Elizabeth Warren: 'End Electoral College'

[Ame®icano]

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

You did not answered the question. Let's ask again...

Whose interests are represented in Washington by Senators?

 

[Ame®icano]

What left think is that a few cities should rule over the rest of us

Nonsense. Red states have plenty of cities with plenty of votes.

You have heard of Dallas and Houston and Atlanta right?

Are you saying COWS should choose our President?

You think you can just throw it here and see if it sticks.

Dallas you say... Let's see Dallas, from top down.

There are 5 Representative from Dallas in US Congress; 3(D), 2(R).

There are 5 State Senators in Texas Senate; 2(D), 3(R).
There are 14 State Representatives in Texas House 12(D), 2(R).

Juvenile Court; 2(D), 0(R)
Family District Court; 7(D), 0(R)
Civil District Court; 13(D), 0(R)
Criminal District Court; 15(D), 2(Vacant)
County Probate Court; 3(D), 0(R)
County Civil Court; 5(D), 0(R)
County Criminal Court of Appeals; 2(D), 0(R)
County Criminal Court 11(D), 0(R)

Justices of Peace; 8(D), 2(R)
Constables; 4(D), 1(R)
County Officials; 6(D), 0(R)
County Commissioners; 4(D), 1(R)

 

[Ame®icano]

Again...a popular vote majority is irrelevant

Both Gore and Clinton won the popular vote...and both Bush and Trump ONLY won the EC

"Wining" popular vote in presidential elections is as relevant as having more rebounds in basketball game.

It's just statistic, means nothing. Except if you're butthurt loser.

 

[Ame®icano]

That's the goal, since constitution is the only thing that still prevents them to rule over us.

Currently YOU (the minority) is ruling over US (the majority)

Where have you got that from?

Popular vote is irrelevant in presidential elections. Majority of electoral votes gets presidency.

 

[Ame®icano]

Again...a popular vote majority is irrelevant

Incorrect.
Absent a majority, Presidential elections go to the house.

Absent of electoral majority, not popular, elections go to the house.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

Why read it when she's wrong from the start.

She's never been right.

Just like you.

 

[Lesh]

There you go, a perfect example. Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that states must recognize gay marriage. Even states that voted against it back when Bush was President now are forced to have gay marriage.

A big chunk of those states wanted to keep slavery too...should that be legal because they want it?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

There you go, a perfect example. Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that states must recognize gay marriage. Even states that voted against it back when Bush was President now are forced to have gay marriage.

A big chunk of those states wanted to keep slavery too...should that be legal because they want it?

Wow....

That wasn't his point.

Are you this stupid all the time.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There you go, a perfect example. Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that states must recognize gay marriage. Even states that voted against it back when Bush was President now are forced to have gay marriage.

A big chunk of those states wanted to keep slavery too...should that be legal because they want it?

Yes they did, that's why we had a civil war. Trying to equate slavery to gay marriage is quite a stretch. Slaves couldn't pack their bags and catch a plane to a state that didn't have it. And the war was not about forcing the rest of the country to accept slavery.

 

[Ame®icano]

Why do you refuse to understand the US government is set up specifically so the majority does not always get its way?

well it's currently being used by the MINORITY to get THEIR way

Popular majority doesn't matter in presidential elections.

Majority of electoral college elected the president, and it worked every single time.

 

[Lesh]

There you go, a perfect example. Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that states must recognize gay marriage. Even states that voted against it back when Bush was President now are forced to have gay marriage.

A big chunk of those states wanted to keep slavery too...should that be legal because they want it?

Yes they did, that's why we had a civil war. Trying to equate slavery to gay marriage is quite a stretch. Slaves couldn't pack their bags and catch a plane to a state that didn't have it. And the war was not about forcing the rest of the country to accept slavery.

But you want the rest of the country to accept your backwards bullshit

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There you go, a perfect example. Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that states must recognize gay marriage. Even states that voted against it back when Bush was President now are forced to have gay marriage.

A big chunk of those states wanted to keep slavery too...should that be legal because they want it?

Yes they did, that's why we had a civil war. Trying to equate slavery to gay marriage is quite a stretch. Slaves couldn't pack their bags and catch a plane to a state that didn't have it. And the war was not about forcing the rest of the country to accept slavery.

But you want the rest of the country to accept your backwards bullshit

I do? Such as?

 

[RandomPoster]

This will be the fate of any bill they try to pass to eliminate the Electoral College.

 

[Ame®icano]

I agree. I always thought america was a democracy...but when Bush Jr got elected we the citizens of the world were shocked. And that's when we found about the electoral college. It really gives the power to the crazy minority and that's why we have trump and his crazies....the US should join the democratic countries and abolish the EC.

Interesting concept...you want the US...with one of the longest standing democracies in world history to change the system that's given us that stability to mirror the rest of the world that sees coups and civil unrest as a matter of course? I'm guessing you don't have the faintest idea WHY the Electoral College was instituted in the first place...do you, Issa?

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?

"A system that has worked"? Sorry, thought we were talking about the EC here.

"Worked" by immediately disenfranchising up to half, or in myriad cases more than half, of a state's voters, thereby depressing voter turnout because "**** it, what's the point"?

"Worked" by perpetuating the Duopoly, shutting out any third party and producing a never-ending torrent of Bad vs Worse, requiring the electorate to vote not FOR one but AGAINST the other?

"Worked" by setting up a system where the only way for a third party to compete is to siphon off enough votes to deny any one a majority thereby tossing the whole election into the House, thus nullifying the entire election process itself?

"Worked" by rendering the act of going to vote completely pointless in any so-called "red" or "blue" state?

"Worked" by making any state that isn't dedicated "red" or "blue" dependent on polls to find out whether it's worth getting out of bed on election day?

"Worked" by ensuring that no candidate will ever bother appearing in those so-called "red"/"blue" states because either they, or their opponent, has it in the bag, making that state a predetermined outcome?

"Worked" by outliving all of its reasons for existence since there is no more "Slave Power", communication is far more wide-reaching than it was in 1780, and states have already passed actual laws dictating how their electors shall vote, taking the conscience element out? What's left?

"Worked" by creating artificial concepts of "red states" and "blue states" thereby pitting states and people AGAINST each other? What could possibly go wrong with that idea.

If that's "working", it's time to break something.

Every voting system would disenfranchise up to a half. You just don't like that your side lost by using the system that protects interests of the small states.

The EC is a check on the tyranny of regionalism. It doesn’t upset a broad national majority, it only addresses where that majority comes in narrow regions.

For instance, and I mentioned earlier, in 1790, NY, Philly & Boston were the largest cities and NY was two times the population of any southern city. The regionalism fear was that political dominance/group think in a very small area, like one state, or a city or two, could swamp the interests of the rest of the states, therefore nullifying their influence on the presidency.

Like running NY State solely for NYC has crushed the upstate economy. Hillary’s popular vote margin is about 2.6 million, but California alone gave her a 4.3 million margin, and the NY City margin was about 1.5 million, both states where non-Dems have little reason to vote. She won most large cities big, but without just those two cities (NYC & LA), while including the rest of those states, her popular vote total was less than Trump’s. It turns out, people of small states were fed up with big cities leftist dominance so much, that jackass like Trump was for them better choice than corrupted Hillary.

From another perspective, in 2000 Bush won 30 states and Gore 20. If Gore had been able to pick up just one more state (perhaps his own Tennessee) the EC would have gone the same way as the pop vote. Hillary didn’t do that well. She took 20, but lost 4 large historically blue states, and needed to pick up at least 2 more larger states to win.

So the EC serves exactly as designed to slightly soften the power of narrow regionalism (such as California alone or a couple of big cities) in favor of broader national popularity. The purpose of EC is to make elections national instead of a contest in a few big cities. The result we have a president who won a broad swath of the country, but whose popular votes were drown out by those from a few square miles. Many of you lefties hate Trump big time, but regardless you should appreciate the EC.

We have seen the alternate in Europe with wide alternating swings left and right, with no effective checks & balances, and because the prime minister is the leader of the same party that has a parliamentary majority. Our system, even with its quirks means that our government has less power over your individual life than any other so called "advanced" democracy. Yet, we're not democracy...

 

[Ame®icano]

...

As opposed to a candidate who manages to be corrupt, incompetent AND an asshole, who seems to feel entitled to the Oval Orifice simply because he's an elitist schmuck who's been handed everything all his life while taking zero responsibility for anything....

I thought you liked Hillary?

Than I saw "he".

Tell me, what Hillary earned in her life, and name one thing she took responsibility for?

Fun fact: Remember Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan, those "swing" states that went "red" and sent 100% of their EVs to Rump? In NONE of them could Rump even get 50% of the state's vote. Same thing in my state.

I live in Michigan, and other than having two Dem Senators, and Dem Governor, US Congress is 7-7 split, but Michigan itself is still solid red. It's similar in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. What's your point?

 

[Ame®icano]

Republicans only seem able to win when they can manipulate the EC. The "will of the people" be damned
Oh..
Time for reform

How was the EC manipulated?

I don't expect a coherent answer.

I don't expect an answer.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

There you go, a perfect example. Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that states must recognize gay marriage. Even states that voted against it back when Bush was President now are forced to have gay marriage.

A big chunk of those states wanted to keep slavery too...should that be legal because they want it?

Yes they did, that's why we had a civil war. Trying to equate slavery to gay marriage is quite a stretch. Slaves couldn't pack their bags and catch a plane to a state that didn't have it. And the war was not about forcing the rest of the country to accept slavery.

But you want the rest of the country to accept your backwards bullshit

You can't seem to stay on topic.

Typical left winger.

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

If we had democracy and majority (mob) rule, than why do we need Congress and Senate?

You realize your statement is redundant. The Senate is part of the Congress. Back to high school civics with you!

I do not question your comment, I just find it unnecessary. You know exactly what I meant, but in absence of answer, you chose to be smart ass.

Here is correction: If we had democracy and majority (mob) rule, than why do we need House of Representatives and Senate?

Are you going to answer the question, or remain being an asshole?

You are correct. With mob rule, we don't need the House or the Senate.

You first post made no sense, thus the correction was needed. You have to remember that libtards will take idiocy and run with it like a toddlers with something in their mouth they shouldn't have!

Point taken.

For fun only, since Senate is part of Congress, should Senators be called Congressman?

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

Endorsed? So what, he renounced them.

Let's put things in place. The president before Coolidge was Woodrow Wilson, Democrat. In his eight years he segregated federal civil service, demoted black federal officials, he promoted KKK, he screen first movie in the White House - The Birth Of The Nation, Klan membership counted in millions, lynching doubled.

During Coolidge, Klan membership fell from millions to perhaps 10 thousands, he started debate about national anti-lynching laws, that was killed by another Democrat, FDR who traded lynching for votes on New Deal. Yet, in your twisted perspective, Coolidge was the racist one. What are you smoking?

 

[Ame®icano]

Republicans don't want the presidential election decided by popular vote because their ideas aren't popular.

Suppressing what the people want is the only way Republicans can maintain power.

You don't know what the popular vote would turn out because we never had one for a Presidential election. Remember during DumBama that we had most of the Governorships across the country not to mention the lead in Congress and eventually the Senate. That in addition to the statewide positions of power that turned Republican.

The idea that Hil-Liar won the popular vote is a stupid one. It's like saying I'm a better poker player than you are even though you won because I formed some great gin rummy hands.

Cute story.

Literally makes no sense.

Hillary won the popular vote because she had more total votes. I know this is difficult for you to understand but you should really try.

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, Hillary didn't win the popular vote.

Yeah actually she did. By a lot.
And unlike your claim, I can link this one.

I can link you to an image for my receipt for Jimmy Johns sandwich I had for lunch today.

To prevent mods from deleting this (again), I have to clarify... that receipt is as relevant to presidential elections as national popular vote.