Elizabeth Warren: 'End Electoral College'

[Lakhota]

Several 2020 Democratic presidential candidates are now calling for abolishing the Electoral College. I agree!

Let me get this straight. You think the party who uses superdelegates to rig their Presidential nomination process, is qualified to lecture us on election fairness? I don't think so.

Yes, I do.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Sorry, I don't see how "Several 2020 Democratic presidential candidates" can equal "the party" - so not really lucid. Plus starting out with "Let me get this straight." gives away that the writer is just f-ing with you. Obviously neither party "is qualified to lecture us" voting citizens period, but all presidential candidates should be encouraged to voice their opinions about what they feel is important prior to an election.

 

[Cecilie1200]

the party who uses superdelegates to rig their Presidential nomination process

Better ask Karl Rove:

"GOP rules allow for ... 'superdelegates,' with more than half of state parties exercising the option to make their chairman, national committeewoman and national committeeman automatic delegates," Republican strategist and Bush official Karl Rove wrote last year. "These uncommitted delegates, 210 in all, could be the most fluid force in the convention if no candidate has locked in victory."

He is referring to members of the Republican National Committee, the party's governing body. Each state comes with one committeeman and one committeewoman, in addition to all state party chairs. Party rules also allocate three to Guam, Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands.

Yeah, except for two differences which are KINDA important.

1) Superdelegates make up about 15% of the total delegates in the Democrat Party, and only about 7% of the total delegates in the Republican Party.

2) Superdelegates in the Democrat Party can vote for whomever they want, regardless of how their state voted; in the GOP, they must vote for whichever candidate their state voted for.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Several 2020 Democratic presidential candidates are now calling for abolishing the Electoral College. I agree!

Let me get this straight. You think the party who uses superdelegates to rig their Presidential nomination process, is qualified to lecture us on election fairness? I don't think so.

Yes, I do.

Yeah, well, you also think YOU are qualified to assert things as fact and have people believe you, so . . .

 

[Grumblenuts]

the party who uses superdelegates to rig their Presidential nomination process

Better ask Karl Rove:

"GOP rules allow for ... 'superdelegates,' with more than half of state parties exercising the option to make their chairman, national committeewoman and national committeeman automatic delegates," Republican strategist and Bush official Karl Rove wrote last year. "These uncommitted delegates, 210 in all, could be the most fluid force in the convention if no candidate has locked in victory."

He is referring to members of the Republican National Committee, the party's governing body. Each state comes with one committeeman and one committeewoman, in addition to all state party chairs. Party rules also allocate three to Guam, Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands.

Yeah, except for two differences which are KINDA important.

1) Superdelegates make up about 15% of the total delegates in the Democrat Party, and only about 7% of the total delegates in the Republican Party.

2) Superdelegates in the Democrat Party can vote for whomever they want, regardless of how their state voted; in the GOP, they must vote for whichever candidate their state voted for.

That might follow if the assertion had been "Use of superdelegates by the Democrats to rig elections sucks worse than how the Republicans do it."

 

[Cecilie1200]

the party who uses superdelegates to rig their Presidential nomination process

Better ask Karl Rove:

"GOP rules allow for ... 'superdelegates,' with more than half of state parties exercising the option to make their chairman, national committeewoman and national committeeman automatic delegates," Republican strategist and Bush official Karl Rove wrote last year. "These uncommitted delegates, 210 in all, could be the most fluid force in the convention if no candidate has locked in victory."

He is referring to members of the Republican National Committee, the party's governing body. Each state comes with one committeeman and one committeewoman, in addition to all state party chairs. Party rules also allocate three to Guam, Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands.

Yeah, except for two differences which are KINDA important.

1) Superdelegates make up about 15% of the total delegates in the Democrat Party, and only about 7% of the total delegates in the Republican Party.

2) Superdelegates in the Democrat Party can vote for whomever they want, regardless of how their state voted; in the GOP, they must vote for whichever candidate their state voted for.

That might follow if the assertion had been "Use of superdelegates by the Democrats to rig elections sucks worse than how the Republicans do it."

No, because the GOP doesn't use them to rig the nomination AT ALL, as shown by the points I just made, and you obviously skipped right over in your rush to have an "Aha!" accusation moment. Dem superdelegates have the ability to change the nomination to their liking, regardless of the votes; GOP superdelegates do not.

 

[Grumblenuts]

the party who uses superdelegates to rig their Presidential nomination process

Better ask Karl Rove:

"GOP rules allow for ... 'superdelegates,' with more than half of state parties exercising the option to make their chairman, national committeewoman and national committeeman automatic delegates," Republican strategist and Bush official Karl Rove wrote last year. "These uncommitted delegates, 210 in all, could be the most fluid force in the convention if no candidate has locked in victory."

He is referring to members of the Republican National Committee, the party's governing body. Each state comes with one committeeman and one committeewoman, in addition to all state party chairs. Party rules also allocate three to Guam, Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands.

Yeah, except for two differences which are KINDA important.

1) Superdelegates make up about 15% of the total delegates in the Democrat Party, and only about 7% of the total delegates in the Republican Party.

2) Superdelegates in the Democrat Party can vote for whomever they want, regardless of how their state voted; in the GOP, they must vote for whichever candidate their state voted for.

That might follow if the assertion had been "Use of superdelegates by the Democrats to rig elections sucks worse than how the Republicans do it."

No, because the GOP doesn't use them to rig the nomination AT ALL, as shown by the points I just made, and you obviously skipped right over in your rush to have an "Aha!" accusation moment. Dem superdelegates have the ability to change the nomination to their liking, regardless of the votes; GOP superdelegates do not.

I am sorry that all you ever manage to do is deny and lash out, but don't like hearing it from Rove? Best deny hearing it from Trump then as well:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump lashed out at what he called the party’s “rigged” delegate selection rules on Monday after rival Ted Cruz swept all of Colorado’s 34 delegates over the weekend.
{snip}
The New York billionaire, who has been outmaneuvered by Cruz in a series of recent state meetings to select national convention delegates, said the process was set up to protect party insiders and shut out insurgent candidates.

“The system is rigged, it’s crooked,” Trump said on Fox News on Monday, alleging the Colorado convention results showed voters were being denied a voice in the process.

Sure, you can find lots of happy talk to the contrary, but the historical evidence (not to mention "common sense") reveals that for what it's worth. Really? Can't be satisfied with the GOP sucking less than the Dems on this score? "No," all or nothing all the time!

 

[Pogo]

the party who uses superdelegates to rig their Presidential nomination process

Better ask Karl Rove:

"GOP rules allow for ... 'superdelegates,' with more than half of state parties exercising the option to make their chairman, national committeewoman and national committeeman automatic delegates," Republican strategist and Bush official Karl Rove wrote last year. "These uncommitted delegates, 210 in all, could be the most fluid force in the convention if no candidate has locked in victory."

He is referring to members of the Republican National Committee, the party's governing body. Each state comes with one committeeman and one committeewoman, in addition to all state party chairs. Party rules also allocate three to Guam, Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands.

Yeah, except for two differences which are KINDA important.

1) Superdelegates make up about 15% of the total delegates in the Democrat Party, and only about 7% of the total delegates in the Republican Party.

2) Superdelegates in the Democrat Party can vote for whomever they want, regardless of how their state voted; in the GOP, they must vote for whichever candidate their state voted for.

That might follow if the assertion had been "Use of superdelegates by the Democrats to rig elections sucks worse than how the Republicans do it."

No, because the GOP doesn't use them to rig the nomination AT ALL, as shown by the points I just made, and you obviously skipped right over in your rush to have an "Aha!" accusation moment. Dem superdelegates have the ability to change the nomination to their liking, regardless of the votes; GOP superdelegates do not.

This is true but a distinction without a difference. The fact is, no political party is required to either hold primaries or to follow their results --- as a private organization it can and will nominate whoever it wants. Even if somebody they don't want walks into the convention carrying the bulk of the primary votes.

Ask Teddy Roosevelt how that works.

Gotta say, I really didn't think you were this naïve about how the process works.

 

[Cecilie1200]

the party who uses superdelegates to rig their Presidential nomination process

Better ask Karl Rove:

"GOP rules allow for ... 'superdelegates,' with more than half of state parties exercising the option to make their chairman, national committeewoman and national committeeman automatic delegates," Republican strategist and Bush official Karl Rove wrote last year. "These uncommitted delegates, 210 in all, could be the most fluid force in the convention if no candidate has locked in victory."

He is referring to members of the Republican National Committee, the party's governing body. Each state comes with one committeeman and one committeewoman, in addition to all state party chairs. Party rules also allocate three to Guam, Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands.

Yeah, except for two differences which are KINDA important.

1) Superdelegates make up about 15% of the total delegates in the Democrat Party, and only about 7% of the total delegates in the Republican Party.

2) Superdelegates in the Democrat Party can vote for whomever they want, regardless of how their state voted; in the GOP, they must vote for whichever candidate their state voted for.

That might follow if the assertion had been "Use of superdelegates by the Democrats to rig elections sucks worse than how the Republicans do it."

No, because the GOP doesn't use them to rig the nomination AT ALL, as shown by the points I just made, and you obviously skipped right over in your rush to have an "Aha!" accusation moment. Dem superdelegates have the ability to change the nomination to their liking, regardless of the votes; GOP superdelegates do not.

I am sorry that all you ever manage to do is deny and lash out, but don't like hearing it from Rove? Best deny hearing it from Trump then as well:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump lashed out at what he called the party’s “rigged” delegate selection rules on Monday after rival Ted Cruz swept all of Colorado’s 34 delegates over the weekend.
{snip}
The New York billionaire, who has been outmaneuvered by Cruz in a series of recent state meetings to select national convention delegates, said the process was set up to protect party insiders and shut out insurgent candidates.

“The system is rigged, it’s crooked,” Trump said on Fox News on Monday, alleging the Colorado convention results showed voters were being denied a voice in the process.

Sure, you can find lots of happy talk to the contrary, but the historical evidence (not to mention "common sense") reveals that for what it's worth. Really? Can't be satisfied with the GOP sucking less than the Dems on this score? "No," all or nothing all the time!

Look, I get that you're not smart enough to find facts and think for yourself, but you should understand that that isn't a problem shared by everyone. So it's really not going to matter one iota to me which "Aha!!! Well, THIS person said so!" that you pull out. The facts of the situation are still the facts of the situation. Which means you're still wrong, and no amount of name-dropping will change that.

Call me when you scare up an original thought and/or an actual fact and can show me how GOP superdelegates work like Dem superdelegates do. Anything else will just be an admission that you were wrong, and you're too big a poltroon to admit it.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Look, I get that you're not smart enough to find facts and think for yourself, but you should understand that that isn't a problem shared by everyone. So it's really not going to matter one iota to me which "Aha!!! Well, THIS person said so!" that you pull out. The facts of the situation are still the facts of the situation. Which means you're still wrong, and no amount of name-dropping will change that.

Call me when you scare up an original thought and/or an actual fact and can show me how GOP superdelegates work like Dem superdelegates do. Anything else will just be an admission that you were wrong, and you're too big a poltroon to admit it.

Oh, my, ^LOOK^ - What a smeary bunch o' nothin' burger!

 

[Cecilie1200]

Look, I get that you're not smart enough to find facts and think for yourself, but you should understand that that isn't a problem shared by everyone. So it's really not going to matter one iota to me which "Aha!!! Well, THIS person said so!" that you pull out. The facts of the situation are still the facts of the situation. Which means you're still wrong, and no amount of name-dropping will change that.

Call me when you scare up an original thought and/or an actual fact and can show me how GOP superdelegates work like Dem superdelegates do. Anything else will just be an admission that you were wrong, and you're too big a poltroon to admit it.

Oh, my, ^LOOK^ - What a smeary bunch o' nothin' burger!

Thank you for your surrender. Your utter lack of balls is duly noted, and you may now cringe your way back into your doghouse.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Dream on, loser.

 

[Zorro!]

The Twelfth Amendment says that's a NO.

Now, Go back to civics class and try to stay awake this time.

An amendment is a change to the constitution stupid


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

There is another way...not as difficult but not easy. Electoral Compact

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Wikipedia

Also, easily defeated by other states creating their own "sealed popular vote" (SPV) compact that would take effect only if and when the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) takes effect.

Nothing in the Constitution requires a state to publish the specific vote total.

Nothing in the Constitution would prevent, say Texas, announce the winner of Texas' popular presidential vote, but not the actual number.

Like minded states could make it unlawful to reveal the precise vote count sooner than 24 hours after the House of Representatives has counted the electoral votes and certified the winner. The popular vote number would still be published for those curious to know it; it will just be published later, when the House has counted the electoral votes, declared a winner, and it is too late to be used for purposes of the NPVIC. For how can a "NPVIC state" "assign" its electoral votes to the "winner of the popular vote" if it does not know what the popular vote is?

https://www.americanthinker.com/art...national_popular_vote_interstate_compact.html

 

[Pogo]

The Twelfth Amendment says that's a NO.

Now, Go back to civics class and try to stay awake this time.

An amendment is a change to the constitution stupid


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

There is another way...not as difficult but not easy. Electoral Compact

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Wikipedia

Also, easily defeated by other states creating their own "sealed popular vote" (SPV) compact that would take effect only if and when the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) takes effect.

Nothing in the Constitution requires a state to publish the specific vote total.

Nothing in the Constitution would prevent, say Texas, announce the winner of Texas' popular presidential vote, but not the actual number.

Like minded states could make it unlawful to reveal the precise vote count sooner than 24 hours after the House of Representatives has counted the electoral votes and certified the winner. The popular vote number would still be published for those curious to know it; it will just be published later, when the House has counted the electoral votes, declared a winner, and it is too late to be used for purposes of the NPVIC. For how can a "NPVIC state" "assign" its electoral votes to the "winner of the popular vote" if it does not know what the popular vote is?

https://www.americanthinker.com/art...national_popular_vote_interstate_compact.html

Desperation strikes deep. Into yon post it doth creep.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I'm sure Zorro places equal faith in the ramblings of that same American Stinker here, lol

Trump's Supporters Are the Real RINOs

 

[Synthaholic]

Vote Elizabeth Warren to own the cons!

 

[22lcidw]

I looked up the 2008 Democratic Primaries. Hillary won the popular vote. Those damn states!

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

DEMOCRATS CALL FOR GETTING RID OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS

 

[Uncensored2008]

Vote Elizabeth Warren to own the cons!

Yes, Shitting Bull is the ticket, you've got it all figured out Synthia.

 

[McRocket]

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.

Hear hear.

Thanks for posting this.