn't matter if you voted 7-3 for Smith, California and New York voted 3-1 for Jones, so HE gets your electoral votes"

Mass stupidity, IMO.

Comments?
Thoughts?

Why isn't California worth more? If there are that many people in Cali it should be worth more. The popular vote proves that the system is rigged.

It is worth more dummy. Since it has the highest population, it also has the highest number of electoral votes.

Accept the fact that your party is now a the party of elitism and is a regional party.

It should be worth more than it is. When it gives us more votes it is clearly under represented

Prove it.

CA has about 38M people and 55 EC votes.
TX has 26.5M people and 38 EC votes
NY has 19.5M people and 29 EC votes

See? EC votes are exactly proportional to population.

Did you flunk math class?

Somethings wrong when we get more votes in two recent elections but lose.

Yes I'm bad at math but very observant.

 

[sealybobo]

More states consider working around the Electoral College

"In states including Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Ohio and New Mexico, legislators have said they plan to introduce legislation that would require their state's Electoral College voters cast ballots for the presidential candidate who earns the most votes nationwide, regardless of the statewide results."

These idiots want to ignore the will of the people of the state, and cast the electoral votes for the winner of the national popular vote?

"Hey, Nevada, what you want doesn't matter, you voted overwhelmingly for Smith, but the COUNTRY wants Jones. Tough luck"

"Hey, Ohio. doesn't matter if you voted 7-3 for Smith, California and New York voted 3-1 for Jones, so HE gets your electoral votes"

Mass stupidity, IMO.

Comments?
Thoughts?

Why isn't California worth more? If there are that many people in Cali it should be worth more. The popular vote proves that the system is rigged.

It is worth more dummy. Since it has the highest population, it also has the highest number of electoral votes.

Accept the fact that your party is now a the party of elitism and is a regional party.

It should be worth more than it is. When it gives us more votes it is clearly under represented

Prove it.

CA has about 38M people and 55 EC votes.
TX has 26.5M people and 38 EC votes
NY has 19.5M people and 29 EC votes

See? EC votes are exactly proportional to population.

Did you flunk math class?

I think Michigan lost electoral votes recently after the bush great recession. 750,000 people left Detroit. I think we need to recalculate and no gerimandering.

 

[gipper]

More states consider working around the Electoral College

"In states including Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Ohio and New Mexico, legislators have said they plan to introduce legislation that would require their state's Electoral College voters cast ballots for the presidential candidate who earns the most votes nationwide, regardless of the statewide results."

These idiots want to ignore the will of the people of the state, and cast the electoral votes for the winner of the national popular vote?

"Hey, Nevada, what you want doesn't matter, you voted overwhelmingly for Smith, but the COUNTRY wants Jones. Tough luck"

"Hey, Ohio. doesn't matter if you voted 7-3 for Smith, California and New York voted 3-1 for Jones, so HE gets your electoral votes"

Mass stupidity, IMO.

Comments?
Thoughts?

Why isn't California worth more? If there are that many people in Cali it should be worth more. The popular vote proves that the system is rigged.

It is worth more dummy. Since it has the highest population, it also has the highest number of electoral votes.

Accept the fact that your party is now a the party of elitism and is a regional party.

It should be worth more than it is. When it gives us more votes it is clearly under represented

Prove it.

CA has about 38M people and 55 EC votes.
TX has 26.5M people and 38 EC votes
NY has 19.5M people and 29 EC votes

See? EC votes are exactly proportional to population.

Did you flunk math class?

Somethings wrong when we get more votes in two recent elections but lose.

Yes I'm bad at math but very observant.

Just take my word for it. There is NOTHING WRONG.

 

[gipper]

More states consider working around the Electoral College

"In states including Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Ohio and New Mexico, legislators have said they plan to introduce legislation that would require their state's Electoral College voters cast ballots for the presidential candidate who earns the most votes nationwide, regardless of the statewide results."

These idiots want to ignore the will of the people of the state, and cast the electoral votes for the winner of the national popular vote?

"Hey, Nevada, what you want doesn't matter, you voted overwhelmingly for Smith, but the COUNTRY wants Jones. Tough luck"

"Hey, Ohio. doesn't matter if you voted 7-3 for Smith, California and New York voted 3-1 for Jones, so HE gets your electoral votes"

Mass stupidity, IMO.

Comments?
Thoughts?

Why isn't California worth more? If there are that many people in Cali it should be worth more. The popular vote proves that the system is rigged.

It is worth more dummy. Since it has the highest population, it also has the highest number of electoral votes.

Accept the fact that your party is now a the party of elitism and is a regional party.

It should be worth more than it is. When it gives us more votes it is clearly under represented

Prove it.

CA has about 38M people and 55 EC votes.
TX has 26.5M people and 38 EC votes
NY has 19.5M people and 29 EC votes

See? EC votes are exactly proportional to population.

Did you flunk math class?

I think Michigan lost electoral votes recently after the bush great recession. 750,000 people left Detroit. I think we need to recalculate and no gerimandering.

What? You really are terribly uninformed.

Michigan had 20 EC votes in 1960, 21 in 1980, 18 in 2000, and now 16. You clearly do not understand how EC votes are proportioned.

 

[sealybobo]

Why isn't California worth more? If there are that many people in Cali it should be worth more. The popular vote proves that the system is rigged.

It is worth more dummy. Since it has the highest population, it also has the highest number of electoral votes.

Accept the fact that your party is now a the party of elitism and is a regional party.

It should be worth more than it is. When it gives us more votes it is clearly under represented

Prove it.

CA has about 38M people and 55 EC votes.
TX has 26.5M people and 38 EC votes
NY has 19.5M people and 29 EC votes

See? EC votes are exactly proportional to population.

Did you flunk math class?

I think Michigan lost electoral votes recently after the bush great recession. 750,000 people left Detroit. I think we need to recalculate and no gerimandering.

What? You really are terribly uninformed.

Michigan had 20 EC votes in 1960, 21 in 1980, 18 in 2000, and now 16. You clearly do not understand how EC votes are proportioned.

I told you we lost 2!