Elizabeth Warren: 'End Electoral College'

[Timmy]

Not an equal voice. It's disproportionate.

Look you keep claiming every vote counts and should be weighed the same but then keep claiming the Senate is fine. The Founders made the Senate to equalize the State voices in the Senate. Either you want to get rid of the Senate too or you are blowing smoke about equal voice. By the way the Electoral college GIVES equal voice to the States.

I want equal voice for the people when it comes to picking the president. Equal voice for the states comes from the Senate.

I want to protect all in the vote, the rural voter and the suburban voter, both have different needs and all needs need to be accounted for. That is why we are a republic. If we started to eliminate the minority voice it would be regressing back to the 1800's. I'm for keeping the Republic and all voices heard and acknowledged. With a country as big as the United States is, different areas need different needs and the needs will contrast vastly. With both parties giving increasing power to the Executive Office, we need to make sure all are heard and all have a voice. A popular vote would not allow for the small voice to be acknowledged, let alone be heard.

Right now, the "small voice" carries more weight than it should. I want it to be equal. No one's vote should count more than anyone elses.

With pure popular vote Rural America would lose every presidential election... fact

We are a nation of states . Not rural vs city. Every state has both .

 

[Thinker101]

People do have a voice with a Republic, Democracy not as much. The Electoral College helps for all to have a voice, even minorities. All voices from all over the nation get a voice, it matters not the flavor of the day, it equalizes the might of the majority to protect the rights of the minority.

Not an equal voice. It's disproportionate.

Look you keep claiming every vote counts and should be weighed the same but then keep claiming the Senate is fine. The Founders made the Senate to equalize the State voices in the Senate. Either you want to get rid of the Senate too or you are blowing smoke about equal voice. By the way the Electoral college GIVES equal voice to the States.

I want equal voice for the people when it comes to picking the president. Equal voice for the states comes from the Senate.

I want to protect all in the vote, the rural voter and the suburban voter, both have different needs and all needs need to be accounted for. That is why we are a republic. If we started to eliminate the minority voice it would be regressing back to the 1800's. I'm for keeping the Republic and all voices heard and acknowledged. With a country as big as the United States is, different areas need different needs and the needs will contrast vastly. With both parties giving increasing power to the Executive Office, we need to make sure all are heard and all have a voice. A popular vote would not allow for the small voice to be acknowledged, let alone be heard.

Right now, the "small voice" carries more weight than it should. I want it to be equal. No one's vote should count more than anyone elses.

Great, how about starting with states that have all electoral votes going to a single candidate.

 

[Timmy]

If you can’t win, change the rules!

Like putting in strict voter ID for no reason ?

Er..not for no reason.
To reduce voter fraud. The democrats are quite open about their endorsement of it. They tell people who aren't actual citizens and who have no right to vote to vote for them ALL THE TIME.

There’s no ID fraud in voting. It’s a made up crisis . The gop has been exposed for their true motives .

 

[Rustic]

Look you keep claiming every vote counts and should be weighed the same but then keep claiming the Senate is fine. The Founders made the Senate to equalize the State voices in the Senate. Either you want to get rid of the Senate too or you are blowing smoke about equal voice. By the way the Electoral college GIVES equal voice to the States.

I want equal voice for the people when it comes to picking the president. Equal voice for the states comes from the Senate.

I want to protect all in the vote, the rural voter and the suburban voter, both have different needs and all needs need to be accounted for. That is why we are a republic. If we started to eliminate the minority voice it would be regressing back to the 1800's. I'm for keeping the Republic and all voices heard and acknowledged. With a country as big as the United States is, different areas need different needs and the needs will contrast vastly. With both parties giving increasing power to the Executive Office, we need to make sure all are heard and all have a voice. A popular vote would not allow for the small voice to be acknowledged, let alone be heard.

Right now, the "small voice" carries more weight than it should. I want it to be equal. No one's vote should count more than anyone elses.

With pure popular vote Rural America would lose every presidential election... fact

We are a nation of states . Not rural vs city. Every state has both .

That is the reason for the electoral college, So Rural America Is represented in the executive branch.

With a pure popular vote, It is impossible for rural America to be representatived by the Executive branch of the government… the numbers just aren’t there.
Over 80% of the nations population is in urban America... The founders knew this to be true that is the reason why the electoral college was implemented, this is a republic not a shit eating democracy.

Quit Falling down the well...

 

[Timmy]

I want equal voice for the people when it comes to picking the president. Equal voice for the states comes from the Senate.

I want to protect all in the vote, the rural voter and the suburban voter, both have different needs and all needs need to be accounted for. That is why we are a republic. If we started to eliminate the minority voice it would be regressing back to the 1800's. I'm for keeping the Republic and all voices heard and acknowledged. With a country as big as the United States is, different areas need different needs and the needs will contrast vastly. With both parties giving increasing power to the Executive Office, we need to make sure all are heard and all have a voice. A popular vote would not allow for the small voice to be acknowledged, let alone be heard.

Right now, the "small voice" carries more weight than it should. I want it to be equal. No one's vote should count more than anyone elses.

With pure popular vote Rural America would lose every presidential election... fact

We are a nation of states . Not rural vs city. Every state has both .

That is the reason for the electoral college, So Rural America Is represented in the executive branch.

With a pure popular vote, It is impossible for rural America to be representatived by the Executive branch of the government… the numbers just aren’t there.
Over 80% of the nations population is in urban America... The founders knew this to be true that is the reason why the electoral college was implemented, this is a republic not a shit eating democracy.

Quit Falling down the well...

Except the EC IS population based .

Do you choose your govenor via an electoral college?

 

[Cecilie1200]

So, these racist old misogynists thought they made a better system of government? If only they could see it now.

They DID make a better system of government. Unfortunately, nothing could keep us from producing inferior people who don't understand or appreciate it (and I AM looking at you).

 

[Rustic]

I want to protect all in the vote, the rural voter and the suburban voter, both have different needs and all needs need to be accounted for. That is why we are a republic. If we started to eliminate the minority voice it would be regressing back to the 1800's. I'm for keeping the Republic and all voices heard and acknowledged. With a country as big as the United States is, different areas need different needs and the needs will contrast vastly. With both parties giving increasing power to the Executive Office, we need to make sure all are heard and all have a voice. A popular vote would not allow for the small voice to be acknowledged, let alone be heard.

Right now, the "small voice" carries more weight than it should. I want it to be equal. No one's vote should count more than anyone elses.

With pure popular vote Rural America would lose every presidential election... fact

We are a nation of states . Not rural vs city. Every state has both .

That is the reason for the electoral college, So Rural America Is represented in the executive branch.

With a pure popular vote, It is impossible for rural America to be representatived by the Executive branch of the government… the numbers just aren’t there.
Over 80% of the nations population is in urban America... The founders knew this to be true that is the reason why the electoral college was implemented, this is a republic not a shit eating democracy.

Quit Falling down the well...

Except the EC IS population based .

Do you choose your govenor via an electoral college?

Irrelevant

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm for leaving it as it is now that allows the states to decide how they want to determine their electors. I'd vote against a state legislator candidate that favors the determination be based on national popular vote.

The new trend is the "clever" Democrats trying to use states' rights to do an end run around the Constitution AND individual voting rights by having states declare that they will ignore the vote outcomes of their own population, and give their electors to whomever OTHER states vote for.

I expect to see a court challenge against state legislatures disenfranchising their own constituents any day now.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

So you believe we should accept the opinion of Elizabeth Warren, the woman who lied about her ancestry for decades?

I thought Warren agrees with Trump on this issue, although Trump lies 1000 times more often, or just makes things up.
Trumpsters should be able to understand Warren’s view, not because they like details, unlike Trump, but because of his pre-2016 declaration to abolish the Electoral College!

More hypocrisy from Trumpsters?

It's almost like this is an issue of principle, rather than an issue of your personal obsession with Trump and need to shoehorn that obsession into everything.

 

[Cecilie1200]

'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

Funny, there's a difference between "most" and "majority". Why did your elementary school vocabulary teacher leave THAT little fact out?

Get a dictionary and at least ATTEMPT not to humiliate yourself with your own ignorance.

 

[22lcidw]

ma·jor·i·ty 1.the greater number.
mob 1.a large crowd

The intentionally obtuse jackass speaks. The ultimate weasel. He has eyes but know not how to use them.

ALT-MEANING: Spin doctor.

And yet you too have no counterargument. Seems to be a pattern.

Not ONLY do you have no rebuttal, you even edited my quote to remove the inconvenient parts you have no argument against, for which I'll proceed to report you.

No, jackass. Maybe you are that obtuse. I removed the irrelevant bits to MAKE my counter argument plain and obvious, you simply refuse to see it.

Ummm..... NO Sprinkles, *YOU* removed *MY* content (which is why your post got wiped out) because YOU couldn't handle the point.

That content was, again:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ma·jor·i·ty
/məˈjôrədē,məˈjärədē/
noun

1. 1.
   the greater number.
   "in the majority of cases all will go smoothly"
   synonyms: larger part/number, greater part/number, major part, best/better part, main part, most, more than half

mob
/mäb/
noun

1. 1.
   a large crowd of people, especially one that is disorderly and intent on causing trouble or violence.
   "a mob of protesters"
   synonyms: crowd, horde, multitude, rabble, mass, body, throng

Doesn't look like a pair of "synonyms" to me Fingerboy. Looks like weasel wording.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Those are English language dictionary definitions, they're not going away, and there's nothing you can do about that, stomp your feet and hold you breath 'til you turn blue all you like.

[
When the term 'Mob Rule' was coined, it was referring to a mob (larger group, or majority) against the one (the individual). That the majority got their way and outcomes were decided based on populism, not rights.

The Rule Of Law created by our Founders decided that LAWS would decide things so that individuals would be protected from a mob mentality, even the government, and things would be decided through courts and a legal process.

The Electoral College isn't perfect, it has its flaws, but it has been our way since the founding of this country and shall not change as it would require most of the smaller states to go along with it which they will never do as they were the ones who primarily put it in place in the first place so they would have as voice in our federal government.

That Pocahontas Warren comes along now trying to make this a new referendum tells me two things:

A). It is yet just one more diversion from something else the DNC is interested in as she knows she'll never get it.

B). That the democrats are worried they will lose some/many elections increasingly unable to get many of the central states as they increasingly move towards polarization and radicalization as the party of freaks, weirdos, and illegal foreigners! Doing away with the EC would make that rather easy.

Again for the obsessed ------ nothing in this topic is about "Hillary". This issue has been with us for TWO HUNDRED YEARS. K?

You understand what "two hundred years" means? Or do you need to cut that out of the post too so you can pretend it's not there again?

Hm?

The fact that you have to REMOVE my content rather than address it tells me ONE thing:

View attachment 251201

Sorry Little Man, are you just playing stupid or are you actually obtuse? Or are you simply bad very bad loser.

Again, I merely reduced the irrelevancies down to the actual pertinent points of the case as I do in nearly every post to both save server space as well as make it easier for readers to follow: the question is whether mob rule is interchangeable with majority rule in the context of how the Left would eliminate the Electoral College, and it is. Both terms have been used interchangeable for AGES in the parlance of political discussion---- the Left wants mob rule so that their strategically manipulated high-density democratic strongholds in LA Country and NYC can dictate to the whole nation who gets put into the White House.

View attachment 251213


View attachment 251214

The only difference being that in the majority, the minority acquiesce peacefully to the majority's power whereas typically in mob rule, they do not and succumb to their force and violence. Therefore, they achieve EXACTLY the same ends through EXACTLY the same means, the only difference being to what degree they use force in order to achieve it! (determined by the degree of resistance put up by their opposition).

During the Obama years there were a lot of people threatened and attacked by rioters. You must think your immune to that. And by your own voters. Your party is a disgrace. And many people who ended up voting for Trump vote your party a lot. Mindless violence against innocent people wises them up. We will return to that for the total transformation of our nation. And you won't like it when the resources are rationed and the blame game is instituted.

 

[RDD_1210]

Not an equal voice. It's disproportionate.

Look you keep claiming every vote counts and should be weighed the same but then keep claiming the Senate is fine. The Founders made the Senate to equalize the State voices in the Senate. Either you want to get rid of the Senate too or you are blowing smoke about equal voice. By the way the Electoral college GIVES equal voice to the States.

I want equal voice for the people when it comes to picking the president. Equal voice for the states comes from the Senate.

I want to protect all in the vote, the rural voter and the suburban voter, both have different needs and all needs need to be accounted for. That is why we are a republic. If we started to eliminate the minority voice it would be regressing back to the 1800's. I'm for keeping the Republic and all voices heard and acknowledged. With a country as big as the United States is, different areas need different needs and the needs will contrast vastly. With both parties giving increasing power to the Executive Office, we need to make sure all are heard and all have a voice. A popular vote would not allow for the small voice to be acknowledged, let alone be heard.

Right now, the "small voice" carries more weight than it should. I want it to be equal. No one's vote should count more than anyone elses.

With pure popular vote Rural America would lose every presidential election... fact

That's silly. Rural america is not running for president.

 

[RDD_1210]

Not an equal voice. It's disproportionate.

Look you keep claiming every vote counts and should be weighed the same but then keep claiming the Senate is fine. The Founders made the Senate to equalize the State voices in the Senate. Either you want to get rid of the Senate too or you are blowing smoke about equal voice. By the way the Electoral college GIVES equal voice to the States.

I want equal voice for the people when it comes to picking the president. Equal voice for the states comes from the Senate.

I want to protect all in the vote, the rural voter and the suburban voter, both have different needs and all needs need to be accounted for. That is why we are a republic. If we started to eliminate the minority voice it would be regressing back to the 1800's. I'm for keeping the Republic and all voices heard and acknowledged. With a country as big as the United States is, different areas need different needs and the needs will contrast vastly. With both parties giving increasing power to the Executive Office, we need to make sure all are heard and all have a voice. A popular vote would not allow for the small voice to be acknowledged, let alone be heard.

Right now, the "small voice" carries more weight than it should. I want it to be equal. No one's vote should count more than anyone elses.

Great, how about starting with states that have all electoral votes going to a single candidate.

Agreed, it should be divided up based upon the population and how they vote. Not a winner take all.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Look you keep claiming every vote counts and should be weighed the same but then keep claiming the Senate is fine. The Founders made the Senate to equalize the State voices in the Senate. Either you want to get rid of the Senate too or you are blowing smoke about equal voice. By the way the Electoral college GIVES equal voice to the States.

I want equal voice for the people when it comes to picking the president. Equal voice for the states comes from the Senate.

I want to protect all in the vote, the rural voter and the suburban voter, both have different needs and all needs need to be accounted for. That is why we are a republic. If we started to eliminate the minority voice it would be regressing back to the 1800's. I'm for keeping the Republic and all voices heard and acknowledged. With a country as big as the United States is, different areas need different needs and the needs will contrast vastly. With both parties giving increasing power to the Executive Office, we need to make sure all are heard and all have a voice. A popular vote would not allow for the small voice to be acknowledged, let alone be heard.

Right now, the "small voice" carries more weight than it should. I want it to be equal. No one's vote should count more than anyone elses.

Great, how about starting with states that have all electoral votes going to a single candidate.

Agreed, it should be divided up based upon the population and how they vote. Not a winner take all.

Just as soon as California agrees not to count the MILLIONS of illegals as their population.

 

[Cecilie1200]

'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......

Once AGAIN moron, there is no "Hillary" in this question. And also AGAIN, just because you were too fucked up to notice or chose to ignore it, the EC question has been gurgling for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS. Including the year of 1992.

HHillary, again, ran the worst campaign in US history. The 2 states she refused to visit and lost made up the difference in her loss.

The Electoral College was / is not the problem.

This crooked criminal ***** couldn't even win a rigged election.

Criminal? What was she ever convicted of - after umpteen NaziCon investigations?

Since when does the definition of "criminal" include the word "convicted"?

This English language thing really isn't your forte.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why should a vote in Montana be worth more than a vote in Pennsylvania?

The nations elections should not be decided by America's urban centres, run by party hacks.

Yeah, I believe people in urban centers can be much easily manipulated, controlled. bribed.... whichever it is.

People who live in cities tend to be at a distance from the basics of life, and thus from reality.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If you have an argument Lakhota, don't just rate me funny--make the argument. State your case. Bring it. Otherwise, by rating me "funny", you just underline the case that all that is left to you is high school teens, changing the Constitution, or importing foreigners.

I consider the "funny" rating to be the leftist white flag of surrender.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Time to end the racist Electoral College. It was created by racists for racist reasons.

Time to end the racist posts by the racist Lakhota, posted for racist reasons.

 

[RDD_1210]

I want equal voice for the people when it comes to picking the president. Equal voice for the states comes from the Senate.

I want to protect all in the vote, the rural voter and the suburban voter, both have different needs and all needs need to be accounted for. That is why we are a republic. If we started to eliminate the minority voice it would be regressing back to the 1800's. I'm for keeping the Republic and all voices heard and acknowledged. With a country as big as the United States is, different areas need different needs and the needs will contrast vastly. With both parties giving increasing power to the Executive Office, we need to make sure all are heard and all have a voice. A popular vote would not allow for the small voice to be acknowledged, let alone be heard.

Right now, the "small voice" carries more weight than it should. I want it to be equal. No one's vote should count more than anyone elses.

Great, how about starting with states that have all electoral votes going to a single candidate.

Agreed, it should be divided up based upon the population and how they vote. Not a winner take all.

Just as soon as California agrees not to count the MILLIONS of illegals as their population.

Illegals can't vote.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I want to protect all in the vote, the rural voter and the suburban voter, both have different needs and all needs need to be accounted for. That is why we are a republic. If we started to eliminate the minority voice it would be regressing back to the 1800's. I'm for keeping the Republic and all voices heard and acknowledged. With a country as big as the United States is, different areas need different needs and the needs will contrast vastly. With both parties giving increasing power to the Executive Office, we need to make sure all are heard and all have a voice. A popular vote would not allow for the small voice to be acknowledged, let alone be heard.

Right now, the "small voice" carries more weight than it should. I want it to be equal. No one's vote should count more than anyone elses.

Great, how about starting with states that have all electoral votes going to a single candidate.

Agreed, it should be divided up based upon the population and how they vote. Not a winner take all.

Just as soon as California agrees not to count the MILLIONS of illegals as their population.

Illegals can't vote.

They COUNT as population you loon.