Elizabeth Warren: 'End Electoral College'

[RDD_1210]

All votes are not equal under the electoral college. That's a fact.

Because large populated areas should not rule over low populated areas.

And they won't.

Everyone's vote should be equally weighted, don't you agree?

This is supposed to be a republic not a shit eating democracy...

I heard you the first 27 times.

Do you feel that everyone's vote should not be weighted the same?

This isn’t supposed to be a shit eating democracy... it’s supposed to be a republic

Are you intentionally not answering the question?

 

[Rustic]

You don't know what the popular vote would turn out because we never had one for a Presidential election. Remember during DumBama that we had most of the Governorships across the country not to mention the lead in Congress and eventually the Senate. That in addition to the statewide positions of power that turned Republican.

The idea that Hil-Liar won the popular vote is a stupid one. It's like saying I'm a better poker player than you are even though you won because I formed some great gin rummy hands.

Cute story.

Literally makes no sense.

Hillary won the popular vote because she had more total votes. I know this is difficult for you to understand but you should really try.

I think it's you that doesn't understand.

Nobody ran to get the most votes. They ran to get the most electoral votes. If they ran for the most votes, then you might have a point. Both candidates would have created entirely different strategies. Republicans in those blue states would have come out to vote. Many didn't because it was fruitless.

Trump spent much time in those swing-vote and flyover country states. Hillary spent little time there. Trump knew the name of the game was electoral votes, so he planned his strategy that way and he won.

Just because Hillary got more votes does not mean that more people wanted her to win. She only got the votes of people that came out--not the people that wanted Trump and stayed home.

How many times do we need to change the system so that Democrats can win?

After GW's first win, you people screamed about punchcard ballots. So most of the country got rid of punchcards and went to electronic voting spending tens of millions of dollars. When GW won the second election, everybody had to scarp those electronic voting machines because they were manufactured by Diebold. Forget the fact that not a trace of evidence was found that those machines were manipulated in any way. So the country had to get rid of Diebold machines and spend millions more dollars replacing those!

So now that we've spent all this money, wasted all this time, and Democrats are still losing, we need to scrap the electoral college just like we did the punchcards and Diebold machines. But even if we did that and Democrats still lose, what else are we going to have to change next to try and make sure Democrats win every election?

**** Hillary...I don't care about her.

I'm talking about future elections. I realize strategies will change to account for the way votes are counted.. And that's fine.

But the electoral college is an out dated system that needs to go.

So basically you want no representation of rural America by the executive branch

I want all people's votes to count equally.

You do realize with a popular vote, rural America will lose every single presidential election?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Because large populated areas should not rule over low populated areas.

And they won't.

Everyone's vote should be equally weighted, don't you agree?

This is supposed to be a republic not a shit eating democracy...

I heard you the first 27 times.

Do you feel that everyone's vote should not be weighted the same?

This isn’t supposed to be a shit eating democracy... it’s supposed to be a republic

Are you intentionally not answering the question?

Are you ignoring reality? YOU HAVE to CREATE and then PASS an amendment.

 

[Rustic]

Because large populated areas should not rule over low populated areas.

And they won't.

Everyone's vote should be equally weighted, don't you agree?

This is supposed to be a republic not a shit eating democracy...

I heard you the first 27 times.

Do you feel that everyone's vote should not be weighted the same?

This isn’t supposed to be a shit eating democracy... it’s supposed to be a republic

Are you intentionally not answering the question?

You aren’t answering the question, do you realize with a pure popular vote rural America will lose every single presidential election?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The EC does equalize the votes.

Sure doesn't.

It does the very opposite of that.

The EC does equalize the votes.

Sure doesn't.

It does the very opposite of that.

Sure does.
The EC gives low population areas their voting rights over the densely populated States.

The EC devalues votes so that not all votes are equal.

they are all equal, it nullifies the INDOCTRINATION of the blue states and them trying to get as many illegals in as possible

All votes are not equal under the electoral college. That's a fact.

That is a fact, and it was intended by our founders to be that way. They didn't want consolidated power in tiny areas of the country. They wanted power to be spread out through the country.

 

[easyt65]

'In 1992, Bill Clinton did not get a majority of the popular vote (only 43 percent) but he received 70 percent of the electoral votes.'

Where was the Democratic Party's tantrum and call to abolish the Electoral College in 1992 when Bill Clinton LOST the 'Popular Vote' Presidential Election?

Why We Shouldn’t Scrap the Electoral College | myHeritage

The frickin' "Democratic Party" has nothing to do with the EC question, Dumbass. 1992 was in fact when the "FairVote" project was launched, as noted earlier, from both sides of politics.

Time to grow the **** up and shed the binary-bot shit.

Bill Clinton, if snowflakes had had their way - no electoral college in '92, would have LOST!
Instead, he lost the 'popular vote' BS but won the Presidency with the Electoral College....NO TANTRUM.

Hillary ran the worst campaign in US history in 2016, did not even visit the states she list - which cost her the election....she did what Bill did not do - win the popular vote - and failed to do what he DID do - win the Presidency.

Hillary supporters openly wept, and for the last 2 years they have continued to throw a tantrum...and you laughably tell ME to 'grow up'...

Bwuhahahaha......

 

[Dekster]

Well there seems to be the drumbeat of that again...

Getting rid of electoral college means rural America might as well not even vote, They would lose every single election.

States like California or Florida Texas and New York would dominate everything in this country…

There is a reason why they call this a republic not a shit eating democracy...

While that is all well and true, there is another more practical reason it won't happen. Television and radio doesn't want those advertising dollars to all be flooded into only about 18 big city media markets.

 

[Lakhota]

'In 1992, Bill Clinton did not get a majority of the popular vote (only 43 percent) but he received 70 percent of the electoral votes.'

Where was the Democratic Party's tantrum and call to abolish the Electoral College in 1992 when Bill Clinton LOST the 'Popular Vote' Presidential Election?

Why We Shouldn’t Scrap the Electoral College | myHeritage

Funny. Bill Clinton did receive the most popular votes in 1992. Why did your NaziCon Heritage link leave that little fact out?

1992 Presidential Election

William J. Clinton Democratic 370 44,908,254
George Bush (I) Republican 168 39,102,343
Ross Perot Independent 0 19,743,821

Presidential Election of 1992

 

[RDD_1210]

Cute story.

Literally makes no sense.

Hillary won the popular vote because she had more total votes. I know this is difficult for you to understand but you should really try.

I think it's you that doesn't understand.

Nobody ran to get the most votes. They ran to get the most electoral votes. If they ran for the most votes, then you might have a point. Both candidates would have created entirely different strategies. Republicans in those blue states would have come out to vote. Many didn't because it was fruitless.

Trump spent much time in those swing-vote and flyover country states. Hillary spent little time there. Trump knew the name of the game was electoral votes, so he planned his strategy that way and he won.

Just because Hillary got more votes does not mean that more people wanted her to win. She only got the votes of people that came out--not the people that wanted Trump and stayed home.

How many times do we need to change the system so that Democrats can win?

After GW's first win, you people screamed about punchcard ballots. So most of the country got rid of punchcards and went to electronic voting spending tens of millions of dollars. When GW won the second election, everybody had to scarp those electronic voting machines because they were manufactured by Diebold. Forget the fact that not a trace of evidence was found that those machines were manipulated in any way. So the country had to get rid of Diebold machines and spend millions more dollars replacing those!

So now that we've spent all this money, wasted all this time, and Democrats are still losing, we need to scrap the electoral college just like we did the punchcards and Diebold machines. But even if we did that and Democrats still lose, what else are we going to have to change next to try and make sure Democrats win every election?

**** Hillary...I don't care about her.

I'm talking about future elections. I realize strategies will change to account for the way votes are counted.. And that's fine.

But the electoral college is an out dated system that needs to go.

So basically you want no representation of rural America by the executive branch

I want all people's votes to count equally.

You do realize with a popular vote, rural America will lose every single presidential election?

Do you think California should have more of a say then Wyoming for who gets to become president?

 

[RDD_1210]

Sure doesn't.

It does the very opposite of that.

Sure doesn't.

It does the very opposite of that.

Sure does.
The EC gives low population areas their voting rights over the densely populated States.

The EC devalues votes so that not all votes are equal.

they are all equal, it nullifies the INDOCTRINATION of the blue states and them trying to get as many illegals in as possible

All votes are not equal under the electoral college. That's a fact.

That is a fact, and it was intended by our founders to be that way. They didn't want consolidated power in tiny areas of the country. They wanted power to be spread out through the country.

And that's why we have the Senate and House. Checks and balances.

Everyone should have equal say in who gets to be president.

 

[my2¢]

'In 1992, Bill Clinton did not get a majority of the popular vote (only 43 percent) but he received 70 percent of the electoral votes.'

Where was the Democratic Party's tantrum and call to abolish the Electoral College in 1992 when Bill Clinton LOST the 'Popular Vote' Presidential Election?

Why We Shouldn’t Scrap the Electoral College | myHeritage

Bill Clinton didn't get the majority but did earn the plurality by getting 5½ million more votes than the runner up in basically a 3-way race. Those proposing elimination of the Electoral College still desire to have the winner determined on a plurality basis. Otherwise even in 2016 there would need to be a run-off election seeing that neither Trump nor Hillary got to 50% + 1.

 

[Rustic]

I think it's you that doesn't understand.

Nobody ran to get the most votes. They ran to get the most electoral votes. If they ran for the most votes, then you might have a point. Both candidates would have created entirely different strategies. Republicans in those blue states would have come out to vote. Many didn't because it was fruitless.

Trump spent much time in those swing-vote and flyover country states. Hillary spent little time there. Trump knew the name of the game was electoral votes, so he planned his strategy that way and he won.

Just because Hillary got more votes does not mean that more people wanted her to win. She only got the votes of people that came out--not the people that wanted Trump and stayed home.

How many times do we need to change the system so that Democrats can win?

After GW's first win, you people screamed about punchcard ballots. So most of the country got rid of punchcards and went to electronic voting spending tens of millions of dollars. When GW won the second election, everybody had to scarp those electronic voting machines because they were manufactured by Diebold. Forget the fact that not a trace of evidence was found that those machines were manipulated in any way. So the country had to get rid of Diebold machines and spend millions more dollars replacing those!

So now that we've spent all this money, wasted all this time, and Democrats are still losing, we need to scrap the electoral college just like we did the punchcards and Diebold machines. But even if we did that and Democrats still lose, what else are we going to have to change next to try and make sure Democrats win every election?

**** Hillary...I don't care about her.

I'm talking about future elections. I realize strategies will change to account for the way votes are counted.. And that's fine.

But the electoral college is an out dated system that needs to go.

So basically you want no representation of rural America by the executive branch

I want all people's votes to count equally.

You do realize with a popular vote, rural America will lose every single presidential election?

Do you think California should have more of a say then Wyoming for who gets to become president?

Like I said, This is supposed to be a republic not a shit eating democracy. A pure popular vote is Mob rule...

 

[RDD_1210]

And they won't.

Everyone's vote should be equally weighted, don't you agree?

This is supposed to be a republic not a shit eating democracy...

I heard you the first 27 times.

Do you feel that everyone's vote should not be weighted the same?

This isn’t supposed to be a shit eating democracy... it’s supposed to be a republic

Are you intentionally not answering the question?

Are you ignoring reality? YOU HAVE to CREATE and then PASS an amendment.

I'm aware. That doesn't mean I can't make a statement about what I'd like to see happen.

 

[peach174]

Republicans don't want the presidential election decided by popular vote because their ideas aren't popular.

Suppressing what the people want is the only way Republicans can maintain power.

You don't know what the popular vote would turn out because we never had one for a Presidential election. Remember during DumBama that we had most of the Governorships across the country not to mention the lead in Congress and eventually the Senate. That in addition to the statewide positions of power that turned Republican.

The idea that Hil-Liar won the popular vote is a stupid one. It's like saying I'm a better poker player than you are even though you won because I formed some great gin rummy hands.

Cute story.

Literally makes no sense.

Hillary won the popular vote because she had more total votes. I know this is difficult for you to understand but you should really try.

I think it's you that doesn't understand.

Nobody ran to get the most votes. They ran to get the most electoral votes. If they ran for the most votes, then you might have a point. Both candidates would have created entirely different strategies. Republicans in those blue states would have come out to vote. Many didn't because it was fruitless.

Trump spent much time in those swing-vote and flyover country states. Hillary spent little time there. Trump knew the name of the game was electoral votes, so he planned his strategy that way and he won.

Just because Hillary got more votes does not mean that more people wanted her to win. She only got the votes of people that came out--not the people that wanted Trump and stayed home.

How many times do we need to change the system so that Democrats can win?

After GW's first win, you people screamed about punchcard ballots. So most of the country got rid of punchcards and went to electronic voting spending tens of millions of dollars. When GW won the second election, everybody had to scarp those electronic voting machines because they were manufactured by Diebold. Forget the fact that not a trace of evidence was found that those machines were manipulated in any way. So the country had to get rid of Diebold machines and spend millions more dollars replacing those!

So now that we've spent all this money, wasted all this time, and Democrats are still losing, we need to scrap the electoral college just like we did the punchcards and Diebold machines. But even if we did that and Democrats still lose, what else are we going to have to change next to try and make sure Democrats win every election?

**** Hillary...I don't care about her.

I'm talking about future elections. I realize strategies will change to account for the way votes are counted.. And that's fine.

But the electoral college is an out dated system that needs to go.

So how would low populated rural areas become as densely populated as the blue states, for that to become equal?
The rural areas grow the crops and raise the live stock that feed those densely populated states.
Get rid of the EC and the rural area would have no say in our Presidential Elections.

 

[RDD_1210]

**** Hillary...I don't care about her.

I'm talking about future elections. I realize strategies will change to account for the way votes are counted.. And that's fine.

But the electoral college is an out dated system that needs to go.

So basically you want no representation of rural America by the executive branch

I want all people's votes to count equally.

You do realize with a popular vote, rural America will lose every single presidential election?

Do you think California should have more of a say then Wyoming for who gets to become president?

Like I said, This is supposed to be a republic not a shit eating democracy. A pure popular vote is Mob rule...

Is that a yes or no?

Should California have a bigger say than Wyoming for who gets to be president?

 

[OKTexas]

Sen. Elizabeth Warren said Monday that she fully supports abolishing the Electoral College and moving toward a national vote, the first time the 2020 presidential candidate has publicly taken the stance.

“My view is that every vote matters,” the Massachusetts Democrat said to roaring applause at her CNN presidential town hall at Jackson State University in Mississippi. “And the way we can make that happen is that we can have national voting, and that means get rid of the Electoral College.”

More: Elizabeth Warren Calls For Getting Rid Of The Electoral College

Amen! I couldn't agree more! Elections should be about people - not acreage! BTW, the rest of the link is worth reading.

Of course, most commies do. What fauxchahunches doesn't understand is we don't have a national government and we don't have national elections. Not even your idol, the EU, elects their president by a popular vote.

.

 

[Papageorgio]

Well there seems to be the drumbeat of that again...

Getting rid of electoral college means rural America might as well not even vote, They would lose every single election.
States like California or Florida Texas and New York would dominate everything in this country…There is a reason why they call this a republic not a shit eating democracy...

Uh-huh....You'd be singing a different tune if Hillary had won.
Stop being a hypocrite, it's bad enough with psycho-boy in office:

Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump
The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.
108K
11:45 PM - Nov 6, 2012
Donald J. Trump on Twitter
LOL! Love making you Trumpanzees look like the idiots you are

So you agree with Trump? I disagree with him in principle. I have always maintained that the Electoral College gives the minority a voice. It is also central to uniting this country.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Sure does.
The EC gives low population areas their voting rights over the densely populated States.

The EC devalues votes so that not all votes are equal.

they are all equal, it nullifies the INDOCTRINATION of the blue states and them trying to get as many illegals in as possible

All votes are not equal under the electoral college. That's a fact.

That is a fact, and it was intended by our founders to be that way. They didn't want consolidated power in tiny areas of the country. They wanted power to be spread out through the country.

And that's why we have the Senate and House. Checks and balances.

Everyone should have equal say in who gets to be president.

Do we have that in the Senate, the way our founders created the system? No, we don't.

Rhode Island has two Senators. Nebraska has two Senators. Idaho has two Senators. California has two Senators. New York has two Senators.

If every person had an equal say in our government, California would have 20 Senators and Idaho would have 3. This is exactly what you are suggesting of our presidency.

 

[peach174]

Sure does.
The EC gives low population areas their voting rights over the densely populated States.

The EC devalues votes so that not all votes are equal.

they are all equal, it nullifies the INDOCTRINATION of the blue states and them trying to get as many illegals in as possible

All votes are not equal under the electoral college. That's a fact.

That is a fact, and it was intended by our founders to be that way. They didn't want consolidated power in tiny areas of the country. They wanted power to be spread out through the country.

And that's why we have the Senate and House. Checks and balances.

Everyone should have equal say in who gets to be president.

Sure does.
The EC gives low population areas their voting rights over the densely populated States.

The EC devalues votes so that not all votes are equal.

they are all equal, it nullifies the INDOCTRINATION of the blue states and them trying to get as many illegals in as possible

All votes are not equal under the electoral college. That's a fact.

That is a fact, and it was intended by our founders to be that way. They didn't want consolidated power in tiny areas of the country. They wanted power to be spread out through the country.

And that's why we have the Senate and House. Checks and balances.

Everyone should have equal say in who gets to be president.

Sure does.
The EC gives low population areas their voting rights over the densely populated States.

The EC devalues votes so that not all votes are equal.

they are all equal, it nullifies the INDOCTRINATION of the blue states and them trying to get as many illegals in as possible

All votes are not equal under the electoral college. That's a fact.

That is a fact, and it was intended by our founders to be that way. They didn't want consolidated power in tiny areas of the country. They wanted power to be spread out through the country.

And that's why we have the Senate and House. Checks and balances.

Everyone should have equal say in who gets to be president.

Getting rid of the EC would not give rural Americans any say what so ever in who gets to be our president.

 

[Rustic]

So basically you want no representation of rural America by the executive branch

I want all people's votes to count equally.

You do realize with a popular vote, rural America will lose every single presidential election?

Do you think California should have more of a say then Wyoming for who gets to become president?

Like I said, This is supposed to be a republic not a shit eating democracy. A pure popular vote is Mob rule...

Is that a yes or no?

Should California have a bigger say than Wyoming for who gets to be president?

They do, they have more electoral college votes... lol