Electoral College

[Toddsterpatriot]

It is comforting to know that no matter how liberals feel, the EC will never be eliminated. If it means that much to you, go the civil war route.

Why? Congress will remove him if he does not wise up, or SCOTUS will if the Russians are proven to interfere with hacking on his behalf.

And if not, then the courts and Congress will have their way with him, as well as the great majority of Americans and SNL.

It will be fun.

or SCOTUS will if the Russians are proven to interfere with hacking on his behalf.

Why would the Supreme Court remove Trump if the proof of Hillary's and the DNC's corruption came from Russians hacking as opposed to anti-government anarchists or pissed off Bernie supporter hackers?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Trump lost the PV vote by eleven million votes.

Fact.

The majority of Americans certainly don't want him, and he does done nothing to change their minds.

Fact.

Trump lost the PV vote by eleven million votes.

And he won the EV by 77 votes, 304-227

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Trump lost the PV vote by eleven million votes.

Fact.

The majority of Americans certainly don't want him, and he does done nothing to change their minds.

Fact.

Trump lost the PV vote by eleven million votes.

And he won the EV by 77 votes, 304-227

That also means Hillary lost the Popular vote by 8 million votes.

 

[Pogo]

Doublethink --- ^^ alive and well.

Over your head, I understand. It's okay.

I only wish it were over my head, since ignorance is as they say, bliss.

But your crocodile tears over Big Gummint ring hollow when you're advocating for states to steamroll the individual's vote in similar fashion. Worse, in fact.

That is not advocating for states to steamroll anything at all. By that standard (and has already been pointed out to you) if we held a popular vote for the president and the winner took office with 55% of the vote it would be big government steamrolling over 45% of the voters who cast a vote for the other guy.

The state itself has an election and then backs the winner.

----- which is steamrolling all its own people who didn't vote that way.

My state's Electors told Congress that the entire state voted for Rump. That's absolute bullshit. Were our 15 EVs allocated according to how the state actually DID vote they would cast 8 for Rump and 7 for Clinton. Because that was the reality.

If it is such a good idea to allocate electors based on the popular vote, why are their only two states out of 50 that use a form of that method?

Excellent question. And a correction, the two states (Maine and Nebraska) don't allocate proportional to their vote; they allocate by Congressional district. That's been proposed and is marginally better than caving in to intrastate "mob rule", and perhaps if Districts were drawn in anything remotely resembling fair and objective representation as opposed to being gerrymandered into oblivion, that would be an equitable system. But thanks to said gerrymandering that ship sailed a long time ago.

The reason the other 48 do it is, again, mob mentality. One state took it on as a selfish way to boost its "native son" candidate. Then the next state figured "duh, we better do that too", and it snowballed. Kind of like the idea that the answer to a gun battle is to bring in more guns -- it just escalates. In the term of some other posters who have no clue how ironic they're being, it's "mob rule".

That's why we have all these cockamamie "winner take all" monstrosities. Everybody caved in to mob mentality, and now nobody has the balls to abandon it for fear of giving up some of their artificial clout. Pure every-state-for-himself mentality.

When you have a bunch of states each out to preserve itself and to hell with everybody else, you have a house divided.

 

[EverCurious]

Yep, Maine and Nebraska follow what Madison had suggested. Any state in the union is free to do so as well. They choose not to.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Trump lost the PV vote by eleven million votes.

Fact.

The majority of Americans certainly don't want him, and he does done nothing to change their minds.

Fact.

Trump lost the PV vote by eleven million votes.

And he won the EV by 77 votes, 304-227

That changes nothing. He can be removed, and enough senators will vote for it if the house impeaches.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Trump lost the PV vote by eleven million votes.

Fact.

The majority of Americans certainly don't want him, and he does done nothing to change their minds.

Fact.

Trump lost the PV vote by eleven million votes.

And he won the EV by 77 votes, 304-227

That also means Hillary lost the Popular vote by 8 million votes.

That is part of the point that the Far Right and Alt Right fail to put with Trump getting even fewer votes.

Trump is hated more than Clinton.

 

[TooTall]

Over your head, I understand. It's okay.

I only wish it were over my head, since ignorance is as they say, bliss.

But your crocodile tears over Big Gummint ring hollow when you're advocating for states to steamroll the individual's vote in similar fashion. Worse, in fact.

That is not advocating for states to steamroll anything at all. By that standard (and has already been pointed out to you) if we held a popular vote for the president and the winner took office with 55% of the vote it would be big government steamrolling over 45% of the voters who cast a vote for the other guy.

The state itself has an election and then backs the winner.

----- which is steamrolling all its own people who didn't vote that way.

My state's Electors told Congress that the entire state voted for Rump. That's absolute bullshit. Were our 15 EVs allocated according to how the state actually DID vote they would cast 8 for Rump and 7 for Clinton. Because that was the reality.

If it is such a good idea to allocate electors based on the popular vote, why are their only two states out of 50 that use a form of that method?

Excellent question. And a correction, the two states (Maine and Nebraska) don't allocate proportional to their vote; they allocate by Congressional district. That's been proposed and is marginally better than caving in to intrastate "mob rule", and perhaps if Districts were drawn in anything remotely resembling fair and objective representation as opposed to being gerrymandered into oblivion, that would be an equitable system. But thanks to said gerrymandering that ship sailed a long time ago.

The reason the other 48 do it is, again, mob mentality. One state took it on as a selfish way to boost its "native son" candidate. Then the next state figured "duh, we better do that too", and it snowballed. Kind of like the idea that the answer to a gun battle is to bring in more guns -- it just escalates. In the term of some other posters who have no clue how ironic they're being, it's "mob rule".

That's why we have all these cockamamie "winner take all" monstrosities. Everybody caved in to mob mentality, and now nobody has the balls to abandon it for fear of giving up some of their artificial clout. Pure every-state-for-himself mentality.

When you have a bunch of states each out to preserve itself and to hell with everybody else, you have a house divided.

I didn't need correcting asswipe. This is what I posted. "why are their only two states out of 50 that use a form of that method?"

You maintain that 48 states are eat up with the dumbass and are all afraid to change their method of selecting electors. Excuse me while I LMFAO.

 

[Pogo]

You maintain that 48 states are eat up with the dumbass and are all afraid to change their method of selecting electors

If this were in English I'd actually agree with it.

 

[TooTall]

You maintain that 48 states are eat up with the dumbass and are all afraid to change their method of selecting electors

If this were in English I'd actually agree with it.

Try Websters dictionary if there are any English words that are beyond your comprehension.

 

[Pogo]

You maintain that 48 states are eat up with the dumbass and are all afraid to change their method of selecting electors

If this were in English I'd actually agree with it.

Try Websters dictionary if there are any English words that are beyond your comprehension.

Sorry but "are eat up with the dumbass" returns no results. Should I try Tagalog?

 

[TooTall]

You maintain that 48 states are eat up with the dumbass and are all afraid to change their method of selecting electors

If this were in English I'd actually agree with it.

Try Websters dictionary if there are any English words that are beyond your comprehension.

Sorry but "are eat up with the dumbass" returns no results. Should I try Tagalog?

Try dumb as a box of rocks.

 

[NightFox]

The debate has started again as to whether the US Constitution should be amended in order to change the presidential election process. Some promote
eliminating the Electoral College in favor of a direct popular vote for president while others believe the Electoral College should remain unchanged. Just as compromise solved the initial problems of the framers so it is that compromise can solve this problem. The solution is to change the electoral votes to electoral points and reward each candidate a percentage of points based on the percentage of popular votes received in each state.

Each state can already do this anytime they want; the individual states determine how their EV's are awarded not the federal government.

So, if you want this system put in place for your state go start lobbying your state legislature (unless of course you live in Maine, in which case you already have that system).

As for political primaries the number of delegates awarded in each state should be determined by the percentage of votes won by each candidate.

This is up to each state political party committee to determine, some states already do it this way, some don't.

 

[Pogo]

The debate has started again as to whether the US Constitution should be amended in order to change the presidential election process. Some promote
eliminating the Electoral College in favor of a direct popular vote for president while others believe the Electoral College should remain unchanged. Just as compromise solved the initial problems of the framers so it is that compromise can solve this problem. The solution is to change the electoral votes to electoral points and reward each candidate a percentage of points based on the percentage of popular votes received in each state.

Each state can already do this anytime they want; the individual states determine how their EV's are awarded not the federal government.

It's just not that simple.

True, each state determines how they will choose electors. But the fact that each of 48 states use the inane "winner take all" system is directly dependent on the fact that the other 47 are doing it. That's how we got to this nefarious point. No individual state is likely to give up on that if its neighbors are still doing it --- so it's a stalemate. A product of mob mentality. So it's a system that locks itself in; it either has to change collectively --- or it won't change at all and we'll stay stuck with it.

So, if you want this system put in place for your state go start lobbying your state legislature (unless of course you live in Maine, in which case you already have that system).

Actually no you don't. Maine and Nebraska are the only exceptions to statewide "winner take all" but in their case they still use WTA on the Congressional District level -- which is virtually just as bad as doing it statewide.

As just laid out, lobbying an individual state legislature is pointless, unless you can also lobby other states to do it at the same time. It's the mob-rule mentality, and it's why this hasn't ever been fixed.

As for political primaries the number of delegates awarded in each state should be determined by the percentage of votes won by each candidate.

This is up to each state political party committee to determine, some states already do it this way, some don't.

No state does it this way. Everybody does WTA, 48 on a statewide level and 2 on a disctrict level. Nobody awards proportionate to actual voters' wishes.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

We are a representative republic why would we allow individual votes to elect our president when we use districts for everything else?

 

[sakinago]

The debate has started again as to whether the US Constitution should be amended in order to change the presidential election process. Some promote
eliminating the Electoral College in favor of a direct popular vote for president while others believe the Electoral College should remain unchanged. Just as compromise solved the initial problems of the framers so it is that compromise can solve this problem. The solution is to change the electoral votes to electoral points and reward each candidate a percentage of points based on the percentage of popular votes received in each state.

This would eliminate the "winner take all" system thus allowing for all the votes to count. A voter is more apt to believe their vote counted when a percentage of popular votes are taken into account rather than the "all or nothing" system currently in existence. Further, this new system would integrate the desire for a popular vote for president with the need for the individual states to determine who actually gets elected.

As for political primaries the number of delegates awarded in each state should be determined by the percentage of votes won by each candidate.

For 2016 multiplying the percentage of votes each candidate received {in each state} times the number of electoral votes {in each state} results in the following: Clinton 256.985 and Trump 253.482.

Ok first off this thread would not exist had Hillary won.

Secondly, are you advocating for majority rules?

 

[Pogo]

We are a representative republic why would we allow individual votes to elect our president when we use districts for everything else?

We don't "use districts for everything else". We elect Governors, Senators, Congresscritters, State Treasurers, state legislators, mayors, city councilmembers, sheriffs and judges via direct ballot. There's no reason we can't do a POTUS the same way.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The debate has started again as to whether the US Constitution should be amended in order to change the presidential election process. Some promote
eliminating the Electoral College in favor of a direct popular vote for president while others believe the Electoral College should remain unchanged. Just as compromise solved the initial problems of the framers so it is that compromise can solve this problem. The solution is to change the electoral votes to electoral points and reward each candidate a percentage of points based on the percentage of popular votes received in each state.

Each state can already do this anytime they want; the individual states determine how their EV's are awarded not the federal government.

It's just not that simple.

True, each state determines how they will choose electors. But the fact that each of 48 states use the inane "winner take all" system is directly dependent on the fact that the other 47 are doing it. That's how we got to this nefarious point. No individual state is likely to give up on that if its neighbors are still doing it --- so it's a stalemate. A product of mob mentality. So it's a system that locks itself in; it either has to change collectively --- or it won't change at all and we'll stay stuck with it.

So, if you want this system put in place for your state go start lobbying your state legislature (unless of course you live in Maine, in which case you already have that system).

Actually no you don't. Maine and Nebraska are the only exceptions to statewide "winner take all" but in their case they still use WTA on the Congressional District level -- which is virtually just as bad as doing it statewide.

As just laid out, lobbying an individual state legislature is pointless, unless you can also lobby other states to do it at the same time. It's the mob-rule mentality, and it's why this hasn't ever been fixed.

As for political primaries the number of delegates awarded in each state should be determined by the percentage of votes won by each candidate.

This is up to each state political party committee to determine, some states already do it this way, some don't.

No state does it this way. Everybody does WTA, 48 on a statewide level and 2 on a disctrict level. Nobody awards proportionate to actual voters' wishes.

True, each state determines how they will choose electors. But the fact that each of 48 states use the inane "winner take all" system is directly dependent on the fact that the other 47 are doing it.

Each state has the right to choose the method.
Each state chose. You may believe it is inane.
48 states disagree.

So it's a system that locks itself in; it either has to change collectively --- or it won't change at all and we'll stay stuck with it.

Yup, we're stuck with it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

We only elect Senators to the US Federal Government by individual voters and that is because they Represent ALL of the State.

 

[Pogo]

The debate has started again as to whether the US Constitution should be amended in order to change the presidential election process. Some promote
eliminating the Electoral College in favor of a direct popular vote for president while others believe the Electoral College should remain unchanged. Just as compromise solved the initial problems of the framers so it is that compromise can solve this problem. The solution is to change the electoral votes to electoral points and reward each candidate a percentage of points based on the percentage of popular votes received in each state.

This would eliminate the "winner take all" system thus allowing for all the votes to count. A voter is more apt to believe their vote counted when a percentage of popular votes are taken into account rather than the "all or nothing" system currently in existence. Further, this new system would integrate the desire for a popular vote for president with the need for the individual states to determine who actually gets elected.

As for political primaries the number of delegates awarded in each state should be determined by the percentage of votes won by each candidate.

For 2016 multiplying the percentage of votes each candidate received {in each state} times the number of electoral votes {in each state} results in the following: Clinton 256.985 and Trump 253.482.

Ok first off this thread would not exist had Hillary won.

Secondly, are you advocating for majority rules?

Of course it would.

This topic comes up exactly every four years. Exactly because that's when it's in play.

It was here four years ago, it was here eight years ago, it was here twelve years ago. And in four years it'll be back. And in eight, and in twelve --- unless we fix it.