Elizabeth Warren: 'End Electoral College'

[U2Edge]

Anyone else notice that the electoral college was not a problem for over 200 years until the hildabeast lost

Your forgetting Gore vs Bush in 2000.

 

[U2Edge]

The Senate. The Electoral College. The First Amendment. The Second Amendment. The Supreme Court. Is there a part of our constitutional order that the Democrats have not pledged to destroy?

Once AGAIN this thread has nothing to do with "Democrats" or political parties.

What the **** don't you GET about that?

You've been shown over and over that this thread has everything to with Democrats and their constant attempts to destroy the constitution, or to go around it, to get their way.

BULLSHIT. I don't traffic in Composition Fallacies first of all. This thread has been, at least in my posting, about how the EC works and what its glaring flaws are ----- which has ZERO to do with "Democrats" or any other political party. And now you're going down the same dishonest road, which tells me you're afraid to touch the topic, so you need to make it into something else.

I may never understand why binary-bots are so obsessed with "political parties" as if they're some kind of requirement and can't seem to count beyond the number "two". Just makes no goddam sense.

Same thing goes for this post above. I have yet to assign a political party advantage/disadvantage to ANY of my arguments here or in any other EC thread, yet here's another wag determined to inject in irrelevancies I never brought up. Again, it tells me that y'all Dichotomists can't deal with the argument on its own merits so you have to change it to something else. I don't play that.

Hey, I was only saying why the current NPVIC campaign is not likely to succeed in the near future and that over time it may fade away.

 

[Crixus]

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.

Meh, send her a box of blankets.

 

[Pogo]

Anyone else notice that the electoral college was not a problem for over 200 years until the hildabeast lost

Your forgetting Gore vs Bush in 2000.

He's forgetting a gaggle of them including but not limited to, 1800,.1824, 1876, as well as the attempts to hijack it in 1948 and 1968, not to mention the other times it ushered in a candy who couldn't pull as much as 50% of the vote (1852, 1856, 1860, 1888, 1912, 1916, 1960, 1992. 1996).

Of course when we say "forget" we're talking "selective memory".

This is exactly what I'm talking about with the freaking Dichotomists bent on cherrypicking a single incident and trying to make it a causation, just because they didn't bother to pay attention all the previous times, so that they don't have to address the big picture. Of course this also leaves said Dichotomists with the dilemma of proving their negative that 'it wasn't a problem".

 

[Cecilie1200]

There are more "red" voters in Cali than people in Wyoming, Alaska, North Dakota and South Dakota combined.

And they are powerless in state and national issues.

Which is the weakness of the current winner take all EC system.

Which ever system we use, there will be those that do not matter and will not have their vote count.

One quick fix would be get rid of the winner takes all in the states.

If you didn’t win the congressional district you shouldn't get to claim it as yours. Then whoever won the most, or let's say 2/3 districts in a state, they would get the two senatorial votes. This would more align the popular vote with the winner of the Electoral College.

It would only work if Democrats won all elections from that point on. If they continue to lose elections, the next thing they'll be complaining about is the Senate.

This isn't about fairness or improving the system. What they want is a way to win each and every presidential election hands down.

and you do not want the Repubs to win every presidential election hands down?

Once again, you assume everyone is a self-centered, amoral ass just because you are.

I can't read Ray's mind, but I'm betting that what he wants is for the best candidate to win by articulating the best plan for the ENTIRE country, and convincing the majority of the ENTIRE country to agree with him/her.

That's certainly what I want.

 

[skookerasbil]

The Obama years saw some off the reservation statements coming from a small handful of DUMS but in recent months, we are seeing more and more off the rails stuff like this. Monthly stipends for people who don't work.......reparation payments.........green new deal......

Go.....go.......go............

 

[Markle]

But that's what you fail to understand, its your perception of what relevance is, not whatever one else thinks is relevance. If you wind up with a situation where the old rules of the electoral college in terms of how states appoint their EV's favors the current Democratic party, then you can expect several of the states to drop the NPVIC and go with the old system. In addition, the political composition of any state can change over time. People are in politics to win, their perceptions of how relevant their vote is based on the electoral college vs national popular vote are far behind that.

I think in the coming years that the electoral college is going to favor Democrats more than it does now, and that will essentially kill the NPVIC movement.

Just look at the 11 largest states which add up to 270 electoral votes.

BLUE STATES - 154 electoral votes:
California
New York
Pennsylvania
Illinois
Michigan
New Jersey

SWING STATES - 47 electoral votes:
Florida
Ohio

RED STATES - 69 electoral votes:
Texas
Georgia
North Carolina

Pennsylvania and Michigan going red in 2016 was a fluke. The general trajectory of these states is still with the Blue. On the other hand, Florida and Texas risk going Blue in 2020 or 2024 due to demographic changes which see the Hispanic population growing both their immigration and the larger number of children born to Hispanic families. Because of these factors the NPVIC will lose momentum in the coming years. After several more elections with the national popular vote winner also winning the electoral college, people will forget what happened in 2016 and 2000.

Sad, but amusing. You picked the states, Blue, Swing, and Red. Let's see how they do with their fiscal responsibilities. Oops!

 

[Pogo]

And they are powerless in state and national issues.

Which is the weakness of the current winner take all EC system.

Which ever system we use, there will be those that do not matter and will not have their vote count.

One quick fix would be get rid of the winner takes all in the states.

If you didn’t win the congressional district you shouldn't get to claim it as yours. Then whoever won the most, or let's say 2/3 districts in a state, they would get the two senatorial votes. This would more align the popular vote with the winner of the Electoral College.

It would only work if Democrats won all elections from that point on. If they continue to lose elections, the next thing they'll be complaining about is the Senate.

This isn't about fairness or improving the system. What they want is a way to win each and every presidential election hands down.

and you do not want the Repubs to win every presidential election hands down?

Once again, you assume everyone is a self-centered, amoral ass just because you are.

I can't read Ray's mind, but I'm betting that what he wants is for the best candidate to win by articulating the best plan for the ENTIRE country, and convincing the majority of the ENTIRE country to agree with him/her.

That's certainly what I want.

Then why have you abandoned your former intelligent position of a Rump-free America?

Why indeed....

 

[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......

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.

The winner of the popular vote is the candidate with the most votes from the nation’s people.

And? All you really just told us is, "the winner of an election system that doesn't exist". So what? You can't "win" or "lose" an election that doesn't really exist, however much you leftists want to natter on about it.

 

[Pogo]

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.

The winner of the popular vote is the candidate with the most votes from the nation’s people.

And? All you really just told us is, "the winner of an election system that doesn't exist". So what? You can't "win" or "lose" an election that doesn't really exist, however much you leftists want to natter on about it.

Once AGAIN there is nothing "left" or "right" in an examination of how the Electoral College works.

Prove me wrong.

 

[Cecilie1200]

As far as federal laws go, the Voting Rights Bill of 1965 was passed to eliminate discriminatory provisions that kept blacks from voting. Constitutional amendments have dealt with extending the voting franchise to specific groups. In 19th amendment gave the franchise to women, the 26th does not permit states to deny the vote because of age to anyone that's at least 18.

And none of that is relevant to the discussion.

Au contraire, Elizabeth Warren is in favor of getting rid of the Elector College in order to decide the presidency based on the nation's popular vote. However the quickest way to achieve the end goal would be to leave the U.S. Constitution alone and have states enact the National Popular Vote law, which 13 states with a total of 181 electoral votes have already done. That's two-thirds the way there in terms of the 270 electoral votes needed to select a president.

So, you and Elizabeth Warren just want to ignore how things are supposed to work to substitute your opinion for that of the national compact? Ridiculous.

You've made a couple of assumptions, primarily on how things are suppose to work. I on the other hand understand that our federal Constitution calls for the vote of the Electoral College to determine our president and that there is no Constitutional provision or federal law that requires its electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their states.

Another of your assumptions is that I share Elizabeth Warren's desire to change things. To you I say again, au contraire. Reality as I see it is that a national popular vote will most easily come about through ignorance of those people who count on the federal courts to prevent any change. I make no such assumption because I always hope the courts use the Constitution as their guide rather than some artificial standard such as how posters like you think things are suppose to work.

Each of the States chose to have their population decide how their electoral votes would be allocated. Now, the movement is to allow other states to decided how their electoral votes would be allocated. That is Ridiculous!

You can try to distract or create another sort of argument, as you do there, but that doesn't change the fact that the whole idea is ridiculous!

He apparently thinks that because the Constitution lets the states decide how to apportion Electoral College votes, that makes it all fine and legal for the states to do so by disenfranchising their own populations and invalidating their votes. He can't imagine why that wouldn't be okay.

And then he wonders why I consider 2 cents to be overpaying for his input.

 

[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?

Having done the math it turns out that red states get MORE EC votes (per capita) than blue states. I have no doubt that if blue states had the same advantage conservatives would have already started that civil war they dream of.

Nope. If they can actually convince any of those states to support them instead, then more power to 'em.

On the other hand, if they had anything at all that the people in those states WANTED, they wouldn't be the pack of putrid, Unamerican ass napkins that they are, so they wouldn't be as objectionable.

 

[Dick Foster]

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.

If you don't like this country and it's constitution, you are always free to leave. Unlike shithole socalist regimes we don't need to force people to stay here.

 

[Pogo]

And none of that is relevant to the discussion.

Au contraire, Elizabeth Warren is in favor of getting rid of the Elector College in order to decide the presidency based on the nation's popular vote. However the quickest way to achieve the end goal would be to leave the U.S. Constitution alone and have states enact the National Popular Vote law, which 13 states with a total of 181 electoral votes have already done. That's two-thirds the way there in terms of the 270 electoral votes needed to select a president.

So, you and Elizabeth Warren just want to ignore how things are supposed to work to substitute your opinion for that of the national compact? Ridiculous.

You've made a couple of assumptions, primarily on how things are suppose to work. I on the other hand understand that our federal Constitution calls for the vote of the Electoral College to determine our president and that there is no Constitutional provision or federal law that requires its electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their states.

Another of your assumptions is that I share Elizabeth Warren's desire to change things. To you I say again, au contraire. Reality as I see it is that a national popular vote will most easily come about through ignorance of those people who count on the federal courts to prevent any change. I make no such assumption because I always hope the courts use the Constitution as their guide rather than some artificial standard such as how posters like you think things are suppose to work.

Each of the States chose to have their population decide how their electoral votes would be allocated. Now, the movement is to allow other states to decided how their electoral votes would be allocated. That is Ridiculous!

You can try to distract or create another sort of argument, as you do there, but that doesn't change the fact that the whole idea is ridiculous!

He apparently thinks that because the Constitution lets the states decide how to apportion Electoral College votes, that makes it all fine and legal for the states to do so by disenfranchising their own populations and invalidating their votes.

It does.

Is there some part of "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors" that qualifies that action with "unless some future poster on a message board sporting a hookah-smoking caterpillar doesn't like it"?

Not to even mention, as has been noted about 678 times in this thread alone, that up to half --- nay, more than half --- of that state's voters are already getting disenfranchised by WTA in every single damn election.

Duh?

He can't imagine why that wouldn't be okay.

And you have no argument for why it wouldn't. Ergo "Everybody Knows" fallacy. Or would you prefer Ipse Dixit. No extra charge.

Guess you lose.

 

[Pogo]

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.

If you don't like this country and it's constitution, you are always free to leave. Unlike shithole socalist regimes we don't need to force people to stay here.

Doesn't begin to address the issue, does it.

 

[dblack]

Not to even mention, as has been noted about 678 times in this thread alone, that up to half --- nay, more than half --- of that state's voters are already getting disenfranchised by WTA in every single damn election.

I don't think the use of the term "disenfranchised" is accurate here. Just because the candidate you vote for doesn't win, doesn't mean you're vote doesn't count. No one's vote is being dismissed. Your state just isn't awarding its electors the way you'd like.

 

[Pogo]

Not to even mention, as has been noted about 678 times in this thread alone, that up to half --- nay, more than half --- of that state's voters are already getting disenfranchised by WTA in every single damn election.

I don't think the use of the term "disenfranchised" is accurate here. Just because the candidate you vote for doesn't win, doesn't mean you're vote doesn't count. No one's vote is being dismissed. Your state just isn't awarding its electors the way you'd like.

Actually that's exactly what it means. When the electors of AridZona, Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hamster, New Mexico, North Cackalackee, Pennsylvania, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin ALL go to Congress and tell them "we're just dumbstruck, it seems literally EVERYBODY in our state voted for _____" despite the fact that NOBODY in any of those states scored even as much as 50% of the vote ..... that means more than half of that state's voters had their ballot dumped immediately into the shredder, never to be seen again. And in the case of the other states, less than half but a significant proportion, up to 49.9%.

So the fact that individual voters are already disenfranchised is not only well known, it's a straight mathematical equation. You'll also note that Cecile's state is the first one on that list. Mine's in there too.

And that's a major reason our national turnout is abysmal. (Again) in most states that election is a foregone conclusion, therefore no individual voter can find any point in voting at all. It's going to be meaningless. They are in effect disenfranchised before the vote even begins, which is after all what disenfranchised means. Whether such disenfranchisement is by a gang mentality in the EC or by a literacy test or by other intimidation, is a distinction without a difference.

 

[Votto]

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 Electoral College was a clever invention by the Founding Fathers to prevent Indians from winning the White House.

Shh! Don't tell anyone.

 

[22lcidw]

Anyone else notice that the electoral college was not a problem for over 200 years until the hildabeast lost

Your forgetting Gore vs Bush in 2000.

I believe Bush woin the popular vite no matter how much bull is thrown.

 

[Pogo]

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 Colleg

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

The Electoral College was a clever invention by the Founding Fathers to prevent Indians from winning the White House.

Shh! Don't tell anyone.

Didn't work. Calvin Coolidge says How.