Elizabeth Warren: 'End Electoral College'

[Pogo]

Who the **** is "us"? The EC affects ALL OF US, not just some cherrypicked election or party.
Besides which there is no such thing as a "Democrat party" anyway. Are we to infer there's a "Republic party"? Limblob much?

Your cherrypicked selective-ignorance doesn't account for the fact that the NPV initiative is fourteen years old. Or that it has Republicans behind it like Gingrich. Or the "Every Vote Counts" Amendment of 2005. Or the Bayh-Celler Amendment of 1969 with Nixon behind it. Or the Madison criticism of 1823 or the Jefferson objection in post 1546. OR the fact that 2019 is not an election year, nor was last year nor the year before that.

It would seem your crutch has nothing to stand on. Would it not.

Us are people on the right. Us are the majority of the Republican party. Us are not the people bitching about a system we've used for centuries. Yes, the electoral college affects all of us, and we like the effects.

Ignore the political divide on this issue all you like. It's not going away. And if in 2020 Trump loses the election but gets the popular vote, I would bet my dollar to your dime you won't hear one Republican complain about the system. Instead, we will examine what we did wrong; something the Democrat party is incapable of.

Ah you mean like this?

You're damn right the "Democrat party" is incapable of that --- it's not capable of anything inasmuch as it doesn't exist. Are you illiterate?

Again, you ignore, but solely because you CHOOSE TO ignore, lest it require you to actually look under the hood of this thing and we can't have THAT, all the counterexamples I just gave you. You sit there and pretend that didn't happen, that Richard Nixon and Newt Gingrich and James Madison and Thomas Jefferson never existed. Sit there in your safe space of "magical 2016 land" where you can huddle down in your little cocoon, rocking back and forth making low moaning noises. Courageous.

Big deal. So you find a Republican here and there that agrees with you. Take note when I said "a majority."

Which Republican? Gingrich? Nixon? Rump? Jake Garn? David Durenberger? John Anderson? John Buchanan? Tom Campbell? Tom Tancredo ? Jim Edgar?

Actually I'll take note of nothing from you until you quit hiding behind that crutch. You can't sit here claiming safe space behind a fantasy about a political party that doesn't even exist and then go "la la la" after I give you fifteen examples that disprove it.

In the survey, Republicans overwhelmingly favored keeping the voting method with 64 percent of respondents saying they wanted to retain it but only 25 percent in favor of eliminating it. Eleven percent of GOP respondents were unsure.

Poll: Democrats want to abolish Electoral College, Republicans want to keep it

No......it has nothing to do with parties.

CORRECT. Now get on with it.

By the way random factoid I toss out now and then just to **** with the minds of Dichotomists --- did you know the largest political party faction in these here United Snakes is the one I'm part of? It's called "None".

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Us are people on the right. Us are the majority of the Republican party. Us are not the people bitching about a system we've used for centuries. Yes, the electoral college affects all of us, and we like the effects.

Ignore the political divide on this issue all you like. It's not going away. And if in 2020 Trump loses the election but gets the popular vote, I would bet my dollar to your dime you won't hear one Republican complain about the system. Instead, we will examine what we did wrong; something the Democrat party is incapable of.

Ah you mean like this?

You're damn right the "Democrat party" is incapable of that --- it's not capable of anything inasmuch as it doesn't exist. Are you illiterate?

Again, you ignore, but solely because you CHOOSE TO ignore, lest it require you to actually look under the hood of this thing and we can't have THAT, all the counterexamples I just gave you. You sit there and pretend that didn't happen, that Richard Nixon and Newt Gingrich and James Madison and Thomas Jefferson never existed. Sit there in your safe space of "magical 2016 land" where you can huddle down in your little cocoon, rocking back and forth making low moaning noises. Courageous.

Big deal. So you find a Republican here and there that agrees with you. Take note when I said "a majority."

Which Republican? Gingrich? Nixon? Rump? Jake Garn? David Durenberger? John Anderson? John Buchanan? Tom Campbell? Tom Tancredo ? Jim Edgar?

Actually I'll take note of nothing from you until you quit hiding behind that crutch. You can't sit here claiming safe space behind a fantasy about a political party that doesn't even exist and then go "la la la" after I give you fifteen examples that disprove it.

In the survey, Republicans overwhelmingly favored keeping the voting method with 64 percent of respondents saying they wanted to retain it but only 25 percent in favor of eliminating it. Eleven percent of GOP respondents were unsure.

Poll: Democrats want to abolish Electoral College, Republicans want to keep it

No......it has nothing to do with parties.

CORRECT. Now get on with it.

By the way random factoid I toss out now and then just to **** with the minds of Dichotomists --- did you know the largest political party faction in these here United Snakes is the one I'm part of? It's called "None".

Perhaps, but it doesn't discount the fact that like most issues in America, it's divided along party lines.

 

[Rigby5]

I don't particularly like the idea of LA, NYC, and Miami controlling the country, but according to the fact, the electoral college makes little difference.

These are the only elections effected by the electoral college, in all US history.
{...
In 1824, John Quincy Adams was elected president despite not winning either the popular vote or the electoral vote. Andrew Jackson was the winner in both categories. Jackson received 38,000 more popular votes than Adams, and beat him in the electoral vote 99 to 84. Despite his victories, Jackson didn’t reach the majority 131 votes needed in the Electoral College to be declared president. In fact, neither candidate did. The decision went to the House of Representatives, which voted Adams into the White House.

In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes won the election (by a margin of one electoral vote), but he lost the popular vote by more than 250,000 ballots to Samuel J. Tilden.

In 1888, Benjamin Harrison received 233 electoral votes to Grover Cleveland’s 168, winning the presidency. But Harrison lost the popular vote by more than 90,000 votes.

In 2000, George W. Bush was declared the winner of the general election and became the 43rd president, but he didn’t win the popular vote either. Al Gore holds that distinction, garnering about 540,000 more votes than Bush. However, Bush won the electoral vote, 271 to 266.

In 2016, Donald Trump won the electoral vote by 304 to 227 over Hillary Clinton, but Trump lost the popular vote. Clinton received nearly 2.9 million more votes than Trump, according to an analysis by the Associated Press of the certified results in all 50 states and Washington, D.C.
...}

Right. It only happens rarely. But it's an important safeguard. If either party decides they can dismiss the concerns of the "flyover states", they risk losing on the electoral count - especially when the divide is as clear-cut as it was in the last election. If the Democrats don't figure out a way to win back rural voters, they risk losing again, in the same way. And, near as I can tell, they aren't even trying.

I tend to agree. Candidates should not write off smaller states.

 

[Rigby5]

I don't particularly like the idea of LA, NYC, and Miami controlling the country, but according to the fact, the electoral college makes little difference.

These are the only elections effected by the electoral college, in all US history.
{...
In 1824, John Quincy Adams was elected president despite not winning either the popular vote or the electoral vote. Andrew Jackson was the winner in both categories. Jackson received 38,000 more popular votes than Adams, and beat him in the electoral vote 99 to 84. Despite his victories, Jackson didn’t reach the majority 131 votes needed in the Electoral College to be declared president. In fact, neither candidate did. The decision went to the House of Representatives, which voted Adams into the White House.

In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes won the election (by a margin of one electoral vote), but he lost the popular vote by more than 250,000 ballots to Samuel J. Tilden.

In 1888, Benjamin Harrison received 233 electoral votes to Grover Cleveland’s 168, winning the presidency. But Harrison lost the popular vote by more than 90,000 votes.

In 2000, George W. Bush was declared the winner of the general election and became the 43rd president, but he didn’t win the popular vote either. Al Gore holds that distinction, garnering about 540,000 more votes than Bush. However, Bush won the electoral vote, 271 to 266.

In 2016, Donald Trump won the electoral vote by 304 to 227 over Hillary Clinton, but Trump lost the popular vote. Clinton received nearly 2.9 million more votes than Trump, according to an analysis by the Associated Press of the certified results in all 50 states and Washington, D.C.
...}

You left out 1800 on that list, and it also depends on what you mean by "affected". Nixon 1968, Truman 1948, Wilson 1912, Cleveland 1892 and Lincoln 1860 all won elections where significant numbers of electors went to a third (or in 1860 third and fourth) party, if not for which presence of a a broader field siphoning off electoral votes, four of five could have gone differently; in fact the whole strategy of a 3P is, because it's the only strategy available, to siphon off enough D and R votes so as to throw the election into the House, bypassing the whole exercise of Election Day. Had half the South not rejected Thurmond, he would have succeeded*.

(*which may have been a preferable result; at least it might have spared us Truman)

And of course in the era of having an election day, 2016, 2000, 1996, 1992. 1968, 1948, 1916, 1912, 1892, 1888, 1884, 1880, 1876 (< five in a row), 1860,.1856, 1852, 1848 and 1844 (<another five in a row) all resulted in a POTUS who was not the choice of the popular vote, so we would have to say those were "affected" as well.

The elections listed were provided by FactCheck.org, not me, and are correct.
Third party candidates have nothing to do with electoral college that I can think of.
Nor do I get your claim on the other dates where the elected was the same as the popular vote?

 

[Pogo]

I don't particularly like the idea of LA, NYC, and Miami controlling the country, but according to the fact, the electoral college makes little difference.

These are the only elections effected by the electoral college, in all US history.
{...
In 1824, John Quincy Adams was elected president despite not winning either the popular vote or the electoral vote. Andrew Jackson was the winner in both categories. Jackson received 38,000 more popular votes than Adams, and beat him in the electoral vote 99 to 84. Despite his victories, Jackson didn’t reach the majority 131 votes needed in the Electoral College to be declared president. In fact, neither candidate did. The decision went to the House of Representatives, which voted Adams into the White House.

In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes won the election (by a margin of one electoral vote), but he lost the popular vote by more than 250,000 ballots to Samuel J. Tilden.

In 1888, Benjamin Harrison received 233 electoral votes to Grover Cleveland’s 168, winning the presidency. But Harrison lost the popular vote by more than 90,000 votes.

In 2000, George W. Bush was declared the winner of the general election and became the 43rd president, but he didn’t win the popular vote either. Al Gore holds that distinction, garnering about 540,000 more votes than Bush. However, Bush won the electoral vote, 271 to 266.

In 2016, Donald Trump won the electoral vote by 304 to 227 over Hillary Clinton, but Trump lost the popular vote. Clinton received nearly 2.9 million more votes than Trump, according to an analysis by the Associated Press of the certified results in all 50 states and Washington, D.C.
...}

You left out 1800 on that list, and it also depends on what you mean by "affected". Nixon 1968, Truman 1948, Wilson 1912, Cleveland 1892 and Lincoln 1860 all won elections where significant numbers of electors went to a third (or in 1860 third and fourth) party, if not for which presence of a a broader field siphoning off electoral votes, four of five could have gone differently; in fact the whole strategy of a 3P is, because it's the only strategy available, to siphon off enough D and R votes so as to throw the election into the House, bypassing the whole exercise of Election Day. Had half the South not rejected Thurmond, he would have succeeded*.

(*which may have been a preferable result; at least it might have spared us Truman)

And of course in the era of having an election day, 2016, 2000, 1996, 1992. 1968, 1948, 1916, 1912, 1892, 1888, 1884, 1880, 1876 (< five in a row), 1860,.1856, 1852, 1848 and 1844 (<another five in a row) all resulted in a POTUS who was not the choice of the popular vote, so we would have to say those were "affected" as well.

The elections listed were provided by FactCheck.org, not me, and are correct.
Third party candidates have nothing to do with electoral college that I can think of.
Nor do I get your claim on the other dates where the elected was the same as the popular vote?

We usually provide a link when we're quoting somebody so I just worked with what was posted. My dates are correct, you can look any of them up. As I said before it depends on what you mean by "affected". The list of dates at the end are all elections (18 of them) where the eventual POTUS did not win at least 50% of the national popular vote but was installed by the EC -- therefore the EC "affected" the election. And 1800 was left out.

If you're quoting somebody's web page, say so and link it, otherwise you take the responsibility for what's posted. All of the above including yesterday's post, is my own content.

 

[Pogo]

I don't particularly like the idea of LA, NYC, and Miami controlling the country, but according to the fact, the electoral college makes little difference.

These are the only elections effected by the electoral college, in all US history.
{...
In 1824, John Quincy Adams was elected president despite not winning either the popular vote or the electoral vote. Andrew Jackson was the winner in both categories. Jackson received 38,000 more popular votes than Adams, and beat him in the electoral vote 99 to 84. Despite his victories, Jackson didn’t reach the majority 131 votes needed in the Electoral College to be declared president. In fact, neither candidate did. The decision went to the House of Representatives, which voted Adams into the White House.

In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes won the election (by a margin of one electoral vote), but he lost the popular vote by more than 250,000 ballots to Samuel J. Tilden.

In 1888, Benjamin Harrison received 233 electoral votes to Grover Cleveland’s 168, winning the presidency. But Harrison lost the popular vote by more than 90,000 votes.

In 2000, George W. Bush was declared the winner of the general election and became the 43rd president, but he didn’t win the popular vote either. Al Gore holds that distinction, garnering about 540,000 more votes than Bush. However, Bush won the electoral vote, 271 to 266.

In 2016, Donald Trump won the electoral vote by 304 to 227 over Hillary Clinton, but Trump lost the popular vote. Clinton received nearly 2.9 million more votes than Trump, according to an analysis by the Associated Press of the certified results in all 50 states and Washington, D.C.
...}

Right. It only happens rarely. But it's an important safeguard. If either party decides they can dismiss the concerns of the "flyover states", they risk losing on the electoral count - especially when the divide is as clear-cut as it was in the last election. If the Democrats don't figure out a way to win back rural voters, they risk losing again, in the same way. And, near as I can tell, they aren't even trying.

I tend to agree. Candidates should not write off smaller states.

And yet --- every state, large, small or medium --- that is locked "red" or "blue" is already automatically written off by both the red and the blue candidate because they both know it's locked up. That's why nobody in a "red" or "blue" state has any reason to vote for POTUS at all. And that in turn is why our national turnout is piss-poor. Because what's the point.

 

[dblack]

And yet --- every state, large, small or medium --- that is locked "red" or "blue" is already automatically written off by both the red and the blue candidate because they both know it's locked up. That's why nobody in a "red" or "blue" state has any reason to vote for POTUS at all. And that in turn is why our national turnout is piss-poor. Because what's the point.

This is a matter to take up with your state. Not all states do winner-take-all.

 

[Pogo]

And yet --- every state, large, small or medium --- that is locked "red" or "blue" is already automatically written off by both the red and the blue candidate because they both know it's locked up. That's why nobody in a "red" or "blue" state has any reason to vote for POTUS at all. And that in turn is why our national turnout is piss-poor. Because what's the point.

This is a matter to take up with your state. Not all states do winner-take-all.

All but two do, and those two (Maine and Nebraska) still do WTA with their Congressional districts.

We've noted thirteen states in the last election that sent 100% of their EVs to a single candidate in spite of no candidate scoring even 50% of their state vote, including the crucial states of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (as well as my own). That list did not include those two states because of their different system but both of them also had a district where EVs went to candidates who didn't score a 50% in that district as well. So thirteen out of 48 states, plus two Congressional districts, awarded Electoral votes that their voters collectively didn't vote for.

That has never been the intention of the EC. The idea was that each state would AGREE on its choice, not that its voters would be collectively perverted. That's what the Jeffersonians were saying. Madison thought that district system used by Maine and Nebraska should be used by everybody. But Jackson was pissed (understandably) by winning a plurality of both the PV and the EC and yet not getting the Presidency (1824) and pressured states to go WTA, and it's gone downhill ever since. Which is kind of ironic, that states now cave in on pluralities while his plurality in 1824 got him nothing due to a collusion (the "Corrupt bargain") between Adams and Clay, so we can blame them too.

Of course nothing in the Constitution requires any popular vote at all. States can select electors via a ouija board if they so choose. But if they're going to hold an election, as they all do, then make it a legitimate election and not another Corrupt Bargain.

 

[U2Edge]

Us are people on the right. Us are the majority of the Republican party. Us are not the people bitching about a system we've used for centuries. Yes, the electoral college affects all of us, and we like the effects.

Ignore the political divide on this issue all you like. It's not going away. And if in 2020 Trump loses the election but gets the popular vote, I would bet my dollar to your dime you won't hear one Republican complain about the system. Instead, we will examine what we did wrong; something the Democrat party is incapable of.

Ah you mean like this?

You're damn right the "Democrat party" is incapable of that --- it's not capable of anything inasmuch as it doesn't exist. Are you illiterate?

Again, you ignore, but solely because you CHOOSE TO ignore, lest it require you to actually look under the hood of this thing and we can't have THAT, all the counterexamples I just gave you. You sit there and pretend that didn't happen, that Richard Nixon and Newt Gingrich and James Madison and Thomas Jefferson never existed. Sit there in your safe space of "magical 2016 land" where you can huddle down in your little cocoon, rocking back and forth making low moaning noises. Courageous.

Big deal. So you find a Republican here and there that agrees with you. Take note when I said "a majority."

Which Republican? Gingrich? Nixon? Rump? Jake Garn? David Durenberger? John Anderson? John Buchanan? Tom Campbell? Tom Tancredo ? Jim Edgar?

Actually I'll take note of nothing from you until you quit hiding behind that crutch. You can't sit here claiming safe space behind a fantasy about a political party that doesn't even exist and then go "la la la" after I give you fifteen examples that disprove it.

In the survey, Republicans overwhelmingly favored keeping the voting method with 64 percent of respondents saying they wanted to retain it but only 25 percent in favor of eliminating it. Eleven percent of GOP respondents were unsure.

Poll: Democrats want to abolish Electoral College, Republicans want to keep it

No......it has nothing to do with parties.

CORRECT. Now get on with it.

By the way random factoid I toss out now and then just to **** with the minds of Dichotomists --- did you know the largest political party faction in these here United Snakes is the one I'm part of? It's called "None".

True, but there are a lot of independents who either lean Democrat or lean Republican. Its still a very divided country along Democratic and Republican party lines.

 

[Pogo]

Ah you mean like this?

You're damn right the "Democrat party" is incapable of that --- it's not capable of anything inasmuch as it doesn't exist. Are you illiterate?

Again, you ignore, but solely because you CHOOSE TO ignore, lest it require you to actually look under the hood of this thing and we can't have THAT, all the counterexamples I just gave you. You sit there and pretend that didn't happen, that Richard Nixon and Newt Gingrich and James Madison and Thomas Jefferson never existed. Sit there in your safe space of "magical 2016 land" where you can huddle down in your little cocoon, rocking back and forth making low moaning noises. Courageous.

Big deal. So you find a Republican here and there that agrees with you. Take note when I said "a majority."

Which Republican? Gingrich? Nixon? Rump? Jake Garn? David Durenberger? John Anderson? John Buchanan? Tom Campbell? Tom Tancredo ? Jim Edgar?

Actually I'll take note of nothing from you until you quit hiding behind that crutch. You can't sit here claiming safe space behind a fantasy about a political party that doesn't even exist and then go "la la la" after I give you fifteen examples that disprove it.

In the survey, Republicans overwhelmingly favored keeping the voting method with 64 percent of respondents saying they wanted to retain it but only 25 percent in favor of eliminating it. Eleven percent of GOP respondents were unsure.

Poll: Democrats want to abolish Electoral College, Republicans want to keep it

No......it has nothing to do with parties.

CORRECT. Now get on with it.

By the way random factoid I toss out now and then just to **** with the minds of Dichotomists --- did you know the largest political party faction in these here United Snakes is the one I'm part of? It's called "None".

True, but there are a lot of independents who either lean Democrat or lean Republican. Its still a very divided country along Democratic and Republican party lines.

Indeed it is, and the EC as it's set up serves to perpetuate that and protect the Duopoly from any challenge. And as I've noted throughout this thread there is no argument to defend that kind of dichotomous division.

The concepts of a "red state" or a "blue state" should not even exist. It condemns and insults that state's citizenry and renders meaningless the vote of anybody in that state, regardless what their choice may be. That's not an election; it's a sham.

The post you quoted is yet another admonition of a wag who wants to hide behind the illusion of "waaah this is all about (insert political party or specific election here)" because he can't deal with the operation of the system.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I don't particularly like the idea of LA, NYC, and Miami controlling the country, but according to the fact, the electoral college makes little difference.

These are the only elections effected by the electoral college, in all US history.
{...
In 1824, John Quincy Adams was elected president despite not winning either the popular vote or the electoral vote. Andrew Jackson was the winner in both categories. Jackson received 38,000 more popular votes than Adams, and beat him in the electoral vote 99 to 84. Despite his victories, Jackson didn’t reach the majority 131 votes needed in the Electoral College to be declared president. In fact, neither candidate did. The decision went to the House of Representatives, which voted Adams into the White House.

In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes won the election (by a margin of one electoral vote), but he lost the popular vote by more than 250,000 ballots to Samuel J. Tilden.

In 1888, Benjamin Harrison received 233 electoral votes to Grover Cleveland’s 168, winning the presidency. But Harrison lost the popular vote by more than 90,000 votes.

In 2000, George W. Bush was declared the winner of the general election and became the 43rd president, but he didn’t win the popular vote either. Al Gore holds that distinction, garnering about 540,000 more votes than Bush. However, Bush won the electoral vote, 271 to 266.

In 2016, Donald Trump won the electoral vote by 304 to 227 over Hillary Clinton, but Trump lost the popular vote. Clinton received nearly 2.9 million more votes than Trump, according to an analysis by the Associated Press of the certified results in all 50 states and Washington, D.C.
...}

Right. It only happens rarely. But it's an important safeguard. If either party decides they can dismiss the concerns of the "flyover states", they risk losing on the electoral count - especially when the divide is as clear-cut as it was in the last election. If the Democrats don't figure out a way to win back rural voters, they risk losing again, in the same way. And, near as I can tell, they aren't even trying.

Apparently, their strategy is to tell us all what a bunch of ignorant, unevolved hicks we are, and how we should be ashamed of ourselves and aspire to be like them.

Yeah, that'll work.

Deplorable is the term they seem to favor.

I have a sweatshirt with it printed on the front.

At some point, you'd think it would really have to sink in for them that judging and condemning others only works if people actually care about their opinions. And increasingly, no one does.

 

[U2Edge]

Big deal. So you find a Republican here and there that agrees with you. Take note when I said "a majority."

Which Republican? Gingrich? Nixon? Rump? Jake Garn? David Durenberger? John Anderson? John Buchanan? Tom Campbell? Tom Tancredo ? Jim Edgar?

Actually I'll take note of nothing from you until you quit hiding behind that crutch. You can't sit here claiming safe space behind a fantasy about a political party that doesn't even exist and then go "la la la" after I give you fifteen examples that disprove it.

In the survey, Republicans overwhelmingly favored keeping the voting method with 64 percent of respondents saying they wanted to retain it but only 25 percent in favor of eliminating it. Eleven percent of GOP respondents were unsure.

Poll: Democrats want to abolish Electoral College, Republicans want to keep it

No......it has nothing to do with parties.

CORRECT. Now get on with it.

By the way random factoid I toss out now and then just to **** with the minds of Dichotomists --- did you know the largest political party faction in these here United Snakes is the one I'm part of? It's called "None".

True, but there are a lot of independents who either lean Democrat or lean Republican. Its still a very divided country along Democratic and Republican party lines.

Indeed it is, and the EC as it's set up serves to perpetuate that and protect the Duopoly from any challenge. And as I've noted throughout this thread there is no argument to defend that kind of dichotomous division.

The concepts of a "red state" or a "blue state" should not even exist. It condemns and insults that state's citizenry and renders meaningless the vote of anybody in that state, regardless what their choice may be. That's not an election; it's a sham.

The post you quoted is yet another admonition of a wag who wants to hide behind the illusion of "waaah this is all about (insert political party or specific election here)" because he can't deal with the operation of the system.

Thing is, I actually wonder how much of the population actually knows how the electoral college works as well as the arguments for and the arguments against. It would be interesting to see a scientific poll of people who have passed a test on those things and see what that turns up.

 

[Pogo]

Which Republican? Gingrich? Nixon? Rump? Jake Garn? David Durenberger? John Anderson? John Buchanan? Tom Campbell? Tom Tancredo ? Jim Edgar?

Actually I'll take note of nothing from you until you quit hiding behind that crutch. You can't sit here claiming safe space behind a fantasy about a political party that doesn't even exist and then go "la la la" after I give you fifteen examples that disprove it.

In the survey, Republicans overwhelmingly favored keeping the voting method with 64 percent of respondents saying they wanted to retain it but only 25 percent in favor of eliminating it. Eleven percent of GOP respondents were unsure.

Poll: Democrats want to abolish Electoral College, Republicans want to keep it

No......it has nothing to do with parties.

CORRECT. Now get on with it.

By the way random factoid I toss out now and then just to **** with the minds of Dichotomists --- did you know the largest political party faction in these here United Snakes is the one I'm part of? It's called "None".

True, but there are a lot of independents who either lean Democrat or lean Republican. Its still a very divided country along Democratic and Republican party lines.

Indeed it is, and the EC as it's set up serves to perpetuate that and protect the Duopoly from any challenge. And as I've noted throughout this thread there is no argument to defend that kind of dichotomous division.

The concepts of a "red state" or a "blue state" should not even exist. It condemns and insults that state's citizenry and renders meaningless the vote of anybody in that state, regardless what their choice may be. That's not an election; it's a sham.

The post you quoted is yet another admonition of a wag who wants to hide behind the illusion of "waaah this is all about (insert political party or specific election here)" because he can't deal with the operation of the system.

Thing is, I actually wonder how much of the population actually knows how the electoral college works as well as the arguments for and the arguments against. It would be interesting to see a scientific poll of people who have passed a test on those things and see what that turns up.

Amen. That's why I participate in threads like this. The more you know....

 

[Rigby5]

I don't particularly like the idea of LA, NYC, and Miami controlling the country, but according to the fact, the electoral college makes little difference.

These are the only elections effected by the electoral college, in all US history.
{...
In 1824, John Quincy Adams was elected president despite not winning either the popular vote or the electoral vote. Andrew Jackson was the winner in both categories. Jackson received 38,000 more popular votes than Adams, and beat him in the electoral vote 99 to 84. Despite his victories, Jackson didn’t reach the majority 131 votes needed in the Electoral College to be declared president. In fact, neither candidate did. The decision went to the House of Representatives, which voted Adams into the White House.

In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes won the election (by a margin of one electoral vote), but he lost the popular vote by more than 250,000 ballots to Samuel J. Tilden.

In 1888, Benjamin Harrison received 233 electoral votes to Grover Cleveland’s 168, winning the presidency. But Harrison lost the popular vote by more than 90,000 votes.

In 2000, George W. Bush was declared the winner of the general election and became the 43rd president, but he didn’t win the popular vote either. Al Gore holds that distinction, garnering about 540,000 more votes than Bush. However, Bush won the electoral vote, 271 to 266.

In 2016, Donald Trump won the electoral vote by 304 to 227 over Hillary Clinton, but Trump lost the popular vote. Clinton received nearly 2.9 million more votes than Trump, according to an analysis by the Associated Press of the certified results in all 50 states and Washington, D.C.
...}

You left out 1800 on that list, and it also depends on what you mean by "affected". Nixon 1968, Truman 1948, Wilson 1912, Cleveland 1892 and Lincoln 1860 all won elections where significant numbers of electors went to a third (or in 1860 third and fourth) party, if not for which presence of a a broader field siphoning off electoral votes, four of five could have gone differently; in fact the whole strategy of a 3P is, because it's the only strategy available, to siphon off enough D and R votes so as to throw the election into the House, bypassing the whole exercise of Election Day. Had half the South not rejected Thurmond, he would have succeeded*.

(*which may have been a preferable result; at least it might have spared us Truman)

And of course in the era of having an election day, 2016, 2000, 1996, 1992. 1968, 1948, 1916, 1912, 1892, 1888, 1884, 1880, 1876 (< five in a row), 1860,.1856, 1852, 1848 and 1844 (<another five in a row) all resulted in a POTUS who was not the choice of the popular vote, so we would have to say those were "affected" as well.

The elections listed were provided by FactCheck.org, not me, and are correct.
Third party candidates have nothing to do with electoral college that I can think of.
Nor do I get your claim on the other dates where the elected was the same as the popular vote?

We usually provide a link when we're quoting somebody so I just worked with what was posted. My dates are correct, you can look any of them up. As I said before it depends on what you mean by "affected". The list of dates at the end are all elections (18 of them) where the eventual POTUS did not win at least 50% of the national popular vote but was installed by the EC -- therefore the EC "affected" the election. And 1800 was left out.

If you're quoting somebody's web page, say so and link it, otherwise you take the responsibility for what's posted. All of the above including yesterday's post, is my own content.

Sorry, I thought I had provided the link. I must have forgotten.
Presidents Winning Without Popular Vote - FactCheck.org

When some candidate does not win enough votes and something has to be done, that is not the fault of the EC, but simply a desire not to have another run off election between the final 2 candidates.
My opinion is that the party nomination elections should be eliminated and used as an open preliminary, so that the current final election was only a run off between 2 candidates. Another solution would be to just have a single all candidate open elections where you rank each candidate. There are lots of ways to do it, all of which are better than what we do, but just going to a poplar vote improves nothing, and actually makes it worse if you still have the party nomination elections and single run off. The most over populated states are always the most screwed up and least desirable to influence choices. Over population is on record as being harmful, so these states are the most damaged and incapable of choosing well. Mob rule never is good, so there is no basis for supporting a popular vote scheme.

 

[Rigby5]

I don't particularly like the idea of LA, NYC, and Miami controlling the country, but according to the fact, the electoral college makes little difference.

These are the only elections effected by the electoral college, in all US history.
{...
In 1824, John Quincy Adams was elected president despite not winning either the popular vote or the electoral vote. Andrew Jackson was the winner in both categories. Jackson received 38,000 more popular votes than Adams, and beat him in the electoral vote 99 to 84. Despite his victories, Jackson didn’t reach the majority 131 votes needed in the Electoral College to be declared president. In fact, neither candidate did. The decision went to the House of Representatives, which voted Adams into the White House.

In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes won the election (by a margin of one electoral vote), but he lost the popular vote by more than 250,000 ballots to Samuel J. Tilden.

In 1888, Benjamin Harrison received 233 electoral votes to Grover Cleveland’s 168, winning the presidency. But Harrison lost the popular vote by more than 90,000 votes.

In 2000, George W. Bush was declared the winner of the general election and became the 43rd president, but he didn’t win the popular vote either. Al Gore holds that distinction, garnering about 540,000 more votes than Bush. However, Bush won the electoral vote, 271 to 266.

In 2016, Donald Trump won the electoral vote by 304 to 227 over Hillary Clinton, but Trump lost the popular vote. Clinton received nearly 2.9 million more votes than Trump, according to an analysis by the Associated Press of the certified results in all 50 states and Washington, D.C.
...}

Right. It only happens rarely. But it's an important safeguard. If either party decides they can dismiss the concerns of the "flyover states", they risk losing on the electoral count - especially when the divide is as clear-cut as it was in the last election. If the Democrats don't figure out a way to win back rural voters, they risk losing again, in the same way. And, near as I can tell, they aren't even trying.

I tend to agree. Candidates should not write off smaller states.

And yet --- every state, large, small or medium --- that is locked "red" or "blue" is already automatically written off by both the red and the blue candidate because they both know it's locked up. That's why nobody in a "red" or "blue" state has any reason to vote for POTUS at all. And that in turn is why our national turnout is piss-poor. Because what's the point.

That speaks against the 2 party monopoly and winner take all mentality, and has nothing to do with the EC.
The EC just apportions small states slightly disproportionately, not how a state reports its results.

 

[Pogo]

I don't particularly like the idea of LA, NYC, and Miami controlling the country, but according to the fact, the electoral college makes little difference.

These are the only elections effected by the electoral college, in all US history.
{...
In 1824, John Quincy Adams was elected president despite not winning either the popular vote or the electoral vote. Andrew Jackson was the winner in both categories. Jackson received 38,000 more popular votes than Adams, and beat him in the electoral vote 99 to 84. Despite his victories, Jackson didn’t reach the majority 131 votes needed in the Electoral College to be declared president. In fact, neither candidate did. The decision went to the House of Representatives, which voted Adams into the White House.

In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes won the election (by a margin of one electoral vote), but he lost the popular vote by more than 250,000 ballots to Samuel J. Tilden.

In 1888, Benjamin Harrison received 233 electoral votes to Grover Cleveland’s 168, winning the presidency. But Harrison lost the popular vote by more than 90,000 votes.

In 2000, George W. Bush was declared the winner of the general election and became the 43rd president, but he didn’t win the popular vote either. Al Gore holds that distinction, garnering about 540,000 more votes than Bush. However, Bush won the electoral vote, 271 to 266.

In 2016, Donald Trump won the electoral vote by 304 to 227 over Hillary Clinton, but Trump lost the popular vote. Clinton received nearly 2.9 million more votes than Trump, according to an analysis by the Associated Press of the certified results in all 50 states and Washington, D.C.
...}

You left out 1800 on that list, and it also depends on what you mean by "affected". Nixon 1968, Truman 1948, Wilson 1912, Cleveland 1892 and Lincoln 1860 all won elections where significant numbers of electors went to a third (or in 1860 third and fourth) party, if not for which presence of a a broader field siphoning off electoral votes, four of five could have gone differently; in fact the whole strategy of a 3P is, because it's the only strategy available, to siphon off enough D and R votes so as to throw the election into the House, bypassing the whole exercise of Election Day. Had half the South not rejected Thurmond, he would have succeeded*.

(*which may have been a preferable result; at least it might have spared us Truman)

And of course in the era of having an election day, 2016, 2000, 1996, 1992. 1968, 1948, 1916, 1912, 1892, 1888, 1884, 1880, 1876 (< five in a row), 1860,.1856, 1852, 1848 and 1844 (<another five in a row) all resulted in a POTUS who was not the choice of the popular vote, so we would have to say those were "affected" as well.

The elections listed were provided by FactCheck.org, not me, and are correct.
Third party candidates have nothing to do with electoral college that I can think of.
Nor do I get your claim on the other dates where the elected was the same as the popular vote?

We usually provide a link when we're quoting somebody so I just worked with what was posted. My dates are correct, you can look any of them up. As I said before it depends on what you mean by "affected". The list of dates at the end are all elections (18 of them) where the eventual POTUS did not win at least 50% of the national popular vote but was installed by the EC -- therefore the EC "affected" the election. And 1800 was left out.

If you're quoting somebody's web page, say so and link it, otherwise you take the responsibility for what's posted. All of the above including yesterday's post, is my own content.

Sorry, I thought I had provided the link. I must have forgotten.
Presidents Winning Without Popular Vote - FactCheck.org

When some candidate does not win enough votes and something has to be done, that is not the fault of the EC, but simply a desire not to have another run off election between the final 2 candidates.
My opinion is that the party nomination elections should be eliminated and used as an open preliminary, so that the current final election was only a run off between 2 candidates. Another solution would be to just have a single all candidate open elections where you rank each candidate. There are lots of ways to do it, all of which are better than what we do, but just going to a poplar vote improves nothing, and actually makes it worse if you still have the party nomination elections and single run off. The most over populated states are always the most screwed up and least desirable to influence choices. Over population is on record as being harmful, so these states are the most damaged and incapable of choosing well. Mob rule never is good, so there is no basis for supporting a popular vote scheme.

Several cogent thoughts there some similar to what I posted in 1546 (I'll link it). The current WTA system clearly needs work and disenfranchises millions of votes. But nobody ever suggested abandoning the EC is the only way to rectify it.

I continue to reject the Doublethinkian term "mob rule". It has no meaning. An election is not a "mob". If a state votes in a governor by say 56% that's a majority, not a "mob". If the SCOTUS renders a 6-3 decision (or even a 9-0 decision) that's not a "mob". A "mob" is a wave of emotionally-charged people out to commit some aggressive action. The phrase is absurd.

 

[Pogo]

I don't particularly like the idea of LA, NYC, and Miami controlling the country, but according to the fact, the electoral college makes little difference.

These are the only elections effected by the electoral college, in all US history.
{...
In 1824, John Quincy Adams was elected president despite not winning either the popular vote or the electoral vote. Andrew Jackson was the winner in both categories. Jackson received 38,000 more popular votes than Adams, and beat him in the electoral vote 99 to 84. Despite his victories, Jackson didn’t reach the majority 131 votes needed in the Electoral College to be declared president. In fact, neither candidate did. The decision went to the House of Representatives, which voted Adams into the White House.

In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes won the election (by a margin of one electoral vote), but he lost the popular vote by more than 250,000 ballots to Samuel J. Tilden.

In 1888, Benjamin Harrison received 233 electoral votes to Grover Cleveland’s 168, winning the presidency. But Harrison lost the popular vote by more than 90,000 votes.

In 2000, George W. Bush was declared the winner of the general election and became the 43rd president, but he didn’t win the popular vote either. Al Gore holds that distinction, garnering about 540,000 more votes than Bush. However, Bush won the electoral vote, 271 to 266.

In 2016, Donald Trump won the electoral vote by 304 to 227 over Hillary Clinton, but Trump lost the popular vote. Clinton received nearly 2.9 million more votes than Trump, according to an analysis by the Associated Press of the certified results in all 50 states and Washington, D.C.
...}

Right. It only happens rarely. But it's an important safeguard. If either party decides they can dismiss the concerns of the "flyover states", they risk losing on the electoral count - especially when the divide is as clear-cut as it was in the last election. If the Democrats don't figure out a way to win back rural voters, they risk losing again, in the same way. And, near as I can tell, they aren't even trying.

I tend to agree. Candidates should not write off smaller states.

And yet --- every state, large, small or medium --- that is locked "red" or "blue" is already automatically written off by both the red and the blue candidate because they both know it's locked up. That's why nobody in a "red" or "blue" state has any reason to vote for POTUS at all. And that in turn is why our national turnout is piss-poor. Because what's the point.

That speaks against the 2 party monopoly and winner take all mentality, and has nothing to do with the EC.
The EC just apportions small states slightly disproportionately, not how a state reports its results.

The WTA is how 48 out of 50 states USE the EC so of course it has everything to do with it.

Not sure what you're saying here.

 

[easyt65]

Elizabeth Warren: 'End Electoral College'

Better Idea:
Hold Politicians Who Commit Fraud / Race Fraud / Stolen Race Accountable!

Force Politicians Who Steal Someone Else's Scholarship To Pay The Money Back!

 

[Rigby5]

I don't particularly like the idea of LA, NYC, and Miami controlling the country, but according to the fact, the electoral college makes little difference.

These are the only elections effected by the electoral college, in all US history.
{...
In 1824, John Quincy Adams was elected president despite not winning either the popular vote or the electoral vote. Andrew Jackson was the winner in both categories. Jackson received 38,000 more popular votes than Adams, and beat him in the electoral vote 99 to 84. Despite his victories, Jackson didn’t reach the majority 131 votes needed in the Electoral College to be declared president. In fact, neither candidate did. The decision went to the House of Representatives, which voted Adams into the White House.

In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes won the election (by a margin of one electoral vote), but he lost the popular vote by more than 250,000 ballots to Samuel J. Tilden.

In 1888, Benjamin Harrison received 233 electoral votes to Grover Cleveland’s 168, winning the presidency. But Harrison lost the popular vote by more than 90,000 votes.

In 2000, George W. Bush was declared the winner of the general election and became the 43rd president, but he didn’t win the popular vote either. Al Gore holds that distinction, garnering about 540,000 more votes than Bush. However, Bush won the electoral vote, 271 to 266.

In 2016, Donald Trump won the electoral vote by 304 to 227 over Hillary Clinton, but Trump lost the popular vote. Clinton received nearly 2.9 million more votes than Trump, according to an analysis by the Associated Press of the certified results in all 50 states and Washington, D.C.
...}

You left out 1800 on that list, and it also depends on what you mean by "affected". Nixon 1968, Truman 1948, Wilson 1912, Cleveland 1892 and Lincoln 1860 all won elections where significant numbers of electors went to a third (or in 1860 third and fourth) party, if not for which presence of a a broader field siphoning off electoral votes, four of five could have gone differently; in fact the whole strategy of a 3P is, because it's the only strategy available, to siphon off enough D and R votes so as to throw the election into the House, bypassing the whole exercise of Election Day. Had half the South not rejected Thurmond, he would have succeeded*.

(*which may have been a preferable result; at least it might have spared us Truman)

And of course in the era of having an election day, 2016, 2000, 1996, 1992. 1968, 1948, 1916, 1912, 1892, 1888, 1884, 1880, 1876 (< five in a row), 1860,.1856, 1852, 1848 and 1844 (<another five in a row) all resulted in a POTUS who was not the choice of the popular vote, so we would have to say those were "affected" as well.

The elections listed were provided by FactCheck.org, not me, and are correct.
Third party candidates have nothing to do with electoral college that I can think of.
Nor do I get your claim on the other dates where the elected was the same as the popular vote?

We usually provide a link when we're quoting somebody so I just worked with what was posted. My dates are correct, you can look any of them up. As I said before it depends on what you mean by "affected". The list of dates at the end are all elections (18 of them) where the eventual POTUS did not win at least 50% of the national popular vote but was installed by the EC -- therefore the EC "affected" the election. And 1800 was left out.

If you're quoting somebody's web page, say so and link it, otherwise you take the responsibility for what's posted. All of the above including yesterday's post, is my own content.

Sorry, I thought I had provided the link. I must have forgotten.
Presidents Winning Without Popular Vote - FactCheck.org

When some candidate does not win enough votes and something has to be done, that is not the fault of the EC, but simply a desire not to have another run off election between the final 2 candidates.
My opinion is that the party nomination elections should be eliminated and used as an open preliminary, so that the current final election was only a run off between 2 candidates. Another solution would be to just have a single all candidate open elections where you rank each candidate. There are lots of ways to do it, all of which are better than what we do, but just going to a poplar vote improves nothing, and actually makes it worse if you still have the party nomination elections and single run off. The most over populated states are always the most screwed up and least desirable to influence choices. Over population is on record as being harmful, so these states are the most damaged and incapable of choosing well. Mob rule never is good, so there is no basis for supporting a popular vote scheme.

Several cogent thoughts there some similar to what I posted in 1546 (I'll link it). The current WTA system clearly needs work and disenfranchises millions of votes. But nobody ever suggested abandoning the EC is the only way to rectify it.

I continue to reject the Doublethinkian term "mob rule". It has no meaning. An election is not a "mob". If a state votes in a governor by say 56% that's a majority, not a "mob". If the SCOTUS renders a 6-3 decision (or even a 9-0 decision) that's not a "mob". A "mob" is a wave of emotionally-charged people out to commit some aggressive action. The phrase is absurd.

I sort of disagree.
When you have bands playing, flags waving, people giving stirring speeches, maybe some food or beer, etc., then you have a mob.
They are going to be emotional.
Possibly hysterical, angry, hyped up, and not thinking clearly.
That is bad, and not only is easy to create, but historically has been attempted at every election.

When you instead have a layer of the best representing the mob, and the mob votes for the representatives, that then themselves do that real voting, each layer of that is an improvement. Every time you have a layer of insulation between the total group and a select few who are better at making decisions, you can weed out bad things, without preventing over all group representation.

For example, when we invaded Iraq, 69% of the over all population falsely believed that Saddam was behind the 9/11 attack on the WTC. Clearly that was insanely stupid, and not a single person should have thought that. Not a single responsible politician or news commentator ever believed or said that. So clearly the general population was irrational and could not have been used for making any sort of direct decision, because they not only were uninformed, but willfully so. They instead were making up totally false scenarios based on some bizarre emotional reaction. The point being that the general population IS essentially a mob. They will deliberately do great harm if they can, without bothering to even realize they are being harmful.

 

[Rigby5]

I don't particularly like the idea of LA, NYC, and Miami controlling the country, but according to the fact, the electoral college makes little difference.

These are the only elections effected by the electoral college, in all US history.
{...
In 1824, John Quincy Adams was elected president despite not winning either the popular vote or the electoral vote. Andrew Jackson was the winner in both categories. Jackson received 38,000 more popular votes than Adams, and beat him in the electoral vote 99 to 84. Despite his victories, Jackson didn’t reach the majority 131 votes needed in the Electoral College to be declared president. In fact, neither candidate did. The decision went to the House of Representatives, which voted Adams into the White House.

In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes won the election (by a margin of one electoral vote), but he lost the popular vote by more than 250,000 ballots to Samuel J. Tilden.

In 1888, Benjamin Harrison received 233 electoral votes to Grover Cleveland’s 168, winning the presidency. But Harrison lost the popular vote by more than 90,000 votes.

In 2000, George W. Bush was declared the winner of the general election and became the 43rd president, but he didn’t win the popular vote either. Al Gore holds that distinction, garnering about 540,000 more votes than Bush. However, Bush won the electoral vote, 271 to 266.

In 2016, Donald Trump won the electoral vote by 304 to 227 over Hillary Clinton, but Trump lost the popular vote. Clinton received nearly 2.9 million more votes than Trump, according to an analysis by the Associated Press of the certified results in all 50 states and Washington, D.C.
...}

Right. It only happens rarely. But it's an important safeguard. If either party decides they can dismiss the concerns of the "flyover states", they risk losing on the electoral count - especially when the divide is as clear-cut as it was in the last election. If the Democrats don't figure out a way to win back rural voters, they risk losing again, in the same way. And, near as I can tell, they aren't even trying.

I tend to agree. Candidates should not write off smaller states.

And yet --- every state, large, small or medium --- that is locked "red" or "blue" is already automatically written off by both the red and the blue candidate because they both know it's locked up. That's why nobody in a "red" or "blue" state has any reason to vote for POTUS at all. And that in turn is why our national turnout is piss-poor. Because what's the point.

That speaks against the 2 party monopoly and winner take all mentality, and has nothing to do with the EC.
The EC just apportions small states slightly disproportionately, not how a state reports its results.

The WTA is how 48 out of 50 states USE the EC so of course it has everything to do with it.

Not sure what you're saying here.

Whether or not the EC uses winner take all or something else is not related to whether or not we go to popular vote. Eventually you have to decide, and the result is always winner take all. Likely winner take all in smaller state sized chunks averages out problems more than holding off til the national lever. Regardless of what system you use, the popular vote is the least responsible or useful, and needs the most insulation. In fact, I would prefer a parliamentary system where we did not vote for president at all, but the Congressmen did. That would force congress into negotiating alliances in order to get a majority, and would eliminate the 2 party monopoly.