I have a few questions...

[Rustic]

You mean the Electoral College I think.

"Faithless Electors" sometimes have varied their votes from how the states voted so it's possible, although they risk either fines/prosecution or having their vote nullified, or both. Only one I've heard of was a Bernie supporter in Washington who says he refuses to vote for Hillary.

Yet another reason the whole Electrical College scam needs to go.

"Civil war" is an intriguing reference, since it can certainly be argued that the original Electoral College helped set up the Civil War. The real one.

It has nothing to do with the Civil War. Dip shit LOL

 

[JustAnotherNut]

Because it's within the Constitution and how the Founding Fathers wanted that extra step to ensure everyone is represented.

But it doesn't --- it does the opposite, ensuring everyone is NOT represented... as we've demonstrated and you agreed.

That Constitution is what keeps us from becoming like North Korea or China of the Tiananmen Square days where you could be shot for even saying anything like that. And anyone that speaks against it is in effect thumbing their nose at all those who have served &/or died fighting on it's behalf. Shame on you for even thinking that because of convenience.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhh...... what the hell are you even talking about?


As already noted before, HOW a state chooses its electors is up to that state, so any or every state could indeed choose to select their electors proportional to that state's vote. The Constitution specifically leaves it up to them to do that. They could select those Electors any way they want.

We already have two states ---- Maine and Nebraska ---- who use a system at variance with the "winner take all" crapola.

I agreed it could use some updating but not thrown out completely, as you suggest. And maybe the first change could be NOT to leave it to the states but as a Federal/national law on how the electors are to vote as I had suggested earlier. That the electors within each state are divided up by the number of votes of the people so that both parties and all people are represented. Not just being declared one party over the other.

 

[Pogo]

You mean the Electoral College I think.

"Faithless Electors" sometimes have varied their votes from how the states voted so it's possible, although they risk either fines/prosecution or having their vote nullified, or both. Only one I've heard of was a Bernie supporter in Washington who says he refuses to vote for Hillary.

Yet another reason the whole Electrical College scam needs to go.

"Civil war" is an intriguing reference, since it can certainly be argued that the original Electoral College helped set up the Civil War. The real one.

It has nothing to do with the Civil War. Dip shit LOL

It certainly delayed addressing the Slavery question --- which then blew up into the Civil War.

Again six of our first seven POTUSes --- slaveholders from the South, specifically Virginia -- the state with the most Electoral Votes. And having extra EVs by counting slaves as 3/5 people while granting 0/5 of them a vote.

That's history, like it or not.

 

[Pogo]

Because it's within the Constitution and how the Founding Fathers wanted that extra step to ensure everyone is represented.

But it doesn't --- it does the opposite, ensuring everyone is NOT represented... as we've demonstrated and you agreed.

That Constitution is what keeps us from becoming like North Korea or China of the Tiananmen Square days where you could be shot for even saying anything like that. And anyone that speaks against it is in effect thumbing their nose at all those who have served &/or died fighting on it's behalf. Shame on you for even thinking that because of convenience.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhh...... what the hell are you even talking about?


As already noted before, HOW a state chooses its electors is up to that state, so any or every state could indeed choose to select their electors proportional to that state's vote. The Constitution specifically leaves it up to them to do that. They could select those Electors any way they want.

We already have two states ---- Maine and Nebraska ---- who use a system at variance with the "winner take all" crapola.

I agreed it could use some updating but not thrown out completely, as you suggest. And maybe the first change could be NOT to leave it to the states but as a Federal/national law on how the electors are to vote as I had suggested earlier. That the electors within each state are divided up by the number of votes of the people so that both parties and all people are represented. Not just being declared one party over the other.

Right, we did that.

And when you do that, once you refine it enough to match how the voters in that state voted ---- then you have the same result as the PV anyway. So what's the point?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

If you stand on your head, put your head between your knees, squint your eyes real hard and twirl two hula hoops on your outstretched arms, you can almost pretend that Hillary won.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

Because it's within the Constitution and how the Founding Fathers wanted that extra step to ensure everyone is represented.

But it doesn't --- it does the opposite, ensuring everyone is NOT represented... as we've demonstrated and you agreed.

That Constitution is what keeps us from becoming like North Korea or China of the Tiananmen Square days where you could be shot for even saying anything like that. And anyone that speaks against it is in effect thumbing their nose at all those who have served &/or died fighting on it's behalf. Shame on you for even thinking that because of convenience.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhh...... what the hell are you even talking about?


As already noted before, HOW a state chooses its electors is up to that state, so any or every state could indeed choose to select their electors proportional to that state's vote. The Constitution specifically leaves it up to them to do that. They could select those Electors any way they want.

We already have two states ---- Maine and Nebraska ---- who use a system at variance with the "winner take all" crapola.

I agreed it could use some updating but not thrown out completely, as you suggest. And maybe the first change could be NOT to leave it to the states but as a Federal/national law on how the electors are to vote as I had suggested earlier. That the electors within each state are divided up by the number of votes of the people so that both parties and all people are represented. Not just being declared one party over the other.

Right, we did that.

And when you do that, once you refine it enough to match how the voters in that state voted ---- then you have the same result as the PV anyway. So what's the point?

 

[Pogo]

Because it's within the Constitution and how the Founding Fathers wanted that extra step to ensure everyone is represented.

But it doesn't --- it does the opposite, ensuring everyone is NOT represented... as we've demonstrated and you agreed.

That Constitution is what keeps us from becoming like North Korea or China of the Tiananmen Square days where you could be shot for even saying anything like that. And anyone that speaks against it is in effect thumbing their nose at all those who have served &/or died fighting on it's behalf. Shame on you for even thinking that because of convenience.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhh...... what the hell are you even talking about?


As already noted before, HOW a state chooses its electors is up to that state, so any or every state could indeed choose to select their electors proportional to that state's vote. The Constitution specifically leaves it up to them to do that. They could select those Electors any way they want.

We already have two states ---- Maine and Nebraska ---- who use a system at variance with the "winner take all" crapola.

I agreed it could use some updating but not thrown out completely, as you suggest. And maybe the first change could be NOT to leave it to the states but as a Federal/national law on how the electors are to vote as I had suggested earlier. That the electors within each state are divided up by the number of votes of the people so that both parties and all people are represented. Not just being declared one party over the other.

Right, we did that.

And when you do that, once you refine it enough to match how the voters in that state voted ---- then you have the same result as the PV anyway. So what's the point?

You're not following me at all are you. Or you don't want to.

Look -- you suggested EC electors should follow their state's vote. Right?
So I said, that's the same as simply having the state do it directly. Takes you to the same result.

---- so in that case what is the point of having somebody do by proxy what the state has already done? Extra step. Doesn't make sense. You've rendered the Electrical College inoperative.

Therefore, it has no function, therefore just dump it.
Same result.

Capice?

 

[peach174]

You mean the Electoral College I think.

"Faithless Electors" sometimes have varied their votes from how the states voted so it's possible, although they risk either fines/prosecution or having their vote nullified, or both. Only one I've heard of was a Bernie supporter in Washington who says he refuses to vote for Hillary.

Yet another reason the whole Electrical College scam needs to go.

"Civil war" is an intriguing reference, since it can certainly be argued that the original Electoral College helped set up the Civil War. The real one.

You realize Trump won almost every single county accross the board, including some blue ones?
The Electoral College voted for who the majority voted for in thier counties.

I don't think the EC votes by county, no.

They don't and thats not what I said.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

Because it's within the Constitution and how the Founding Fathers wanted that extra step to ensure everyone is represented.

But it doesn't --- it does the opposite, ensuring everyone is NOT represented... as we've demonstrated and you agreed.

That Constitution is what keeps us from becoming like North Korea or China of the Tiananmen Square days where you could be shot for even saying anything like that. And anyone that speaks against it is in effect thumbing their nose at all those who have served &/or died fighting on it's behalf. Shame on you for even thinking that because of convenience.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhh...... what the hell are you even talking about?


As already noted before, HOW a state chooses its electors is up to that state, so any or every state could indeed choose to select their electors proportional to that state's vote. The Constitution specifically leaves it up to them to do that. They could select those Electors any way they want.

We already have two states ---- Maine and Nebraska ---- who use a system at variance with the "winner take all" crapola.

I agreed it could use some updating but not thrown out completely, as you suggest. And maybe the first change could be NOT to leave it to the states but as a Federal/national law on how the electors are to vote as I had suggested earlier. That the electors within each state are divided up by the number of votes of the people so that both parties and all people are represented. Not just being declared one party over the other.

Right, we did that.

And when you do that, once you refine it enough to match how the voters in that state voted ---- then you have the same result as the PV anyway. So what's the point?

You're not following me at all are you. Or you don't want to.

Look -- you suggested EC electors should follow their state's vote. Right?
So I said, that's the same as simply having the state do it directly. Takes you to the same result.

---- so in that case what is the point of having somebody do by proxy what the state has already done? Extra step. Doesn't make sense. You've rendered the Electrical College inoperative.

Therefore, it has no function, therefore just dump it.
Same result.

Capice?

Oh I know what you are saying, but you don't seem to understand what I have said........you are trying to simplify the steps because it's inconvenient to you. As in, 'takes you to the same result', 'it has no function, therefore just dump it'

I don't argue that it needs changing, but I do acknowledge the fact that the Founding Fathers had put it in place for a reason. To ensure against 'mob rule' that would happen if just left to the popular vote only. Yes, both come down to the same end......but both are still necessary.
If only PV prevailed it would look like this....50,000,000 for HC & 50,000,003 for DT.....oops, could be a miscounting & have to be redone. How many national recounts before a winner is determined. IF it's broke up with Electorals by state, there is no need for recounts and allows for that margin of error

 

[Montrovant]

Pogo you are a young girl.. The electoral college never cancels out anyone's vote... Again it was designed to make everything thing fair.. Other wise the guys and girls who wanted to run for president wouldn't campaign in Des Moines Iowa

Oh but it does. See, it works like this:

I had a vote in the recent election. That's only because my state was "in play" according to the EC.

But my friends and relatives in Mississippi and Louisiana and Texas had no vote. Their state was already decided regardless what they did. They could have voted this way, that way, or not voted at all. Wouldn't mean jack squat. Similarly my friends and relatives in California and Vermont and Washington had no vote. Their state was already decided regardless what they did. They could have voted this way, that way, or not voted at all. Wouldn't mean jack squat.

In every case if they voted a different way from how their state did, the state cancelled their vote and made it meaningless. And if they voted the same way their state did, the state didn't even notice, because it was already going that way.

Which is also how it discourages voting. There's no point if your state is already decided.

The EC in effect decides what states are "in play". The rest of y'all are just like a foul ball --- out of play.

You have to be a moron to be OK with that.

I do have to agree with you on that point......of the 'safe' states. It is unfair to the opposing voters because they are not represented. In fact, even in swing states the minority are also not represented. But at least they do get their votes counted in order to determine the majority. In addition, those that live on the west coast, Alaska or Hawaii have a hard time justifying their votes count either way they voted. I have yet to see an election that hasn't been called long before they got that far west. It's as if we don't count or exist.
I don't deny there needs to be changes to the electoral college & how it works, but I do think it needs to stay.

Perhaps a better system would be for all states to vote and the electorals be divided up accordingly instead of the whole state being determined by the majority. As the map of Washington shows, there is a whole lot of Republicans that aren't accounted for even though they are more rural areas. And don't forget even in the counties that are determined, there are opposing voters in each. Believe it or not, there are still over 400,000 votes that haven't been counted yet and won't be until the end of this month.

November 8, 2016 General Election - Voter Turnout

In other words, Washington has 12 delegates and 4.2m registered voters but only 67% or 3.2m actually voted. If 2.2m voted Democrat and 1m voted Republican, then proportionately the delegates would vote accordingly. Assign 1 or 2 of those 12 to those who didn't vote & not count those so that the non voter is represented (yes it sucks but that would also get those people to vote if they knew they were being represented). With the remainder, 3 vote Republican, 7 Democrat. That way each portion of the population is counted & represented and each state is also included before an election is called.


View attachment 98364

Yes, I know there are literally millions of votes not counted yet and I agree it's not fair to you western time zones, and yes it is as if you don't count. That shouldn't be.

In another thread we were musing about what if the Electors voted proportionally by how their state voted, so that in the example of my state with 15 total, according to the PV Rump would get 8 and Hillary would get 7.... and yes that would be more fair. But then again if you do that, you're just reflecting the popular vote anyway so -- what's the point. Cut out the middleman and get straight to it.

There's really no reason we should have to send our vote through some kind of relay system.

Because it's within the Constitution and how the Founding Fathers wanted that extra step to ensure everyone is represented. You can't pick & choose what suits you about the law of the land, it must be taken as a whole. Once you start taking from it, like in the game Jenga or house of cards, it's only a matter of time before it implodes.
That Constitution is what keeps us from becoming like North Korea or China of the Tiananmen Square days where you could be shot for even saying anything like that. And anyone that speaks against it is in effect thumbing their nose at all those who have served &/or died fighting on it's behalf. Shame on you for even thinking that because of convenience.

The electoral votes for president were created to keep all states in play for the election, without the electoral college, the candidates would only focus on about 4 states and not pay much attention to the rest!

Isn't that the case with the EC and swing states already, though?

 

[Montrovant]

Nope, I didn't. I just addressed the general question, which I figured you already laid out.

"Electrical College" is just a pun I toss out now and then to see if anyone's reading. But I will take this as an invitation.

That Constitution and its shocking Electrical College set the latter up in such a way, and for the purpose of, protecting slavery. It came in the same package with the Three Fifths Compromise by which the South could count, for the purpose of representation and thereby votes in the Electrical College, the number of slaves they owned, times 60 percent ---- giving them more representation than their eligible voter population did, and therefore more clout, which is, again, why six of our first seven POTUSes were Southern slaveowners. And that in turn ensured that the influence of slaveholder interests had more clout than Abolitionists, set up artificially by the spark-gap of the Electrical College.

You might say the infamous Three Fifths Compromise was the "batteries included" in the Electrical College...

So much for "giving up freedoms" huh?

But wait... there's more.

Whether that emphasis on the interests of slave states prolonged the unaddressed agony that led to the Civil War we will never know, but obviously the War and its aftermath blew that Three-Fifths thing out of the water, and the Fourteenth Amendment immediately after that War guaranteed citizenship to the ex-slaves, and guaranteed that no male citizen could be deprived. Again, it specifically said no MALE citizen.

Whelp, now you've got all the states, not just the South, counting their representation including adult citizens who, again like the slaves before them, had no vote in the matter, and that was women. Of course any state could have enfranchised women and doubled their vote count, but --- they were already counting them for the purpose of representation AND Electrical College votes so..... where was the incentive?

Exactly, so it didn't happen, until 1920, several decades later.

Of course now women have a vote so that disparity is gone. Today what the EC does is nullify the votes of every voter in a locked-red or locked-blue state and remove their incentive to vote at all, even if they agree with their state. And it creates this wacko concept of "red states" and "blue states" as if we have different countries sitting side by side on the same land. And further it requires we all enslave ourselves to poll-watching so that we know whether or not we're going to have a vote at all, because with the EC around our collective neck, the only voters who have a vote that counts are those in a "battleground" state, like me, another concept that would not exist if the Electrical College were just switched off and grounded.

So in other words everywhere the Electrical College has been shunted, it's short-circuited somebody's vote, and it's still doing it today. It's like a great big....

Pogo you are a young girl.. The electoral college never cancels out anyone's vote... Again it was designed to make everything thing fair.. Other wise the guys and girls who wanted to run for president wouldn't campaign in Des Moines Iowa

Oh but it does. See, it works like this:

I had a vote in the recent election. That's only because my state was "in play" according to the EC.

But my friends and relatives in Mississippi and Louisiana and Texas had no vote. Their state was already decided regardless what they did. They could have voted this way, that way, or not voted at all. Wouldn't mean jack squat. Similarly my friends and relatives in California and Vermont and Washington had no vote. Their state was already decided regardless what they did. They could have voted this way, that way, or not voted at all. Wouldn't mean jack squat.

In every case if they voted a different way from how their state did, the state cancelled their vote and made it meaningless. And if they voted the same way their state did, the state didn't even notice, because it was already going that way.

Which is also how it discourages voting. There's no point if your state is already decided.

The EC in effect decides what states are "in play". The rest of y'all are just like a foul ball --- out of play.

You have to be a moron to be OK with that.

I do have to agree with you on that point......of the 'safe' states. It is unfair to the opposing voters because they are not represented. In fact, even in swing states the minority are also not represented. But at least they do get their votes counted in order to determine the majority. In addition, those that live on the west coast, Alaska or Hawaii have a hard time justifying their votes count either way they voted. I have yet to see an election that hasn't been called long before they got that far west. It's as if we don't count or exist.
I don't deny there needs to be changes to the electoral college & how it works, but I do think it needs to stay.

Perhaps a better system would be for all states to vote and the electorals be divided up accordingly instead of the whole state being determined by the majority. As the map of Washington shows, there is a whole lot of Republicans that aren't accounted for even though they are more rural areas. And don't forget even in the counties that are determined, there are opposing voters in each. Believe it or not, there are still over 400,000 votes that haven't been counted yet and won't be until the end of this month.

November 8, 2016 General Election - Voter Turnout

In other words, Washington has 12 delegates and 4.2m registered voters but only 67% or 3.2m actually voted. If 2.2m voted Democrat and 1m voted Republican, then proportionately the delegates would vote accordingly. Assign 1 or 2 of those 12 to those who didn't vote & not count those so that the non voter is represented (yes it sucks but that would also get those people to vote if they knew they were being represented). With the remainder, 3 vote Republican, 7 Democrat. That way each portion of the population is counted & represented and each state is also included before an election is called.


View attachment 98364

Yes, I know there are literally millions of votes not counted yet and I agree it's not fair to you western time zones, and yes it is as if you don't count. That shouldn't be.

In another thread we were musing about what if the Electors voted proportionally by how their state voted, so that in the example of my state with 15 total, according to the PV Rump would get 8 and Hillary would get 7.... and yes that would be more fair. But then again if you do that, you're just reflecting the popular vote anyway so -- what's the point. Cut out the middleman and get straight to it.

There's really no reason we should have to send our vote through some kind of relay system.

Because it's within the Constitution and how the Founding Fathers wanted that extra step to ensure everyone is represented. You can't pick & choose what suits you about the law of the land, it must be taken as a whole. Once you start taking from it, like in the game Jenga or house of cards, it's only a matter of time before it implodes.
That Constitution is what keeps us from becoming like North Korea or China of the Tiananmen Square days where you could be shot for even saying anything like that. And anyone that speaks against it is in effect thumbing their nose at all those who have served &/or died fighting on it's behalf. Shame on you for even thinking that because of convenience.

The Constitution was set up so that it could be added to or taken from, hence the amendment process.

The idea that speaking out against any aspect of the Constitution is "thumbing their nose at all those who have served" is asinine. Were the people who fought for women to get the vote thumbing their noses at veterans? Were those who fought to have blacks recognized as people and citizens thumbing their noses at veterans? You are using a silly appeal to emotion.

Besides, the electoral system has gone through multiple changes since the founding of the country and ratification of the Constitution.

 

[Pogo]

don't argue that it needs changing, but I do acknowledge the fact that the Founding Fathers had put it in place for a reason. To ensure against 'mob rule' that would happen if just left to the popular vote only. Yes, both come down to the same end......but both are still necessary.

Well no, it wasn't put there for that purpose ---- that's a whitewash slogan that's been banded about over and over, yet no one can explain why it equates to "mob rule". It's exactly the same way any state elects its Governor. Out of all 57 states I can't name a single one that finds it necessary to filter their county votes through an electoral college (or in that case electoral high school) in order to circumvent "mob rule". There is no "mob rule". Elections of Senators, Congresscritters, Mayors, everything down to Commissioner of Paper Clips, all elected by direct popular vote, and nobody ever cries "mob rule".

The EC was in fact put there to shore up slave states and Slave Power as I've already laid out. The slave states had enough population to dominate, but ONLY if they counted their slaves, who had no vote. Thus Virginia, a slave state that gave us six of our first seven Presidents who were ALL slaveowners, became the dominant force in Presidential elections -- a dominance ("Old Dominion") it would not have had ----- if not for the Electoral College.

Sorry if that doesn't sync with what we were taught in school but that's exactly why we weren't taught it. It's whitewashed history.

There was also the element of regionality, that one candidate shouldn't run up the score by amassing a big vote in a limited region. But that's clearly out the window by now; just have a look at the red and blue maps we're all familiar with and you've got a checkerboard of concentrated regions so it clearly doesn't work to do that. In fact the EC is the only reason that red and blue map, and the polarization it presents, EXISTS.

Again, it's constantly dividing people. We shouldn't live in a "red" state or a "blue" state --- we should live in a state, period. A state that has mountains or beaches or a certain cuisine or a certain music --- not one that starts classing people into binary colors to pit against each other like some giant four-year football game. That's entirely the fault of the EC. With a direct PV, how a given state votes is an arcane trivia question. As we just noted, that's a regional issue, not a state one.

It is the EC that has bestowed on us destructive terms like "blue wall" and "flyover country". And it seasons that negativity with the blanket psychological suggestion that "the entire South votes red (unanimously) and "The Pacific Coast votes blue (unanimously)". Neither are true, and it makes those alternative views invisible under that blanket. That only serves to perpetuate the same divisions.

As a Washingtonian you're one of those people, and you should not be considered a freak. "Red" votes in the west coast should not be trivialized any more than "blue" votes in the South should. And that also presents a certain peer pressure within each color-region.

How many not-very-interested voters in Kentucky or Rhode Island vote red or blue just because that's what their neighbors are doing? Voilà, there is your "mob rule".

 

[JustAnotherNut]

Pogo you are a young girl.. The electoral college never cancels out anyone's vote... Again it was designed to make everything thing fair.. Other wise the guys and girls who wanted to run for president wouldn't campaign in Des Moines Iowa

Oh but it does. See, it works like this:

I had a vote in the recent election. That's only because my state was "in play" according to the EC.

But my friends and relatives in Mississippi and Louisiana and Texas had no vote. Their state was already decided regardless what they did. They could have voted this way, that way, or not voted at all. Wouldn't mean jack squat. Similarly my friends and relatives in California and Vermont and Washington had no vote. Their state was already decided regardless what they did. They could have voted this way, that way, or not voted at all. Wouldn't mean jack squat.

In every case if they voted a different way from how their state did, the state cancelled their vote and made it meaningless. And if they voted the same way their state did, the state didn't even notice, because it was already going that way.

Which is also how it discourages voting. There's no point if your state is already decided.

The EC in effect decides what states are "in play". The rest of y'all are just like a foul ball --- out of play.

You have to be a moron to be OK with that.

I do have to agree with you on that point......of the 'safe' states. It is unfair to the opposing voters because they are not represented. In fact, even in swing states the minority are also not represented. But at least they do get their votes counted in order to determine the majority. In addition, those that live on the west coast, Alaska or Hawaii have a hard time justifying their votes count either way they voted. I have yet to see an election that hasn't been called long before they got that far west. It's as if we don't count or exist.
I don't deny there needs to be changes to the electoral college & how it works, but I do think it needs to stay.

Perhaps a better system would be for all states to vote and the electorals be divided up accordingly instead of the whole state being determined by the majority. As the map of Washington shows, there is a whole lot of Republicans that aren't accounted for even though they are more rural areas. And don't forget even in the counties that are determined, there are opposing voters in each. Believe it or not, there are still over 400,000 votes that haven't been counted yet and won't be until the end of this month.

November 8, 2016 General Election - Voter Turnout

In other words, Washington has 12 delegates and 4.2m registered voters but only 67% or 3.2m actually voted. If 2.2m voted Democrat and 1m voted Republican, then proportionately the delegates would vote accordingly. Assign 1 or 2 of those 12 to those who didn't vote & not count those so that the non voter is represented (yes it sucks but that would also get those people to vote if they knew they were being represented). With the remainder, 3 vote Republican, 7 Democrat. That way each portion of the population is counted & represented and each state is also included before an election is called.


View attachment 98364

Yes, I know there are literally millions of votes not counted yet and I agree it's not fair to you western time zones, and yes it is as if you don't count. That shouldn't be.

In another thread we were musing about what if the Electors voted proportionally by how their state voted, so that in the example of my state with 15 total, according to the PV Rump would get 8 and Hillary would get 7.... and yes that would be more fair. But then again if you do that, you're just reflecting the popular vote anyway so -- what's the point. Cut out the middleman and get straight to it.

There's really no reason we should have to send our vote through some kind of relay system.

Because it's within the Constitution and how the Founding Fathers wanted that extra step to ensure everyone is represented. You can't pick & choose what suits you about the law of the land, it must be taken as a whole. Once you start taking from it, like in the game Jenga or house of cards, it's only a matter of time before it implodes.
That Constitution is what keeps us from becoming like North Korea or China of the Tiananmen Square days where you could be shot for even saying anything like that. And anyone that speaks against it is in effect thumbing their nose at all those who have served &/or died fighting on it's behalf. Shame on you for even thinking that because of convenience.

The Constitution was set up so that it could be added to or taken from, hence the amendment process.

The idea that speaking out against any aspect of the Constitution is "thumbing their nose at all those who have served" is asinine. Were the people who fought for women to get the vote thumbing their noses at veterans? Were those who fought to have blacks recognized as people and citizens thumbing their noses at veterans? You are using a silly appeal to emotion.

Besides, the electoral system has gone through multiple changes since the founding of the country and ratification of the Constitution.

As I've said all along, I have NO problem with changes or amendments to it. But the comment of 'snubbing their noses' is for those who want to take it away completely and that I do NOT support.

 

[Pogo]

Oh but it does. See, it works like this:

I had a vote in the recent election. That's only because my state was "in play" according to the EC.

But my friends and relatives in Mississippi and Louisiana and Texas had no vote. Their state was already decided regardless what they did. They could have voted this way, that way, or not voted at all. Wouldn't mean jack squat. Similarly my friends and relatives in California and Vermont and Washington had no vote. Their state was already decided regardless what they did. They could have voted this way, that way, or not voted at all. Wouldn't mean jack squat.

In every case if they voted a different way from how their state did, the state cancelled their vote and made it meaningless. And if they voted the same way their state did, the state didn't even notice, because it was already going that way.

Which is also how it discourages voting. There's no point if your state is already decided.

The EC in effect decides what states are "in play". The rest of y'all are just like a foul ball --- out of play.

You have to be a moron to be OK with that.

I do have to agree with you on that point......of the 'safe' states. It is unfair to the opposing voters because they are not represented. In fact, even in swing states the minority are also not represented. But at least they do get their votes counted in order to determine the majority. In addition, those that live on the west coast, Alaska or Hawaii have a hard time justifying their votes count either way they voted. I have yet to see an election that hasn't been called long before they got that far west. It's as if we don't count or exist.
I don't deny there needs to be changes to the electoral college & how it works, but I do think it needs to stay.

Perhaps a better system would be for all states to vote and the electorals be divided up accordingly instead of the whole state being determined by the majority. As the map of Washington shows, there is a whole lot of Republicans that aren't accounted for even though they are more rural areas. And don't forget even in the counties that are determined, there are opposing voters in each. Believe it or not, there are still over 400,000 votes that haven't been counted yet and won't be until the end of this month.

November 8, 2016 General Election - Voter Turnout

In other words, Washington has 12 delegates and 4.2m registered voters but only 67% or 3.2m actually voted. If 2.2m voted Democrat and 1m voted Republican, then proportionately the delegates would vote accordingly. Assign 1 or 2 of those 12 to those who didn't vote & not count those so that the non voter is represented (yes it sucks but that would also get those people to vote if they knew they were being represented). With the remainder, 3 vote Republican, 7 Democrat. That way each portion of the population is counted & represented and each state is also included before an election is called.


View attachment 98364

Yes, I know there are literally millions of votes not counted yet and I agree it's not fair to you western time zones, and yes it is as if you don't count. That shouldn't be.

In another thread we were musing about what if the Electors voted proportionally by how their state voted, so that in the example of my state with 15 total, according to the PV Rump would get 8 and Hillary would get 7.... and yes that would be more fair. But then again if you do that, you're just reflecting the popular vote anyway so -- what's the point. Cut out the middleman and get straight to it.

There's really no reason we should have to send our vote through some kind of relay system.

Because it's within the Constitution and how the Founding Fathers wanted that extra step to ensure everyone is represented. You can't pick & choose what suits you about the law of the land, it must be taken as a whole. Once you start taking from it, like in the game Jenga or house of cards, it's only a matter of time before it implodes.
That Constitution is what keeps us from becoming like North Korea or China of the Tiananmen Square days where you could be shot for even saying anything like that. And anyone that speaks against it is in effect thumbing their nose at all those who have served &/or died fighting on it's behalf. Shame on you for even thinking that because of convenience.

The Constitution was set up so that it could be added to or taken from, hence the amendment process.

The idea that speaking out against any aspect of the Constitution is "thumbing their nose at all those who have served" is asinine. Were the people who fought for women to get the vote thumbing their noses at veterans? Were those who fought to have blacks recognized as people and citizens thumbing their noses at veterans? You are using a silly appeal to emotion.

Besides, the electoral system has gone through multiple changes since the founding of the country and ratification of the Constitution.

As I've said all along, I have NO problem with changes or amendments to it. But the comment of 'snubbing their noses' is for those who want to take it away completely and that I do NOT support.

It's also complete non sequitur. Nothing I've posted has anything to do with noses or snubbing. It has absolutely to do with giving a deserved voice to people like you.

Again --- I had a vote; you did not. And I'm not OK with that.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

I do have to agree with you on that point......of the 'safe' states. It is unfair to the opposing voters because they are not represented. In fact, even in swing states the minority are also not represented. But at least they do get their votes counted in order to determine the majority. In addition, those that live on the west coast, Alaska or Hawaii have a hard time justifying their votes count either way they voted. I have yet to see an election that hasn't been called long before they got that far west. It's as if we don't count or exist.
I don't deny there needs to be changes to the electoral college & how it works, but I do think it needs to stay.

Perhaps a better system would be for all states to vote and the electorals be divided up accordingly instead of the whole state being determined by the majority. As the map of Washington shows, there is a whole lot of Republicans that aren't accounted for even though they are more rural areas. And don't forget even in the counties that are determined, there are opposing voters in each. Believe it or not, there are still over 400,000 votes that haven't been counted yet and won't be until the end of this month.

November 8, 2016 General Election - Voter Turnout

In other words, Washington has 12 delegates and 4.2m registered voters but only 67% or 3.2m actually voted. If 2.2m voted Democrat and 1m voted Republican, then proportionately the delegates would vote accordingly. Assign 1 or 2 of those 12 to those who didn't vote & not count those so that the non voter is represented (yes it sucks but that would also get those people to vote if they knew they were being represented). With the remainder, 3 vote Republican, 7 Democrat. That way each portion of the population is counted & represented and each state is also included before an election is called.


View attachment 98364

Yes, I know there are literally millions of votes not counted yet and I agree it's not fair to you western time zones, and yes it is as if you don't count. That shouldn't be.

In another thread we were musing about what if the Electors voted proportionally by how their state voted, so that in the example of my state with 15 total, according to the PV Rump would get 8 and Hillary would get 7.... and yes that would be more fair. But then again if you do that, you're just reflecting the popular vote anyway so -- what's the point. Cut out the middleman and get straight to it.

There's really no reason we should have to send our vote through some kind of relay system.

Because it's within the Constitution and how the Founding Fathers wanted that extra step to ensure everyone is represented. You can't pick & choose what suits you about the law of the land, it must be taken as a whole. Once you start taking from it, like in the game Jenga or house of cards, it's only a matter of time before it implodes.
That Constitution is what keeps us from becoming like North Korea or China of the Tiananmen Square days where you could be shot for even saying anything like that. And anyone that speaks against it is in effect thumbing their nose at all those who have served &/or died fighting on it's behalf. Shame on you for even thinking that because of convenience.

The Constitution was set up so that it could be added to or taken from, hence the amendment process.

The idea that speaking out against any aspect of the Constitution is "thumbing their nose at all those who have served" is asinine. Were the people who fought for women to get the vote thumbing their noses at veterans? Were those who fought to have blacks recognized as people and citizens thumbing their noses at veterans? You are using a silly appeal to emotion.

Besides, the electoral system has gone through multiple changes since the founding of the country and ratification of the Constitution.

As I've said all along, I have NO problem with changes or amendments to it. But the comment of 'snubbing their noses' is for those who want to take it away completely and that I do NOT support.

It's also complete non sequitur. Nothing I've posted has anything to do with noses or snubbing. It has absolutely to do with giving a deserved voice to people like you.

Again --- I had a vote; you did not. And I'm not OK with that.

Just because the electoral vote screws some of the population, doesn't mean it should be thrown out entirely. AGAIN, changed or amended YES. Tossed, NO

 

[Pogo]

Yes, I know there are literally millions of votes not counted yet and I agree it's not fair to you western time zones, and yes it is as if you don't count. That shouldn't be.

In another thread we were musing about what if the Electors voted proportionally by how their state voted, so that in the example of my state with 15 total, according to the PV Rump would get 8 and Hillary would get 7.... and yes that would be more fair. But then again if you do that, you're just reflecting the popular vote anyway so -- what's the point. Cut out the middleman and get straight to it.

There's really no reason we should have to send our vote through some kind of relay system.

Because it's within the Constitution and how the Founding Fathers wanted that extra step to ensure everyone is represented. You can't pick & choose what suits you about the law of the land, it must be taken as a whole. Once you start taking from it, like in the game Jenga or house of cards, it's only a matter of time before it implodes.
That Constitution is what keeps us from becoming like North Korea or China of the Tiananmen Square days where you could be shot for even saying anything like that. And anyone that speaks against it is in effect thumbing their nose at all those who have served &/or died fighting on it's behalf. Shame on you for even thinking that because of convenience.

The Constitution was set up so that it could be added to or taken from, hence the amendment process.

The idea that speaking out against any aspect of the Constitution is "thumbing their nose at all those who have served" is asinine. Were the people who fought for women to get the vote thumbing their noses at veterans? Were those who fought to have blacks recognized as people and citizens thumbing their noses at veterans? You are using a silly appeal to emotion.

Besides, the electoral system has gone through multiple changes since the founding of the country and ratification of the Constitution.

As I've said all along, I have NO problem with changes or amendments to it. But the comment of 'snubbing their noses' is for those who want to take it away completely and that I do NOT support.

It's also complete non sequitur. Nothing I've posted has anything to do with noses or snubbing. It has absolutely to do with giving a deserved voice to people like you.

Again --- I had a vote; you did not. And I'm not OK with that.

Just because the electoral vote screws some of the population, doesn't mean it should be thrown out entirely. AGAIN, changed or amended YES. Tossed, NO

Things get thrown out all the time. The "Three Fifths Compromise" was thrown out. The excepting of women from the electoral process was thrown out. Alcohol was thrown out by one Amendment, and then that Amendment was thrown out by a subsequent one.

However I think there's still a law on the books in Tennessee or somewhere that requires if a woman is driving a car she has to be preceded by a man waving a red flag to warn people.

But hey we can't throw things out.

In order to keep something and NOT throw it out, its existence has to be justified. If it can be justified --- it stays.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

Because it's within the Constitution and how the Founding Fathers wanted that extra step to ensure everyone is represented. You can't pick & choose what suits you about the law of the land, it must be taken as a whole. Once you start taking from it, like in the game Jenga or house of cards, it's only a matter of time before it implodes.
That Constitution is what keeps us from becoming like North Korea or China of the Tiananmen Square days where you could be shot for even saying anything like that. And anyone that speaks against it is in effect thumbing their nose at all those who have served &/or died fighting on it's behalf. Shame on you for even thinking that because of convenience.

The Constitution was set up so that it could be added to or taken from, hence the amendment process.

The idea that speaking out against any aspect of the Constitution is "thumbing their nose at all those who have served" is asinine. Were the people who fought for women to get the vote thumbing their noses at veterans? Were those who fought to have blacks recognized as people and citizens thumbing their noses at veterans? You are using a silly appeal to emotion.

Besides, the electoral system has gone through multiple changes since the founding of the country and ratification of the Constitution.

As I've said all along, I have NO problem with changes or amendments to it. But the comment of 'snubbing their noses' is for those who want to take it away completely and that I do NOT support.

It's also complete non sequitur. Nothing I've posted has anything to do with noses or snubbing. It has absolutely to do with giving a deserved voice to people like you.

Again --- I had a vote; you did not. And I'm not OK with that.

Just because the electoral vote screws some of the population, doesn't mean it should be thrown out entirely. AGAIN, changed or amended YES. Tossed, NO

Things get thrown out all the time. The "Three Fifths Compromise" was thrown out. The excepting of women from the electoral process was thrown out. Alcohol was thrown out by one Amendment, and then that Amendment was thrown out by a subsequent one.

However I think there's still a law on the books in Tennessee or somewhere that requires if a woman is driving a car she has to be preceded by a man waving a red flag to warn people.

But hey we can't throw things out.

In order to keep something and NOT throw it out, its existence has to be justified. If it can be justified --- it stays.

Here, tell ya what.....just talk to the hand But I'll be nice enough to just agree to disagree, and then invoke my ignore feature. Congratulations!

 

[Pogo]

The Constitution was set up so that it could be added to or taken from, hence the amendment process.

The idea that speaking out against any aspect of the Constitution is "thumbing their nose at all those who have served" is asinine. Were the people who fought for women to get the vote thumbing their noses at veterans? Were those who fought to have blacks recognized as people and citizens thumbing their noses at veterans? You are using a silly appeal to emotion.

Besides, the electoral system has gone through multiple changes since the founding of the country and ratification of the Constitution.

As I've said all along, I have NO problem with changes or amendments to it. But the comment of 'snubbing their noses' is for those who want to take it away completely and that I do NOT support.

It's also complete non sequitur. Nothing I've posted has anything to do with noses or snubbing. It has absolutely to do with giving a deserved voice to people like you.

Again --- I had a vote; you did not. And I'm not OK with that.

Just because the electoral vote screws some of the population, doesn't mean it should be thrown out entirely. AGAIN, changed or amended YES. Tossed, NO

Things get thrown out all the time. The "Three Fifths Compromise" was thrown out. The excepting of women from the electoral process was thrown out. Alcohol was thrown out by one Amendment, and then that Amendment was thrown out by a subsequent one.

However I think there's still a law on the books in Tennessee or somewhere that requires if a woman is driving a car she has to be preceded by a man waving a red flag to warn people.

But hey we can't throw things out.

In order to keep something and NOT throw it out, its existence has to be justified. If it can be justified --- it stays.

Here, tell ya what.....just talk to the hand But I'll be nice enough to just agree to disagree, and then invoke my ignore feature. Congratulations!

See what I mean? Can't be justified. If it could you'd have a response more intelligent than the Finger. But I understand your purpose the entire time you've been on this site has been to resist anything I say even when you don't have an argument. That's your problem, not mine. By the way are we married yet?

With all due respect we're straying from your topic and there's already a thread on the EC and its effects (which is here), where nobody has come up with a justification there either -- although I'm not sure anyone has made the The Finger argument. But to your original point, the way in which the individual states pick their elecors, and how they execute it, is up to each individual state according to the Constitution as I posted yesterday and Montrovant went into as well. So it would seem that within the structure we have at present, the avenue for change is through each individual state Legislature. For all 57 states.

 

[Wyatt earp]

don't argue that it needs changing, but I do acknowledge the fact that the Founding Fathers had put it in place for a reason. To ensure against 'mob rule' that would happen if just left to the popular vote only. Yes, both come down to the same end......but both are still necessary.

Well no, it wasn't put there for that purpose ---- that's a whitewash slogan that's been banded about over and over, yet no one can explain why it equates to "mob rule". It's exactly the same way any state elects its Governor. Out of all 57 states I can't name a single one that finds it necessary to filter their county votes through an electoral college (or in that case electoral high school) in order to circumvent "mob rule". There is no "mob rule". Elections of Senators, Congresscritters, Mayors, everything down to Commissioner of Paper Clips, all elected by direct popular vote, and nobody ever cries "mob rule".

The EC was in fact put there to shore up slave states and Slave Power as I've already laid out. The slave states had enough population to dominate, but ONLY if they counted their slaves, who had no vote. Thus Virginia, a slave state that gave us six of our first seven Presidents who were ALL slaveowners, became the dominant force in Presidential elections -- a dominance ("Old Dominion") it would not have had ----- if not for the Electoral College.

Sorry if that doesn't sync with what we were taught in school but that's exactly why we weren't taught it. It's whitewashed history.

There was also the element of regionality, that one candidate shouldn't run up the score by amassing a big vote in a limited region. But that's clearly out the window by now; just have a look at the red and blue maps we're all familiar with and you've got a checkerboard of concentrated regions so it clearly doesn't work to do that. In fact the EC is the only reason that red and blue map, and the polarization it presents, EXISTS.

Again, it's constantly dividing people. We shouldn't live in a "red" state or a "blue" state --- we should live in a state, period. A state that has mountains or beaches or a certain cuisine or a certain music --- not one that starts classing people into binary colors to pit against each other like some giant four-year football game. That's entirely the fault of the EC. With a direct PV, how a given state votes is an arcane trivia question. As we just noted, that's a regional issue, not a state one.

It is the EC that has bestowed on us destructive terms like "blue wall" and "flyover country". And it seasons that negativity with the blanket psychological suggestion that "the entire South votes red (unanimously) and "The Pacific Coast votes blue (unanimously)". Neither are true, and it makes those alternative views invisible under that blanket. That only serves to perpetuate the same divisions.

As a Washingtonian you're one of those people, and you should not be considered a freak. "Red" votes in the west coast should not be trivialized any more than "blue" votes in the South should. And that also presents a certain peer pressure within each color-region.

How many not-very-interested voters in Kentucky or Rhode Island vote red or blue just because that's what their neighbors are doing? Voilà, there is your "mob rule".

Will you quit trying to put race into it.. That was the only way the south was going to become part of the UNITED STATES the southern smaller population states would of never entered into the fucking union with out the electoral college..

Again I would still live in the Chicago area if all states were the same.. I moved to South Carolina because they held my values..the Chicago area changed .. And I still get to be part of the United States.

.

 

[MisterBeale]

don't argue that it needs changing, but I do acknowledge the fact that the Founding Fathers had put it in place for a reason. To ensure against 'mob rule' that would happen if just left to the popular vote only. Yes, both come down to the same end......but both are still necessary.

There was also the element of regionality, that one candidate shouldn't run up the score by amassing a big vote in a limited region. But that's clearly out the window by now; just have a look at the red and blue maps we're all familiar with and you've got a checkerboard of concentrated regions so it clearly doesn't work to do that. In fact the EC is the only reason that red and blue map, and the polarization it presents, EXISTS.

See. . . that's where your short sighted partisanship is not allowing you to see the statistical truth of the big picture.

One candidate CAN run up the score by amassing a big vote in limited regions. That is exactly what Clinton did in this last election. Her supporters very much would like Chicago, NY, LA, and every other metropolitan area to decide policy for the rest of the nation. (Just look at the county map I have posted.)

The electoral college decidedly puts the breaks on the unfairness of a minority of counties in the US dictating policies for all the rest of the counties in the US.

Voting SHOULD NOT be based solely on the number of votes, but also on where those votes originate. IF they do not continue using this system, than it should be up to states to decide to leave the Union if they do not like the outcome of the election. How would an entirely rural state benefit from a President that was elected by voters who were appealed to by someone that knew nothing but metropolitan values, culture and policy?