Elizabeth Warren: 'End Electoral College'

[Pogo]

Without the EC the Republicans in NJ and the Democrats in Tennessee will have a reason to vote. As it is now why should they bother?

No, without the EC, that problem would just be spread to the entire country. You'll excuse us all if we don't want to see most of the country become voiceless serfs to NYC and LA just so that a handful of "Republicans" in NJ and Democrats in Tennessee can feel better about themselves . . . for the exactly one election it takes for them to realize they just sold the entire country into slavery to a couple of mega-cities.

Gotta wonder at this point what's in that hookah.

 

[Papageorgio]

I live in a solid blue state and I vote third party, my voice still counts and I have every reason to vote. If you are not that patriotic and don't want to exercise your right to vote, that's on you. Also state and local elections also matter not just national elections.

I've done that before and it's unsatisfying but more to the point your 3P vote had no meaning at all. Your state took your vote, laughed in your face and said "bwahaha thanks for playin' that's going right in the trash can" and waddled off to Washington to lie through its Electoral teeth "wow, it's amazing, for the umpteenth time in a row EVERYBODY in (your state here) voted for the same candidate". My state did the same thing.

And that's a MAJOR part of the problem. First, scores of voters in your state stayed home because as you noted the outcome was predetermined, so what's the point. And second, the only way your 3P candy (or any 3P candy) was ever going to win the office was by siphoning off enough D and R votes nationally that nobody gets a majority which then tosses the entire decision into the House of Reps, thereby nullifying 100 million-plus votes and starting over. And that wasn't going to happen with input from a "blue" or "red" state anyway.

You voted for your conscience but that's all it amounts to. You could have stayed home and learned useful phrases in Turkish and it would have been more productive. So no, your vote DIDN'T count. Thank the system for that. And while you're at it thank those of us who take the initiative to figure these things out and say they ARE a problem.

Interesting opinion, I don't agree with you. My vote had just as much meaning as the person that took second, I can live with that, I am not going to vote for the lesser of two evils, it is moronic thinking like that that gives us a Clinton Trump election. Screw that!

Your vote for Hlllary didn't count either, neither did my vote for Romney in 2012, in fact whether it is the EC or the popular vote, if you vote for the loser, it didn't count.

Again, if your state is locked-blue as you describe, your vote literally means nothing, even if you also vote blue. The outcome is predetermined. If you get hit by a bus on the way to the poll, it makes exactly the same impact as if you get hit by a bus on the way home from it, which is zero. You can vote with the state, vote against the state, vote third party or stay home, and all four produce exactly the same result. The state doesn't need your vote because it's (again) predetermined, and it's not going to consider anything but the herd vote --- everybody else's vote gets immediately tossed in the crapper.

Wouldn’t mean shit in a popular vote either.

It ABSOLUTELY would because as it is now with a miserable turnout rate of around HALF the electorate, nobody can even guess how many millions more would go out to vote if they knew their vote wasn't going immediately in the shitcan, moreover they would have more than two real choices to do so.

AGAIN --- this ain't rocket surgery --- in most states there's literally no reason to vote at all. That "red" or "blue" state is going to vote red or blue REGARDLESS what any individual does about it. Therefore there's no incentive. Add the incentive, and all bets are off. You might find those New Yorks or Californias going "red" in the final total, the only difference being there wouldn't be a proxy filter sitting there throwing every second, third, fourth-place vote directly into the garbage ---- which is exactly what they do now.

In other other words it would mean your third party vote would actually go somewhere. And plenty of others would feel they don't HAVE TO vote red to block blue or blue to block red, that they actually have an alternative. And that also means the final total would be a complete unknown that we can't begin to project here. It would be an entirely new ball game, rather than a rigged one. You might even have a shot at electing that third party.

This is what I keep saying about how the EC perpetuates the Duopoly. As long as the status remains quo, so does the Duopoly and we go nowhere. And again there is no argument that can possibly be made for perpetuating the Duopoly.

Again, all you have is your opinion. The more third party votes, the bigger the message that is sent to the two parties that they aren't listening. The party in power knows that if 5% of the voters turn to a third party they won't win. Had not been for Jill Stein, Hillary would have won Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.

That is my opinion, nothing else.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Our elections are already decided by voters. The fact that those votes are counted and applied in a way that you don't comprehend and that is more complex than your grade-school mindset prefers is no one's problem but yours.

Why should the vote of a farmer from Wyoming have more impact than the vote of a shop owner from the Bronx?

It doesn't. But if left up to the popular vote, the farmer doest't have any vote at all.

 

[grainbely]

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.

I heard a good counter point from my favorite conservative podcast.

There is not evidence that trump would have still lost of it were a popular vote. Under popular vote from the start, strategies would change and shift towards larger populations rather than winning those electoral votes. Therefore we dont know what the outcome would have been.

I'm not sure that a presidential popular vote is the way to go. Maybe. I dont know enough. It would prob not be worth the political capital to push it through.

I'm more concerned about the Senate's disproportionate representation of the population and its special powers to approve federal justices. Those appointments have generatonal lasting implications and it is shitty that low population rural America has a strangle hold on these institutions. Shitbags like the unprofessional and unstable kavanaugh get shoed in while covered in ethics concerns and broadcasting dishonesty openly. What sort of sick political hack do you need to be on the judicial committee to allow that to happen with properly vetting and deliberating. Ford and her too public accusations are the least of the concerns with him.

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

When they have nothing to reply with, they rate our posts funny, just to claim sometimes later how we are clowns of the board. What else to expect from assholes.

 

[Ame®icano]

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

Let's end everything racist. Starting with party of slavery, Jim Crow laws, KKK, lynching laws, segregation...

 

[Ame®icano]

'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......

LOLOL

You’re ******* deranged.

How did Bill Clinton lose the popular vote? He had more votes than any other candidate.

He didn't lose popular vote. He did't win popular vote neither. He won election based on electoral vote.

Let that sink in.

 

[Ame®icano]

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.
.
.
.

Thank you for pointing that out. The Internet is a great tool for exposing politicians for flip flops and full of shit. Score one against Trump. He’s got a lot of catching up against Obama and Clinton on flip-flops.

As per the topic, The Electoral College, Democrats are calling for its elimination. The reality is they can’t get it done Constituinally so they will more than likely turn to their weapon of choice to get their way: The Bench.

Once again, Trump was right. Were not democracy. If electoral college is disaster for democracy, and it's good for the Republic, why do you think it's a flip-flop?

 

[Markle]

LAKHOTA, with his underlings, has managed to keep a totally senseless thread alive for over 1,200 posts of repetition.

Bullshit. No one is "under" Lakhota.

And yet, here you are!

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

You're concerned about "areas". I'm concerned about people and ensuring every person is counted and weighted the same.

Areas are represented by the house and Senate.

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.

You can't have it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Without the EC the Republicans in NJ and the Democrats in Tennessee will have a reason to vote. As it is now why should they bother?

Well I think Republicans are much more patriotic than Democrats and you'll likely have more of them coming out in a red state than the other way around.

My district is almost solid blue but I still vote for the Republican candidate for the House. Even though we are stuck with Marcia Fudge Packer, I vote against her anyway.

 

[Ame®icano]

I foresee a lot of suits in federal courts in those states that have enacted laws to override the EC. They will reach SCOTUS before the 2020 general election and will be ruled unconstitutional.

I hope so.

For simple reason: The US is a federation.

This means that the states, not the people, vote for president. Every state, no matter how small, gets three electoral votes minimum. Each state's number of electors is equal to the combined total of the state's membership in the Senate and House of Representatives. If anyone think it’s unfair that the country is a federation instead of a democracy, that’s fine, but it’s not the Electoral College that’s unfair. It’s a reasonable way to balance states rights against individual rights.

Those who accept federalism, there’s still a problem with the way states participate in the Electoral College: with a "winner take all" system. This means that votes in states with close to a 50/50 balance between the parties are much more influential than those in other states. A tiny number of votes in swing states determined this election, and that's why those voters have so much power.

Left don't understand that, and they don't care. When they lose they explore the way how to cheat the system, and when they win, they try to change the system so it doesn't look they cheated next time.

 

[Markle]

LAKHOTA, with his underlings, has managed to keep a totally senseless thread alive for over 1,200 posts of repetition.

Is that Rump in high school being told what his SAT scores were?

And yet, as I said to dblack, here you are.

Let's see, President Trump graduated with a degree in business...and then went on to become a multi-billionaire.

How exactly are his SAT scores relevant? Why are you still whining? You lost, AMERICA WON!

 

[Lesh]

Again, all you have is your opinion. The more third party votes, the bigger the message that is sent to the two parties that they aren't listening. The party in power knows that if 5% of the voters turn to a third party they won't win. Had not been for Jill Stein, Hillary would have won Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.

So you're saying that third party votes helped get Trump inflicted on us in 2016 and would again in 2020?

Well we agree on one thing

 

[basquebromance]

"The majority of Americans live in safe districts, where gen election isn’t competitive. By stymieing primaries, you deny most voters their best chance at choosing their representative. We also deny the party the opportunity of training up a future bench, something we badly need." - AOC

 

[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.

When they have nothing to reply with, they rate our posts funny, just to claim sometimes later how we are clowns of the board. What else to expect from assholes.

Which is why I consider that smiley face to be a sign of unconditional leftist surrender. They might just as well replace it with a white flag and be done with it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

They point being dumbass...that Clinton and Obama won BOTH the popular vote and the electoral vote.

Bush the Lesser and Trump both LOST the popular vote...negating the will of the people.

"No matter what my opinion of Trump the fact is the Electoral College is a great system that allow the smaller states in our REPUBLIC to have a voice"

The fact is the EC is a FLAWED system that allowed smaller states an OUTSIZED voice in our NATION'S Presidential election and Supreme Court as a result

No, that's not true.

If you add NY and Cali together, they had (in the 2016 election) 84 electoral votes.

https://state.1keydata.com/state-electoral-votes.php

The lowest 9 populated states collectively had 28 electoral votes.

So how do you feel these lower populated states are overpowering the most populated states? Do you know how many lower populated states it would take to equal just NY and Cali yet alone overpower them? I don't have time right now to do all the math, but here is a list of states according to population, and combine that with the electoral votes those states get with the link above. If you have the time to add all this up, let me know how many of the lower populated states it takes to equal the two most populated. Edit: I count 19. To exceed their combined EC votes by just one, I count 20 states.

List of states and territories of the United States by population - Wikipedia

I'd say states have a s

The US is not a democracy.

The US is a democracy...we choose to operate that democracy as a constitutional republic...which is a blend of power derived from democratic processes...power held by elected officials...and power held by a court system.

My point remains...do you really think the US should scrap a system that has worked for hundreds of years simply because the candidate you wanted didn't get elected in a Presidential race?

Worked likes shit, with the likes of Bush and trump two crazies voted in by the dumbest minority.

It was "dumb" to prefer Trump over Hillary Clinton? I hate to point out the obvious here, Issa but the left ran an odious candidate who managed to be corrupt, incompetent and seemed to feel entitled to the Oval Office simply because she was a woman. Trump wasn't elected because voters were dumb...he was elected because he was a better candidate than the other person on the ballot!

Issa never voted, then he bitches, the dumb one is Issa. He has no valid complaint,

The EC is why most Americans dont vote because in ultra blue or red states , what's the point? Abolish the EC and you'll have every vote count. .

Abolish the EC, and only the votes in NYC and LA will count. Everyone else is just a serf.

 

[Issa]

No, that's not true.

If you add NY and Cali together, they had (in the 2016 election) 84 electoral votes.

https://state.1keydata.com/state-electoral-votes.php

The lowest 9 populated states collectively had 28 electoral votes.

So how do you feel these lower populated states are overpowering the most populated states? Do you know how many lower populated states it would take to equal just NY and Cali yet alone overpower them? I don't have time right now to do all the math, but here is a list of states according to population, and combine that with the electoral votes those states get with the link above. If you have the time to add all this up, let me know how many of the lower populated states it takes to equal the two most populated. Edit: I count 19. To exceed their combined EC votes by just one, I count 20 states.

List of states and territories of the United States by population - Wikipedia

I'd say states have a s

The US is a democracy...we choose to operate that democracy as a constitutional republic...which is a blend of power derived from democratic processes...power held by elected officials...and power held by a court system.

My point remains...do you really think the US should scrap a system that has worked for hundreds of years simply because the candidate you wanted didn't get elected in a Presidential race?

Worked likes shit, with the likes of Bush and trump two crazies voted in by the dumbest minority.

It was "dumb" to prefer Trump over Hillary Clinton? I hate to point out the obvious here, Issa but the left ran an odious candidate who managed to be corrupt, incompetent and seemed to feel entitled to the Oval Office simply because she was a woman. Trump wasn't elected because voters were dumb...he was elected because he was a better candidate than the other person on the ballot!

Issa never voted, then he bitches, the dumb one is Issa. He has no valid complaint,

The EC is why most Americans dont vote because in ultra blue or red states , what's the point? Abolish the EC and you'll have every vote count. .

BS! You have proof that he EC is why most Americans don’t vote? Again you show your ignorance and lack of understanding America.

Is a known fact and I'm q loving proof. Why would I vote in an ultra blue state ?

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

The Constitution has a purpose.
It's to keep fake Indians from stealing elections.

Doesn't seem to have worked then.

​

For an ironic twist ---- this President was endorsed by the Ku Klux Klan. That must have been before he did this photo.

My understanding was that Coolidge disliked the Klan.

"According to one biographer, Coolidge was "devoid of racial prejudice," but rarely took the lead on civil rights. Coolidge disliked the Ku Klux Klan and no Klansman is known to have received an appointment from him. In the 1924 presidential election his opponents (Robert La Follette and John Davis), and his running mate Charles Dawes, often attacked the Klan but Coolidge avoided the subject.[127]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvin_Coolidge​

The Ku Klux Klan was a Democrat organization anyway.

And Coolidge signed the bill granting Native Americans American citizenship. They probably let him wear that headdress because they were honoring him.......sort of the way Kuwaitis gave me and my SF Team Keffiyehs to honor our service to their troops.


But don't worry....Indians honored Obama too in a similar manner.....

 

[Ambivalent1]

What “safeguard” would be stripped away? Explain

The power distribution imbalance of the EC was intentional. It was a compromise to convince less populated, rural states to join the union. It gives them some protection against being ignored by the federal government. If, as happened in 2016, the rural areas feel dismissed by the urban "elites" - the EC gives them a little extra power to push back.

I understand why the Democrats want to end the EC. They were spanked by it. But they were spanked for good reason. They were dismissing, disrespecting and arguably attacking the lives of rural voters. Despite my disgust with Trump, the EC worked as designed. It's an important safeguard, regardless of the party in power.

If Hillary won the presidency and Trump won the popular vote, they wouldn't' even be having this discussion.

BULL SHIT.

Number one that election was over two years ago and number two it LOOOOOOOOONG predates that election anyway. Two hundred years.

Why is it y'all keep leaning on this crutch of trying to make it about political parties and a specific election?

What you have there is a speculation fallacy, and an easily debunked one.

As far as the left is concerned, all their issues or concerns that are stopped by the Constitution is because (in their opinion) the Constitution is outdated and not applicable for modern times. Therefore it should be changed at the will of liberals and not the amendment process that our founders created for such changes.

The Founders *WERE* Liberals. Liberalism is the whole POINT of the Constitution.

Moreover you just conflated "Liberals" with "the left". PICK one.

OH look, more silly word games

The Founders" were Liberals? Sooooooooooooooooooooo since "Liberals" recognized that our "Rights" inalienable and a gift from God......and since "Liberals" ensconced our "Rights" to gun ownership.... and our "Right" to practice or not our Religion….and the "Right" to free speech.....the "Right" to privacy and so on why are TODAY'S "Liberals" working so hard to take it all away and change the rules.

You should have seen this coming kid, you're just another elf inflated kid trying to pretend to be "smart" on the internet.

It REALLY is not my job to educate you illiterates on the homework you should have done for yourself.

>> Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty and equality.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support civil rights, democracy, secularism, gender equality, racial equality, internationalism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and free markets.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]

Liberalism became a distinct movement in the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among Western philosophers and economists. Liberalism sought to replace the norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, the divine right of kings and traditional conservatism with representative democracy and the rule of law. Liberals also ended mercantilist policies, royal monopolies and other barriers to trade, instead promoting free markets.[11] Philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct tradition, arguing that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property,[12] adding that governments must not violate these rights based on the social contract. While the British liberal tradition has emphasised expanding democracy, French liberalism has emphasised rejecting authoritarianism and is linked to nation-building.[13]

Lng youeaders in the Glorious Revolution of 1688,[14] the American Revolution of 1776 and the French Revolution of 1789 used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of royal tyranny. Liberalism started to spread rapidly especially after the French Revolution. The 19th century saw liberal governments established in nations across Europe and South America, whereas it was well-established alongside republicanism in the United States.[15] << (Wiki)​

You were that kid in school who didn't bother to do his reading and then wants to siphon off my work because I did. Get off your ass and go get a history book.

There is NOTHING that you can teach me son, nothing. I've told you, your word games are silly at best, simply stupid at worst. You love to define things the way you want them defined. I don't play that. What I posted was absolutely true, those "Liberals" gave us everything that you trying to now tear apart. You don't get it both ways child.