Electoral College

[Toddsterpatriot]

I just laid out why that can't be done individually.

And it won't be done collectively.

Lemme axe you something here.

Do you ever actually contribute anything to a discussion other than simplistic gainsaying?

Ever?

My contribution is pointing out your idiocy.
Maybe you should whine more about the states and their decisions?

So in other words ----- "no".

So in other words, it's not going to change.

So in other words you're a troll with nothing to contribute and no ideas, just here to go "IS NOT" like a four yer old. So you're going back to Ignore.

Some liberal, especially large states may want to change the system.
Most conservative, especially small states, don't want to change it.

Your complaining won't impact those smaller states.
You should continue whining about it.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

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.

so, the illegals now get to count, and California dictates the president every 4 years?
Sounds a bit off to me.
What happens when those few high residency states start having laws passed that force the smaller states to produce materials for them for free, You know, maybe New York wants some free coal, so they and California vote to make it law that for the good of the people of New York, West Virginia will now send 50% of their coal production to New York at no cost. California could get free electric from all of the surrounding states.
I know, how about the big hearted people in California and New York get together and make a humanitarian law up that gives Kansas or maybe Arizona to the illegals where they will be living for free while other small states fix them meals on wheels and send it to them 3 or 4 times a day for free.

 

[Pogo]

so, the illegals now get to count, and California dictates the president every 4 years?
Sounds a bit off to me.

It is. Because that's completely fake news.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

so, the illegals now get to count, and California dictates the president every 4 years?
Sounds a bit off to me.

It is. Because that's completely fake news.

I dont think it is.
but, it is annoying how some liberal talking points site comes up with a new term and suddenly its all the liberals can say. Alt right, Fake News, you all need to come up with something original on your own for a change. It would go a good ways in making people think you were actually able to comprehend anything going on in the world.
Dont hate me for pointing out the truth, consider what I suggest and make the change for the better.

 

[Pogo]

so, the illegals now get to count, and California dictates the president every 4 years?
Sounds a bit off to me.

It is. Because that's completely fake news.

I dont think it is.
but, it is annoying how some liberal talking points site comes up with a new term and suddenly its all the liberals can say. Alt right, Fake News, you all need to come up with something original on your own for a change. It would go a good ways in making people think you were actually able to comprehend anything going on in the world.
Dont hate me for pointing out the truth, consider what I suggest and make the change for the better.

OK then show us the evidence of these "three million Amish". Uh I mean "illegals". Whatever.

The fact is that vote count took so long to tabulate because they all had to be vetted. The invention of "three million Amish" ----- uh I mean "illegals" is pure butthurt to cover the fact that Rump *LOST* by that number. And that's all it is.

Go ahead, prove that wrong. Show us the actual evidence of Amish votes. Uh I mean illegal votes. Whichever.

The other fake part: "California dictates the president every 4 years".
Exactly ZERO people have proposed that only California gets to vote. That's again, "Zero". It does not compute in any kind of math. Not even the Rovian type you do as a Republican.

 

[jon_berzerk]

so, the illegals now get to count, and California dictates the president every 4 years?
Sounds a bit off to me.

It is. Because that's completely fake news.

I dont think it is.
but, it is annoying how some liberal talking points site comes up with a new term and suddenly its all the liberals can say. Alt right, Fake News, you all need to come up with something original on your own for a change. It would go a good ways in making people think you were actually able to comprehend anything going on in the world.
Dont hate me for pointing out the truth, consider what I suggest and make the change for the better.

the illegals now get to count,

weeding out the sanctuary cities will curb that


if not congress can pass a law changing the census

to include only persons here legally

states would drop the sanctuary city like a hot potato

after losing a big chunk of funding

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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

Riiiight.............. and a POTUS represents ALL of the country. What's your point?

Governor is a good analogy. The sheeple that regularly come in bleating "mob rule" in attempting to prop up the inane EC system, seem oblivious to the fact that no such indirect-proxy-unanimous wacko system is used in any state to elect its governor. There is no state in which counties (parishes, boroughs) send X number of electors to vote unanimously (or any other way) for whoever carried that county.

Nor should there be. It would make no sense.

Whelp --- same thing.

A President represents the 50 States.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

That is exactly how it is being lobbied for atm. There are a few states that have already passed a law that changes their votes for the winner of the popular vote when there are over 270 EV's under that system. The law kicks in for all of them at the same time and only does so at that time.

Thanks. I was vaguely aware of that but didn't feel like looking it up. You are correct, I remember Maryland did this recently. That's a clever approach. It may even work.

It is the only way I can see it happening. NY and CA have already passed the law - a huge chunk of the EVs needed to make it a reality. Many people think that an amendment is necessary for such a change but the reality is that as few as 11 states can make it happen on their own (the largest 11). I highly doubt that TX would ever agree though so it is going to require more than that. It seems that they are 60% of the way there though.

Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote
The enacting states thus far:
RI, VT, HI, DC, MD, MA, WA, NJ, IL, NY, CA

Some of those surprised me.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

The Demo_rats, the socialists , fascists and government supremacists want California and New York to elect the president.

Bullshit.

"Bullshit" is right, since there is no planet on which that makes any sense.

Under the current system at least six million voters in those two states voted for Rump, and had their votes flushed down the toilet by the WTA/EC. And had there been an actual reason for them to show up there presumably would have been many more.

You know I disagree with your statement that votes were 'flushed down the toilet' and do not think that you have put a good argument backing that. However, the bold part is where I vehemently agree and why I actually agree with going over to a PV system. In so many states there are so many disenfranchised voters that do not vote because they do not think that they will win - very similar to the same effect that keeps third party votes from gaining any steam. Those that would vote for them do not because they do not see a chance at actually winning.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

so, the illegals now get to count, and California dictates the president every 4 years?
Sounds a bit off to me.
What happens when those few high residency states start having laws passed that force the smaller states to produce materials for them for free, You know, maybe New York wants some free coal, so they and California vote to make it law that for the good of the people of New York, West Virginia will now send 50% of their coal production to New York at no cost. California could get free electric from all of the surrounding states.
I know, how about the big hearted people in California and New York get together and make a humanitarian law up that gives Kansas or maybe Arizona to the illegals where they will be living for free while other small states fix them meals on wheels and send it to them 3 or 4 times a day for free.

You mean like is already happening?

"Battleground” states receive 7% more federal grants than “spectator” states, twice as many presidential disaster declarations, more Superfund enforcement exemptions, and more No Child Left Behind law exemptions."
Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote

Those battleground states are doing exactly what you are afraid of.

 

[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.

The Demo_rats, the socialists , fascists and government supremacists want California and New York to elect the president.

Bullshit.

"Bullshit" is right, since there is no planet on which that makes any sense.

Under the current system at least six million voters in those two states voted for Rump, and had their votes flushed down the toilet by the WTA/EC. And had there been an actual reason for them to show up there presumably would have been many more.

You know I disagree with your statement that votes were 'flushed down the toilet' and do not think that you have put a good argument backing that. However, the bold part is where I vehemently agree and why I actually agree with going over to a PV system. In so many states there are so many disenfranchised voters that do not vote because they do not think that they will win - very similar to the same effect that keeps third party votes from gaining any steam. Those that would vote for them do not because they do not see a chance at actually winning.

Zackly, that's been my number one target about the EC for the duration.

It's the same thing as votes "flushed down the toilet". I just put it more colorfully. As I've preached for years, anyone who lives in a "locked" red or "locked" blue state has no reason to go to the polls, at least not for POTUS. They can vote for a governor or Congresscritter and have a voice but regardless who they want for POTUS, whether it agrees with their state or not ------ that decision is already made for them. It's a big reason our turnuot is traditionally lackluster --- because for millions of voters facing the toilet, what's the point?

I had an actual vote this past election. But my friends and relatives in California, Washington, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas....

 

[g5000]

 

[Maryland Patriot]

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.

so, the illegals now get to count, and California dictates the president every 4 years?
Sounds a bit off to me.
What happens when those few high residency states start having laws passed that force the smaller states to produce materials for them for free, You know, maybe New York wants some free coal, so they and California vote to make it law that for the good of the people of New York, West Virginia will now send 50% of their coal production to New York at no cost. California could get free electric from all of the surrounding states.
I know, how about the big hearted people in California and New York get together and make a humanitarian law up that gives Kansas or maybe Arizona to the illegals where they will be living for free while other small states fix them meals on wheels and send it to them 3 or 4 times a day for free.

You mean like is already happening?

"Battleground” states receive 7% more federal grants than “spectator” states, twice as many presidential disaster declarations, more Superfund enforcement exemptions, and more No Child Left Behind law exemptions."
Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote

Those battleground states are doing exactly what you are afraid of.

what do you mean "what Im afraid of" that winner takes all shit pisses me off, Maryland is one of those F-ed up states, my vote never counts, because of the welfare scum in Baltimore, Prince Georges County and Montgomery county, the rest of the states votes are pretty much thrown out. Mine included. My vote has not counted since the state started this winner takes all crap.
I would like to see them change it today, then even if my candidate (the American) loses, I can at least know that it wasnt because votes are being thrown out because of some state policy.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Nice try but changing the EC to match the percentage of the popular vote is nothing more than another attempt at removing the EC. It takes an Amendment to the Constitution.

I don't believe it does, actually. The individual states decide for themselves how to apportion electors. There are at least two states that do not use a winner-take-all system.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

so, the illegals now get to count, and California dictates the president every 4 years?
Sounds a bit off to me.
What happens when those few high residency states start having laws passed that force the smaller states to produce materials for them for free, You know, maybe New York wants some free coal, so they and California vote to make it law that for the good of the people of New York, West Virginia will now send 50% of their coal production to New York at no cost. California could get free electric from all of the surrounding states.
I know, how about the big hearted people in California and New York get together and make a humanitarian law up that gives Kansas or maybe Arizona to the illegals where they will be living for free while other small states fix them meals on wheels and send it to them 3 or 4 times a day for free.

You mean like is already happening?

"Battleground” states receive 7% more federal grants than “spectator” states, twice as many presidential disaster declarations, more Superfund enforcement exemptions, and more No Child Left Behind law exemptions."
Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote

Those battleground states are doing exactly what you are afraid of.

what do you mean "what Im afraid of" that winner takes all shit pisses me off, Maryland is one of those F-ed up states, my vote never counts, because of the welfare scum in Baltimore, Prince Georges County and Montgomery county, the rest of the states votes are pretty much thrown out. Mine included. My vote has not counted since the state started this winner takes all crap.
I would like to see them change it today, then even if my candidate (the American) loses, I can at least know that it wasnt because votes are being thrown out because of some state policy.

It IS a state policy. Your state has the ability to use a different method of apportionment if it wants. Feel free to lobby for it, but don't expect a huge mass of leftists to adopt a system that weakens their stranglehold on the power.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yeah, good luck with that.

While we're at it, why not throw out all those court rulings that overturned a massive popular vote in such cases as Proposition 8 in California where clearly the vote was in favor of marriage is between one mand and one woman.

Or do we accept mob rule ONLY when it is in our favor and oppose it in all other instances?

Word .

what happens now is that the candidates only care about a handful of states . The rest can just **** off.

Actually, that's what would happen in an election with no Electoral College. They could just concentrate on California and New York and totally ignore the rest of the country. This way, they have to pay at least some attention to other states.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Yep. The rest of the country is never going to agree to be ruled by California, New York and Illinois

These idiots actually believe that 30 states or more will vote to disenfranchise themselves to make liberals happy.

Pretty sure they're counting on their ongiong campaign to dumb down the nation to make people just that stupid. And hey, it looks like they might actually be correct.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If the progressives had not chipped away at Federalism 100 years ago with the 17th amendment, you might have a shot today at changing the electoral college.

Now you don't.

There is no way in hell we're going to let you undo one of the last vestiges of states rights.

Your unending pursuit of greater and greater centralization of power nauseating. Enough!

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.

You clearly do not understand the concept of Federalism.

Off you go collectivist boy.

And you perhaps do not understand the concept of "a vote".
I want one.

You have one. The fact that you don't understand and accept how it works is no one else's problem but yours.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

The Russians did not hack the vote and sorry but releasing emails does not invalidate the vote.

I find it humorous that leftists are finally on record as saying that providing people with information is "cheating".

 

[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.

You clearly do not understand the concept of Federalism.

Off you go collectivist boy.

And you perhaps do not understand the concept of "a vote".
I want one.

You have one. The fact that you don't understand and accept how it works is no one else's problem but yours.

I had one, this year, only due to the accident of being in a state that was, in the ridiculous bullshit term the EC system and only that system creates, "in play".-- a concept which, along with the equally bullshitious ones of "red" and "blue" states, would not exist at all under a legitimate and equitable system, i.e. under a system where we could simply be fellow countrymen rather than chopped up into artificial "reds" and "blues".


Again, my friends and relatives in Mississipi, California, Texas and Washington ---- had none. Their states were decided before they woke up that day and there was jack-all they could do about it whether they cared to or not.

That's what I mean by having one's vote thrown away.

Of course, eventually when the counting was in ---- my vote was thrown away too.