Elizabeth Warren: 'End Electoral College'

[Ray From Cleveland]

Wait a minute........do you agree or disagree that we would have a better outcome if only people knowledgable of politics were allowed to vote?

Nope. It's our duty to be informed.

Who would determine who is and isn't knowledgeable and using what criteria?

That's complete bullshit

If it were me making that decision I would certainly exclude you based on your idiotic posts on this forum. You good with that?

Oh my, did I rub some salt in the cut?

How about a simple test that just about anybody can pass before being allowed to vote? Questions like who is the VP and what party does he represent? Who is the Speaker of the House? What party is in leadership of the House? The Senate? Just things like that.

What you're afraid of is that all the Obamaphone ladies are on your side and wouldn't be able to vote.

 

[Lesh]

ROFL! You mean you want to drown out my impeccable logic.

We've read your posts. The irony is lost on no one

 

[bripat9643]

ROFL! You mean you want to drown out my impeccable logic.

We've read your posts. The irony is lost on no one

Says the idiot completely lacking a brain.

 

[Lesh]

Wait a minute........do you agree or disagree that we would have a better outcome if only people knowledgable of politics were allowed to vote?

Nope. It's our duty to be informed.

Who would determine who is and isn't knowledgeable and using what criteria?

That's complete bullshit

If it were me making that decision I would certainly exclude you based on your idiotic posts on this forum. You good with that?

Oh my, did I rub some salt in the cut?

How about a simple test that just about anybody can pass before being allowed to vote? Questions like who is the VP and what party does he represent? Who is the Speaker of the House? What party is in leadership of the House? The Senate? Just things like that.

What you're afraid of is that all the Obamaphone ladies are on your side and wouldn't be able to vote.

Sorry dude. Not gonna happen. YOU don't get to pick who has a voice and who doesn't.

Remember that "taxation without representation" thing? If you aren't allowed to vote you have no representation.

Besides. YOU would fail MY test.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

I absolutely agree, because making it a holiday would bring more working people to the polls, and we all know how most working people vote. The ironic part of that is Democrats have suggested that in the past.

Well, no, we need people who are intelligent and rational. Just knowing a few things about politics doesn't make you a good voter. Just look at all the morons in this forum who live and breath politics.

I think taxpayers pay more attention to politics than those who are on the dole. After all, when you go out and create money that government confiscates, you are more concerned with how the money is spent.

People who don't work can go to the polls anytime. They have shorter lines if any line at all (depending on the type of election). Working people have a little tougher time, especially those who work 10 hours or more a day. Even if you can get to the polls, you are too exhausted and just want to have dinner and relax.

 

[dblack]

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.

"Disenfranchised" means one's right to vote has been taken away, so stow the equivocation. Again, what you're complaining about is the fact that most states award their delegates as a block. Voters in those states still get to vote, and their votes are counted. It's good, old-fashioned majority rule. It's just happening at the state level rather than federal.

 

[Lesh]

Kinda funny that Republicans want to limit voting huh?

Voter suppression seems to be in their DNA

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Wait a minute........do you agree or disagree that we would have a better outcome if only people knowledgable of politics were allowed to vote?

Nope. It's our duty to be informed.

Who would determine who is and isn't knowledgeable and using what criteria?

That's complete bullshit

If it were me making that decision I would certainly exclude you based on your idiotic posts on this forum. You good with that?

Oh my, did I rub some salt in the cut?

How about a simple test that just about anybody can pass before being allowed to vote? Questions like who is the VP and what party does he represent? Who is the Speaker of the House? What party is in leadership of the House? The Senate? Just things like that.

What you're afraid of is that all the Obamaphone ladies are on your side and wouldn't be able to vote.

Sorry dude. Not gonna happen. YOU don't get to pick who has a voice and who doesn't.

Remember that "taxation without representation" thing? If you aren't allowed to vote you have no representation.

Besides. YOU would fail MY test.

You probably can't pass mine.

Correct, I do not get to pick who votes and who does not. That's why we end up with the people we do in government; that and the media, because who would want to be dragged through the mud along with their family just to get a government position?

 

[bripat9643]

Wait a minute........do you agree or disagree that we would have a better outcome if only people knowledgable of politics were allowed to vote?

Nope. It's our duty to be informed.

Who would determine who is and isn't knowledgeable and using what criteria?

That's complete bullshit

If it were me making that decision I would certainly exclude you based on your idiotic posts on this forum. You good with that?

Oh my, did I rub some salt in the cut?

How about a simple test that just about anybody can pass before being allowed to vote? Questions like who is the VP and what party does he represent? Who is the Speaker of the House? What party is in leadership of the House? The Senate? Just things like that.

What you're afraid of is that all the Obamaphone ladies are on your side and wouldn't be able to vote.

Sorry dude. Not gonna happen. YOU don't get to pick who has a voice and who doesn't.

Remember that "taxation without representation" thing? If you aren't allowed to vote you have no representation.

Besides. YOU would fail MY test.

What if you don't pay taxes?

 

[Lesh]

I absolutely agree, because making it a holiday would bring more working people to the polls, and we all know how most working people vote. The ironic part of that is Democrats have suggested that in the past.

Because to Dems...voting is sacrosanct. Glad we agree on a national holiday

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

And that right there is how we end up electing clowns like AOC. We make it way too easy and it attracts people that use our elections for entertainment and something to do instead of people who know the issues, history and current players in the game.

After all, if MLB allowed it's citizens to choose players, and my city allowed anybody to vote on them, and your city only allowed people with acute knowledge of baseball to vote on players, which one of us would have the better team?

In comparison, the reason we don't have a better government is because we get to choose representatives like my city chooses baseball players. Anybody can vote and it doesn't matter if Obama Money is your main concern.

So you think you should be the arbiter of who is or isn't smart enough to vote?

It wouldn't have anything to do with your partisan leanings...would it?

Wait a minute........do you agree or disagree that we would have a better outcome if only people knowledgable of politics were allowed to vote?

I'd be happy if it were just people who took it seriously, instead of thinking it's some form of reality entertainment.

 

[my2¢]

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

At least we finally agree on something. You see the issue from an imaginary point of view while the basis I use is the U.S. Constitution.

No, we're still not agreeing, because you're talking out of your ass and imagining that your TP is actually the Constitution.

So is the U.S. Electoral College talking out of its ass too? It posts on its website:

Are there restrictions on who the Electors can vote for?

There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their states.

( Link: U. S. Electoral College: Who Are the Electors? How Do They Vote? )​

 

[bripat9643]

I absolutely agree, because making it a holiday would bring more working people to the polls, and we all know how most working people vote. The ironic part of that is Democrats have suggested that in the past.

Because to Dems...voting is sacrosanct. Glad we agree on a national holiday

Just one more thing Dims believe that is utterly moronic and obviously wrong. It's also a lie. When the people of California voted to declare marriage to be a union between a man and a women, the Dims all worked feverishly to have the courts overturn it.

One thing we know about Dims is that they will never admit the truth about themselves.

 

[dblack]

Kinda funny that Republicans want to limit voting huh?

Voter suppression seems to be in their DNA

I'm not interesting in suppressing votes (I'm also not a Republican). But I am interested in suppressing the things voters can decide. Most decisions can be left up to individuals and don't require majority rule mandates. And they should be.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I absolutely agree, because making it a holiday would bring more working people to the polls, and we all know how most working people vote. The ironic part of that is Democrats have suggested that in the past.

Well, no, we need people who are intelligent and rational. Just knowing a few things about politics doesn't make you a good voter. Just look at all the morons in this forum who live and breath politics.

I think taxpayers pay more attention to politics than those who are on the dole. After all, when you go out and create money that government confiscates, you are more concerned with how the money is spent.

People who don't work can go to the polls anytime. They have shorter lines if any line at all (depending on the type of election). Working people have a little tougher time, especially those who work 10 hours or more a day. Even if you can get to the polls, you are too exhausted and just want to have dinner and relax.

I always thought one of the most brilliant things Robert Heinlein ever wrote was his system of citizens and non-citizen residents in "Starship Troopers".

 

[anynameyouwish]

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.

I do appreciate your constant insults.

I understand that you are a conservative so you are too immature to contain yourself and refrain from insults and mockery. However I maintain that NO states population should carry extra weight when voting. One person. One vote.

Just because you disagree with it does not mean it is illogical, irrational or wrong.

Just a different opinion.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

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.

Because the majority elected Napoleon and Hitler and plenty of other scumbags.

The Electoral College was a direct response to how the people often vote away their own liberties over the course of history. Also, why would the less populous states join or remain in the Union if they didn't have a say over who would be the chief executive of the Union of the Several States.

Only a decade later (after the ratification of the Constitution) the people of France voted away their liberties to Napoleon.

Without The Electoral College, We’d Be More Likely To Have A Dictator

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I absolutely agree, because making it a holiday would bring more working people to the polls, and we all know how most working people vote. The ironic part of that is Democrats have suggested that in the past.

Because to Dems...voting is sacrosanct. Glad we agree on a national holiday

I'm sure to many it is. But let's face it, who do the uneducated people in inner-cities vote for? Do you think they have any idea what's going on in government? Why do you suppose Piglosi wants children to vote? Because most kids don't care about politics. They care about the newest rock or rap song coming out. They care about a new television series. They care about the newest cell phone features.

The biggest threat to a Democrat politician is an educated voter.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

I do appreciate your constant insults.

I understand that you are a conservative so you are too immature to contain yourself and refrain from insults and mockery. However I maintain that NO states population should carry extra weight when voting. One person. One vote.

Just because you disagree with it does not mean it is illogical, irrational or wrong.

Just a different opinion.

Yeah, that's part of the communist agenda. They used that rule in Africa, but it worked like this: one man, one vote, one time.

 

[Lesh]

I absolutely agree, because making it a holiday would bring more working people to the polls, and we all know how most working people vote. The ironic part of that is Democrats have suggested that in the past.

Because to Dems...voting is sacrosanct. Glad we agree on a national holiday

I'm sure to many it is. But let's face it, who do the uneducated people in inner-cities vote for? Do you think they have any idea what's going on in government? Why do you suppose Piglosi wants children to vote? Because most kids don't care about politics. They care about the newest rock or rap song coming out. They care about a new television series. They care about the newest cell phone features.

The biggest threat to a Democrat politician is an educated voter.

"inner cities"...rap songs....references to "welfare"...sounds like you might want something other than intelligence to determine who can vote huh?

Gee I wonder what that might be...