Elizabeth Warren: 'End Electoral College'

[Ame®icano]

Eliminate the Electoral College and disenfranchise 5/8th of the nation's voters.

Sounds like the Democrats have finally come up with a way to win back the White House.

If that doesn't help them, they'll allow felons to vote, than illegals, than change voting age to 16 or lower. What's next, having whole world voting in our elections? Why not to have UN just declare the winner, forever?

 

[Oldstyle]

Yes let's have Mexifornia elect Democratic Presidents for the next 50 years. That is the Liberal wet dream of abolishing the E.C.

Why are you against the rule of the majority ?
We used that method in the Senate, Congress supreme court the X factor you name it.
And btw California is the biggest economy and best state of the union, Alabama, Mississippi, north Dakota, etc....are is less states.

California is the "best" State in the United States? Based on what exactly? The number of complete morons that have chosen to move there? Those morons have ruined a wonderful place to the point where California now has as many people moving out of it as there are moving in!

 

[M14 Shooter]

Leftist only seek to change the rules when they can't win with playing by the rules.
This is actually good sign that points they don't believe they can win with electoral college.

Until the Democrats are willing to allocate the electors in the states of CA IL and NY by proportion to the votes in each, any argument they have here falls into the "we just want to to win!" file.

Once AGAIN ---- "Democrats" don't decide how electors are chosen. Nor do "Republicans". STATE LEGISLATURES decide that. That's right there in the Constitution.

Ohh.. I seee... you aren't aware of the fact the state legislatures are made up of and controlled by... wait for it... Democrats and Republicans.
Not sure how you could be ignorant of that, but...

Until the Democrats in the state legislatures they control are willing to allocate the electors in each of those states by proportion to the votes in each, any argument they have here falls into the "we just want to to win!" file

 

[M14 Shooter]

If EC votes were allocated proportionally TWO things would happen, One, all those millions of Rump votes in California and New York would actually have counted for something, and Two, and this is probably far more impactful, millions MORE in those states, on both sides, would bother to show up on election day since their vote would now suddently start counting for something. Which means in effect the end result would be unpredictable. A crapshoot.

Uh-huh. And why is it again CA NY and IL do not allow this?

Already answered back in 892.

No. You avoided the question. This is not new.

 

[Pogo]

Leftist only seek to change the rules when they can't win with playing by the rules.
This is actually good sign that points they don't believe they can win with electoral college.

Until the Democrats are willing to allocate the electors in the states of CA IL and NY by proportion to the votes in each, any argument they have here falls into the "we just want to to win!" file.

Once AGAIN ---- "Democrats" don't decide how electors are chosen. Nor do "Republicans". STATE LEGISLATURES decide that. That's right there in the Constitution.

Ohh.. I seee... you aren't aware of the fact the state legislatures are made up of and controlled by... wait for it... Democrats and Republicans.

Wrong. They're made up of legislators. The job of a legislator is to legislate, not to represent a goddam political party.

Same thing with those bullshit "RINO/DINO" concepts the fallacious like to trot out here for Congresscritters. In the same way, the job of a Congressional representative is to represent the interests of their constituents, not that of some political party. Y'all binary thinkers have to get the **** PAST that crutch. One upon which you seem to lean heavily. Hail Duopolist.

 

[Pogo]

If EC votes were allocated proportionally TWO things would happen, One, all those millions of Rump votes in California and New York would actually have counted for something, and Two, and this is probably far more impactful, millions MORE in those states, on both sides, would bother to show up on election day since their vote would now suddently start counting for something. Which means in effect the end result would be unpredictable. A crapshoot.

Uh-huh. And why is it again CA NY and IL do not allow this?

Already answered back in 892.

No. You avoided the question. This is not new.

Okay Peewee, I ain't gonna sit here and play little kid games just because you can't grow up. You have the reference, ******* READ it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Leftist only seek to change the rules when they can't win with playing by the rules.
This is actually good sign that points they don't believe they can win with electoral college.

Until the Democrats are willing to allocate the electors in the states of CA IL and NY by proportion to the votes in each, any argument they have here falls into the "we just want to to win!" file.

Once AGAIN ---- "Democrats" don't decide how electors are chosen. Nor do "Republicans". STATE LEGISLATURES decide that. That's right there in the Constitution.

Ohh.. I seee... you aren't aware of the fact the state legislatures are made up of and controlled by... wait for it... Democrats and Republicans.

Wrong. They're made up of legislators.

Now I remember why I had you on ignore.
Silly me.

 

[Ame®icano]

From the OP:

Former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton beat President Donald Trump by almost 3 million votes in the 2016 election by leading in strongly Democratic states. But Trump eventually won with the Electoral College’s help in swing states like Wisconsin and Michigan. Trump is the fifth United States president to have taken office without winning the national popular vote.

While left is demanding for elections to be decided by popular vote, their own primaries are decided by super delegates.

By the way, Bill Clinton did not win by popular vote in 1992 or 1996 neither.

 

[Pogo]

Leftist only seek to change the rules when they can't win with playing by the rules.
This is actually good sign that points they don't believe they can win with electoral college.

Until the Democrats are willing to allocate the electors in the states of CA IL and NY by proportion to the votes in each, any argument they have here falls into the "we just want to to win!" file.

Once AGAIN ---- "Democrats" don't decide how electors are chosen. Nor do "Republicans". STATE LEGISLATURES decide that. That's right there in the Constitution.

Ohh.. I seee... you aren't aware of the fact the state legislatures are made up of and controlled by... wait for it... Democrats and Republicans.

Wrong. They're made up of legislators.

Now I remember why I had you on ignore.
Silly me.

Yep. I know too much. Cult of Ignorance hates that 'knowledge' shit.

 

[Pogo]

From the OP:

Former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton beat President Donald Trump by almost 3 million votes in the 2016 election by leading in strongly Democratic states. But Trump eventually won with the Electoral College’s help in swing states like Wisconsin and Michigan. Trump is the fifth United States president to have taken office without winning the national popular vote.

While left is demanding for elections to be decided by popular vote, their own primaries are decided by super delegates.

View attachment 251414


By the way, Bill Clinton did not win by popular vote in 1992 or 1996 neither.

"Primaries" are meaningless bread-and-circus designed to present the illusion of voter participation. In realty a political party is going to nominate whoever the **** it wants to nominate, primaries be damned. The idea that any party is somehow "bound" by primary delegates is pure fantasy. One which they would love for us to buy.

 

[M14 Shooter]

By the way, Bill Clinton did not win by popular vote in 1992 or 1996 neither.

Those whining and crying about the EC have yet to address the idea of what happens when no candidate gets a majority of the popular vote - like in 1968, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2016....

 

[Pogo]

By the way, Bill Clinton did not win by popular vote in 1992 or 1996 neither.

Those whining and crying about the EC have yet to address the idea of what happens when no candidate gets a majority of the popular vote - like in 1968, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2016....

Don't stop there ---- you can add 1960,1948, 1912, 1888, 1876, 1860, 1856, 1848, 1844 and 1824 at minimum.

Which curls right back to my citations of Wisconsin, New Hamster, Michigan, Minnesota and several other states including my own and Cecile's AridZona, where no candidate won as much as 50% of the state's vote ----- yet one won the entire shebang in the EC in every one of them, thereby tossing more than 50% of each state's voters' wishes directly into the shredder.

Thank you for underscoring my point.

It also invites us once again to reiterate that any significant third party influence (as in 2000, 1996, 1992, 1980, 1968, 1948, 1912 and 1860) can only operate on the strategy of siphoning off enough D/R electors as to deny either one of them a majority, thereby throwing the entire election into the House of Reps where anything can happen --- in other words negating the entire election process itself and doing an end-around.

Yep, another voter disenfranchisement brought to you at no extra charge by the Electrical College.


(get it? "charge"/Electrical"? I kill me)

 

[Ame®icano]

The problem with the electoral college is that Republicans found a way to manipulate it. I get the complaints about it but were we to fix that they'd simply find another way to fix elections (because there are simply not enough Republicans to win except in regionals areas and even there ,usually by use of gerrymandering).

But the wing nuts are correct. It would take an Amendment.

How exactly Republicans manipulate EC?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The problem with the electoral college is that Republicans found a way to manipulate it.

How, exactly, do they do this?
Do Democrats not also do the same thing?

 

[toobfreak]

Simple "school teacher with a masters degree." I was referring to the four years earlier (if you read) when the last time was these states DID vote red! Neither state has voted red since Reagan's second term! And we know Ca only voted for him then because he had been a popular governor and proactive actor there. Further proof why public school kids are in the ******* dumper these days. And despite the fact that a large part of Ca is still red and most of NYS, SanFran democrats and NYC dems have so over run their states, these people no longer have any voice in their state elections! I know---- I know many who live there.

You should learn to write, dumbass!

You said 1992. If you meant 1988 you should have said so. What a ******* moron!

HEY JACKASS. I DID SAY SO. LEARN TO ******* READ. THEN SHUT THE HELL UP, PINHEAD. I'LL SAY IT AGAIN THAT EVEN A DOLT LIKE YOU WILL GET IT:

Lessee: California and New York have voted Blue since 1992. That is 31 years since they elected a republican.

The number you used was 1992, true or false?

Moron!

You are so stupid you don't even realize you are stupid!

What's scary is that you claim to have a masters degree and educate our children.

No. What is really scary is that you are spreading stupid like it was fertilizer. Why can't you man up and admit you fucked up and salvage a little self respect?

Jesus, dumbass. You're so blind drunk with stupidity, you couldn't handle a simple arithmetic problem even after I spelled it out in plain English twice! So damned stupid you can't even read english that my math was ONE HUNDRED ******* PERCENT RIGHT that you're still after me to admit I was wrong apparently claiming that 27 + 4 DOESN'T equal 31! Go! Moron, Go! Master ******* degree MY ASS. Master ass picker you are.

 

[Ame®icano]

From the OP:

Former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton beat President Donald Trump by almost 3 million votes in the 2016 election by leading in strongly Democratic states. But Trump eventually won with the Electoral College’s help in swing states like Wisconsin and Michigan. Trump is the fifth United States president to have taken office without winning the national popular vote.

Washington redskin,
Actually the conservative/libertarian side receive more of the popular vote... lol
2016 Presidential General Election Results

Correct. To win popular vote, you need half of votes plus one.

Although Hillary had more votes than Trump, she did not win overall popular vote.

 

[Pogo]

From the OP:

Former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton beat President Donald Trump by almost 3 million votes in the 2016 election by leading in strongly Democratic states. But Trump eventually won with the Electoral College’s help in swing states like Wisconsin and Michigan. Trump is the fifth United States president to have taken office without winning the national popular vote.

Washington redskin,
Actually the conservative/libertarian side receive more of the popular vote... lol
2016 Presidential General Election Results

Completely dishonest post. There is no single "conservative" party and even if you take it as a descriptive adjective --- or to mean the RP ---- it's got nothing to do with the Libertarians.

Hell, if you combine all the money in my wallet with the number of cells in an ocelot you'd have a million bucks.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Correct. To win popular vote, you need half of votes plus one.
Although Hillary had more votes than Trump, she did not win overall popular vote.

That depends on how the amendment that replaces the EC is written - if it specified a majority is necessary to win , then you're right; if they're stupid enough to specify "the most" votes, then they only need more than everyone else.

In the latter case, someone who took just over 10% of the vote could win, even though 90% of the people did not vote for him.

 

[Ame®icano]

Eliminate the Electoral College and disenfranchise 5/8th of the nation's voters.

Sounds like the Democrats have finally come up with a way to win back the White House.

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

Why should Pennsylvania be more important than Montana? Learn to understand that the federal government is interested in many things besides individual votes. I'm sure to simplistic, childish minds, pure democracy sounds wonderful and "fair" - the ultimate in meaningless childish concepts - but the reality of the adult world is that "fair" ideas often work out to the least "fair" of consequences.

The way it is now, federal government doesn't care about state's rights. That's why 17th amendment should go away.

 

[Ame®icano]

If there was ever a time for the Electoral college to prove it's worth it was the 2016 election....

But all they proved was their worthlessness!

It's time to abolish the EC!

What are you talking about? The electoral college worked as it was supposed to
and saved this great nation of ours.

Oh? It gave us Bush and Trump. That said, I'm not in favor of abolishing it.

There's a reason that Republicans always point out that we are a Republic and not a democracy. They are referring to the fact that in a "true" democracy that the popular vote is the end all and be all and they know that they don't have the popular vote.

So do we do away with the electoral college? I think that would be mistake. What we DO...is VOTE...in big numbers. Don't let voter suppression efforts stop us.

They can only win (steal) elections when they are close. We need to get out and vote in BIG numbers or surrender to this insanity

Time to start reviving dead people and to stop deportations, right?