Elizabeth Warren: 'End Electoral College'

[Pogo]

we are a Constitutional Federal Republic.

Correct.

A republic (Latin: res publica) is a form of government in which the country is considered a “public matter”, not the private concern or property of the rulers. The primary positions of power within a republic are not inherited, but are attained through democracy, oligarchy or autocracy. It is a form of government under which the head of state is not a monarch.

Having ruled out democracy, which do you then prefer, oligarchy or autocracy?

The former Soviet Union had a “Politburo.” So I think Democrats want rule by committee. Pelosi, Warren, Sanders, Harris, and Ocasio Chavez running the grand Republic into the ******* sewer.

Interesting. So "democracy" then, to your mind anyway, implies "Soviet Union" which then implies "Democrats" and "rule by committee." Methinks you prone to often sliding well off the rails of your own slippery slopes. Somehow you've managed to remain blissfully unaware that every President and political party (not to mention billionaire driven oligopoly) has thus far "ruled by committee" Meanwhile, you've utterly failed to address a very reasonable, unbiased question..

Democratic Party is a threat to our Constitutional democratic Republic. Democrats helped Putin in his efforts to divide and weaken the United States. Job well done you miserable cocksuckers. The left wing extremists in this nation (Democrats) can’t win legitimately through a democratic process so they steal elections through “vote harvesting” and special counsel investigations to overturn a Constitutional, democratic, election. You fuckers make me sick. Hold everyone of you no good sonsabitches accountable. I don’t like the fact that Democrats attempt to take my vote for Donald Trump away from me. Most lowlife, underhanded, thing I have ever seen in politics and I spent over 20 years working for Democratic Party.

It's not hard to see why they kicked you out.

 

[Bush92]

we are a Constitutional Federal Republic.

Correct.

A republic (Latin: res publica) is a form of government in which the country is considered a “public matter”, not the private concern or property of the rulers. The primary positions of power within a republic are not inherited, but are attained through democracy, oligarchy or autocracy. It is a form of government under which the head of state is not a monarch.

Having ruled out democracy, which do you then prefer, oligarchy or autocracy?

The former Soviet Union had a “Politburo.” So I think Democrats want rule by committee. Pelosi, Warren, Sanders, Harris, and Ocasio Chavez running the grand Republic into the ******* sewer.

Interesting. So "democracy" then, to your mind anyway, implies "Soviet Union" which then implies "Democrats" and "rule by committee." Methinks you prone to often sliding well off the rails of your own slippery slopes. Somehow you've managed to remain blissfully unaware that every President and political party (not to mention billionaire driven oligopoly) has thus far "ruled by committee" Meanwhile, you've utterly failed to address a very reasonable, unbiased question..

Democratic Party is a threat to our Constitutional democratic Republic. Democrats helped Putin in his efforts to divide and weaken the United States. Job well done you miserable cocksuckers. The left wing extremists in this nation (Democrats) can’t win legitimately through a democratic process so they steal elections through “vote harvesting” and special counsel investigations to overturn a Constitutional, democratic, election. You fuckers make me sick. Hold everyone of you no good sonsabitches accountable. I don’t like the fact that Democrats attempt to take my vote for Donald Trump away from me. Most lowlife, underhanded, thing I have ever seen in politics and I spent over 20 years working for Democratic Party.

It's not hard to see why they kicked you out.

I left of my own volition because idiots like you took over the party.

 

[bripat9643]

What does Candy and Congress have to do with this?

Our presidential system is that states have electors that vote in proportion to the popular vote of that state. It can't be much fairer than that.

So you have zero argument for morphing 47 into 100.

Guess that's settled then. Welcome aboard.

I have no idea where you get this 47 into a hundred thing or what it's supposed to mean. It's totally irrelevant and will remain that way in a presidential election. What is relevant is that the electors of a state cast their vote according to the majority of how the public voted. That's what's important.

That's taking for example the vote count of Michigan or Wisconsin, where Rump pulled a 47% showing, and yet their electors went to Congress and awarded him 100% of their votes.

You DO understand the difference between 47% of the people making a specific choice and 100% of the people choosing something, do you not?

It wouldn't matter if he pulled 30%. As long as he was the most popular he gets the votes.

Once AGAIN your task was to make the case why it SHOULD work that way. "Should" was your term when you asked the question. I answered that question and gave my reasoning. All you have in response is "well that's the way it works", which is not an answer to "should".

I can only conclude that you CAN'T make that case, which is actually the correct answer. So just admit it.

Your "reasoning" is based on the moronic notion that there's something intrinsically moral about majority rule. Once you ignore that idiocy, your argument falls apart.

 

[bripat9643]

Whose interests are represented in Washington by Senators?

2 Wyoming Senators represent 450,000 people. 2 NY Senators represent 20 MILLION.

You're worried that states like Wyoming don't have ENOUGH representation?

I think the problem is that have a vastly oversize amount of representation

The United States is a federation of States. That's why each state has equal representation in the Senate. It used to be that each state government chose the people to represent the state, but some demagogues conned the public into changing that good sense arrangement.

 

[bripat9643]

we are a Constitutional Federal Republic.

Correct.

A republic (Latin: res publica) is a form of government in which the country is considered a “public matter”, not the private concern or property of the rulers. The primary positions of power within a republic are not inherited, but are attained through democracy, oligarchy or autocracy. It is a form of government under which the head of state is not a monarch.

Having ruled out democracy, which do you then prefer, oligarchy or autocracy?

Trump's indifference to the emoluments clause well illustrates the inherent problems concomitant with autocratic republics. The Kochs driving us into another oil war with Venezuela just to supply their two crud refineries in the Gulf well indicate oligarchic republic failure. Best to stick with our good, old democratic republic minus the billionaires.

Notice "democratic republic".. Not Democrats. Not Republicans. Both. All members of both major Parties in fact. Two peas in a pod, only one simply can't exist without the other. So one big pea (or pee) in reality. Created, as the Founders completely intended, to ensure that wealthy, land owning capitalists would always run the show free of any genuine fettering from the masses of supportive asses gratuitously labeled The People. Nevertheless, the Founders had no way of knowing the disgusting degree to which the workers would be distanced from and by the owners.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Mentioning the emoluments clause is the way you identify yourself as a brain dead moron.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Blue states would if they had less population. The idea of the EC is to give less populated states some power to have a say as to who our President should be.

EQUAL power is fine. MORE power is not.

I take it we're back to "Individual votes are EVERYTHING, so the popular vote is HOLY!"

Smaller states don't have more power than larger ones do. They don't even have equal the power of larger states. What they DO have is enough power to defend themselves from being turned into voiceless, unrepresented slaves.

silly me.....I thought we were a nation of PEOPLE. Thank you for informing me that we are really a nation of states!


One person, One vote, equal.

Nope. We're a union of states.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Whose interests are represented in Washington by Senators?

2 Wyoming Senators represent 450,000 people. 2 NY Senators represent 20 MILLION.

You're worried that states like Wyoming don't have ENOUGH representation?

I think the problem is that have a vastly oversize amount of representation

How do you figure that?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Blue states would if they had less population. The idea of the EC is to give less populated states some power to have a say as to who our President should be.

EQUAL power is fine. MORE power is not.

I take it we're back to "Individual votes are EVERYTHING, so the popular vote is HOLY!"

Smaller states don't have more power than larger ones do. They don't even have equal the power of larger states. What they DO have is enough power to defend themselves from being turned into voiceless, unrepresented slaves.

silly me.....I thought we were a nation of PEOPLE. Thank you for informing me that we are really a nation of states!


One person, One vote, equal.

We're a nation of people, AND a nation of states in which those people live. No one is responsible for the simplistically incorrect crap you "thought" except you.

Next time, don't presume to think when you're so obviously ill-equipped for it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Blue states would if they had less population. The idea of the EC is to give less populated states some power to have a say as to who our President should be.

Basically

YOU are saying....YOU deserve MORE voting power than me.

That YOUR vote should count MORE than mine.

And the fact that you think that is "fair" makes me wonder about you.....

No, what I'm saying is that my state should have similar power to yours. We are talking states here and not individuals.

I live in one of the states that doesn't have that problem, so if people in less populated states have more power individually, I have no problem with that.

Our Congress consists of two parts: one part is voted in by a pure democracy and representation of the amount of citizens. The other part is voted in having equal power to every other state. But the presidency does not have two parts to equal each other out. There is only one presidency, and the only way to make it equal to the Congress is the electoral college.

 

[Markle]

silly me.....I thought we were a nation of PEOPLE. Thank you for informing me that we are really a nation of states!

One person, One vote, equal.

No question, you need a refresher in the name of our country. It is NOT the United Peoples Republic. It IS The United STATES of America.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I think you just found the excuse you need to quit discussing and go prove your claims ---- you have no idea what you're talking about in political terms.

There is no "today's definition". Liberal means Liberal, period. And it does not mean "leftist" because leftist means leftist.

Liberalism is opposed from both the right AND the left.

No, liberals and leftists are all part of the Democrat party. In fact we have a few in the Republican party, but they are anomalies and certainly the minority of the party.

Again BULL SHIT. Your choosing not to see or remember something IN NO WAY means it didn't happen. Earth simply does not work that way. So pleading ignorance is in no way argument.

For a guy who wants to spend time discussing you're woefully ill prepared for it.

Why would they complain if they won both? Nobody brought up the popular vote on the left because there was no need to. They won!

This is not about what's fair or what is better. It's about the left figuring out ways to cheat future elections. If you can't win by the rules, change the rules.

Today's left are not liberals. They wants us to call them liberals because it associate them with founding fathers, although they're nowhere near them. Today left are progressives, which is closest to Marxist Bolsheviks.

I address people by what they wish to be called. They use progressives more than liberal today, but 20 years ago it was pure liberal. I'm fine with that.

Now it's socialist/ democrat, and that will be expanding in the party as time moves forward. I will use that very term as well except I may just use the word Socialist. It's less typing and inserting "democrat" in there is just softening the blow. Besides the fact down the road, they too will drop the word Democrat and just go with Socialist.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Blue states would if they had less population. The idea of the EC is to give less populated states some power to have a say as to who our President should be.

Basically

YOU are saying....YOU deserve MORE voting power than me.

That YOUR vote should count MORE than mine.

And the fact that you think that is "fair" makes me wonder about you.....

I feel certain that he's NOT saying that, since he's not looking at the issue in the cockeyed, self-contradicting way you are.

If you feel certain he is NOT demanding a more powerful vote then you are bad at math.

are you a girl? (kidding)

If you feel certain that he IS demanding a more powerful vote, then you are bad at logic.

Are you a man?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

probably

Think you're wrong A candidate like Biden won't be making mistakes in campaigning like Clinton did

what are you talking about?

your post was asking if the Electoral College would still work in 2020.

it probably will.

after 2016, I have little doubt whoever the candidate is will do more campaigning than Hillary did.

They couldn't do worse

It’s a stupid subject to argue about. It’s not getting changed anytime soon. Better to concentrate on voter registration and being ready to get people to the polls, whether it’s renting buses across the country, or Beyoncé holding a free concert in St. Louis for all who voted (I have ideas!).

Whatever it takes.

In other words drag people to the polls that are uninterested in voting and don't know crap about politics or policies. Yep, that's the Democrat way.

If people don't want to vote enough to do it on their own, the nation is better off without them voting at all.

That's why Democrats are so scared of Voter-ID. They know Republicans will crawl over hot coals to get to the polls. Democrats? Only if it's close enough, convenient enough, and no effort involved.

Obtaining a voter ID takes minimal effort, but effort nonetheless. Democrats are scared their welfare food stamp recipients won't put in that effort and it will cost them votes. But they can't tell the truth; Democrats never can, so they created the discrimination narrative instead.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Whose interests are represented in Washington by Senators?

2 Wyoming Senators represent 450,000 people. 2 NY Senators represent 20 MILLION.

You're worried that states like Wyoming don't have ENOUGH representation?

I think the problem is that have a vastly oversize amount of representation

2 Wyoming Senators represent 450,000 people. 2 NY Senators represent 20 MILLION.

It's weird, it's almost like that's what the Founders intended.

2 Wyoming Senators represent 1 state. 2 NY Senators represent 1 state. That's what Senators DO: they represent the state itself, regardless of the population.

Did all of these leftists skip Civics class entirely?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Whose interests are represented in Washington by Senators?

2 Wyoming Senators represent 450,000 people. 2 NY Senators represent 20 MILLION.

You're worried that states like Wyoming don't have ENOUGH representation?

I think the problem is that have a vastly oversize amount of representation

The United States is a federation of States. That's why each state has equal representation in the Senate. It used to be that each state government chose the people to represent the state, but some demagogues conned the public into changing that good sense arrangement.

Do you think it ever occurs to leftists to wonder what the purpose of HAVING states even is? I'm guessing if they've even thought about it, they assumed it was just to have a reference point on a map.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Think you're wrong A candidate like Biden won't be making mistakes in campaigning like Clinton did

what are you talking about?

your post was asking if the Electoral College would still work in 2020.

it probably will.

after 2016, I have little doubt whoever the candidate is will do more campaigning than Hillary did.

They couldn't do worse

It’s a stupid subject to argue about. It’s not getting changed anytime soon. Better to concentrate on voter registration and being ready to get people to the polls, whether it’s renting buses across the country, or Beyoncé holding a free concert in St. Louis for all who voted (I have ideas!).

Whatever it takes.

In other words drag people to the polls that are uninterested in voting and don't know crap about politics or policies. Yep, that's the Democrat way.

If people don't want to vote enough to do it on their own, the nation is better off without them voting at all.

That's why Democrats are so scared of Voter-ID. They know Republicans will crawl over hot coals to get to the polls. Democrats? Only if it's close enough, convenient enough, and no effort involved.

Obtaining a voter ID takes minimal effort, but effort nonetheless. Democrats are scared their welfare food stamp recipients won't put in that effort and it will cost them votes. But they can't tell the truth; Democrats never can, so they created the discrimination narrative instead.

I've never approved of having "easy voter registration" every-damned-where you look. If it's too hard for you to get it done without having your welfare caseworker ask you if you want to register every time you go in, then it's obviously not very important to you.

 

[Markle]

2 Wyoming Senators represent 450,000 people. 2 NY Senators represent 20 MILLION.

You're worried that states like Wyoming don't have ENOUGH representation?

I think the problem is that have a vastly oversize amount of representation

This is so boring. Do away with the 17th Amendment and restore balance to our country. The States must be represented as well as the people.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Whose interests are represented in Washington by Senators?

2 Wyoming Senators represent 450,000 people. 2 NY Senators represent 20 MILLION.

You're worried that states like Wyoming don't have ENOUGH representation?

I think the problem is that have a vastly oversize amount of representation

2 Wyoming Senators represent 450,000 people. 2 NY Senators represent 20 MILLION.

It's weird, it's almost like that's what the Founders intended.

2 Wyoming Senators represent 1 state. 2 NY Senators represent 1 state. That's what Senators DO: they represent the state itself, regardless of the population.

Did all of these leftists skip Civics class entirely?

Yes, in the cases where their schools even still teach civics.

 

[bripat9643]

Whose interests are represented in Washington by Senators?

2 Wyoming Senators represent 450,000 people. 2 NY Senators represent 20 MILLION.

You're worried that states like Wyoming don't have ENOUGH representation?

I think the problem is that have a vastly oversize amount of representation

The United States is a federation of States. That's why each state has equal representation in the Senate. It used to be that each state government chose the people to represent the state, but some demagogues conned the public into changing that good sense arrangement.

Do you think it ever occurs to leftists to wonder what the purpose of HAVING states even is? I'm guessing if they've even thought about it, they assumed it was just to have a reference point on a map.

Believe it or not, leftwingers believe the United States created the states! They believe Virginia was created by the Constitution.

I kid you not. They are that stupid.

 

[bripat9643]

what are you talking about?

your post was asking if the Electoral College would still work in 2020.

it probably will.

after 2016, I have little doubt whoever the candidate is will do more campaigning than Hillary did.

They couldn't do worse

It’s a stupid subject to argue about. It’s not getting changed anytime soon. Better to concentrate on voter registration and being ready to get people to the polls, whether it’s renting buses across the country, or Beyoncé holding a free concert in St. Louis for all who voted (I have ideas!).

Whatever it takes.

In other words drag people to the polls that are uninterested in voting and don't know crap about politics or policies. Yep, that's the Democrat way.

If people don't want to vote enough to do it on their own, the nation is better off without them voting at all.

That's why Democrats are so scared of Voter-ID. They know Republicans will crawl over hot coals to get to the polls. Democrats? Only if it's close enough, convenient enough, and no effort involved.

Obtaining a voter ID takes minimal effort, but effort nonetheless. Democrats are scared their welfare food stamp recipients won't put in that effort and it will cost them votes. But they can't tell the truth; Democrats never can, so they created the discrimination narrative instead.

I've never approved of having "easy voter registration" every-damned-where you look. If it's too hard for you to get it done without having your welfare caseworker ask you if you want to register every time you go in, then it's obviously not very important to you.

One idea I do support is making election day a national holiday. Getting to the polls is much more difficult than getting registered to vote.