The attempt to dismantle the electoral college begins. SCOTUS to hear arguments.

[Crepitus]

It was created as a compromise to keep less populated states and slaveholders happy and get them to ratify the Constitution.

The mention of “slaveholders” is very obviously a deceitful effort to suggest that the Electoral College is based on racism. It's no surprise to hear this from you; it's one of the lies that your kind just can't help repeating, even though you know it's a lie, and you know that everyone who hears it will know that it's a lie. Your kind just can't help yourselves.

As for less populated states, of course that was the intent, as well as part of the need to get them to support the Constitution. Why should the people of any less-populated state have not wanted a system of government that allowed their needs to be heard and represented as well as those of the more densely-populated states?

Do you see that you are dealing with the uneducated who never heard of federalism and do not know what a federal republic is? A Hollywood celebrity told them it was slaveholders....but what’s amazing is how tenaciously they hold to it. I think it’s because it’s what they wanted to believe in the first place.

You've lost all.touch with reality.

 

[Circe]

I didn't cite that because it's not a real thing. It's a contemporary mythology and one not based on any kind of logic. Again, one person, one vote, still holds.

One person, one vote can't be true, as most people in my county never get their presidential vote to count. Because of the Electoral College as currently organized.

Most people believe that the point of the Electoral College is to give rural voters a chance -- otherwise we'd be entirely overwhelmed by the cities. Usually we are anyway --- but not in 2016! And hopefully not in 2020, but the Supreme Court needs to clean up this faithless elector situation.

 

[Circe]

This is a Constitutional question. It has nothing to do with anything "left", "right", "center", "north", "south", "east" or "west". It's about how the system works.

The way the system works is that people expect to vote on all candidates designated as serious candidates by certain rules. They expect to vote and they expect to have those votes transferred to a result that is controlled by given rules. It really doesn't matter what people did in 1810, or why.

 

[Circe]

However, in a way, that's actually an argument FOR national popular vote isnt it? Or at least a reason to get away from winner take all. If WTA were dispensed with, how many more voters would that activate, if they knew that maybe their vote would actually matter.

It's certainly a reason to get away from winner take all, IMO.

I agree, to be able to have most high population areas, which are generally democrat, be able to out negate the voice of people in lower population rural areas isnt right. Why should ny, la, san Antonio, etc be able to win an election which could affect residents in Montana, kansas, and missouri?

The problem as I see it is that New York and Los Angeles would ALWAYS, without exception, win all the elections and thus throw the whole middle of the country into wanting to secede. Because the values of our ruined big cities are very, very, very different from the values of country people in America.

Each state should have their own voice. Also, wouldnt most people be upset if they knew their state voted overwhelmingly for one candidate, but their new electoral vote rules forced them to give their votes to the other candidate?

Apparently several states ARE in such an unholy "pact." I can't understand how they got that through the state houses. It's a recipe for rebellion. What is the use in anyone voting at all, if the elites just change the result to favor the Dems after every election? Because that is the intent.

 

[Ken Mac]

Supreme Court to Look at Electoral College Rules

Depending on the outcome this could be the beginning of the end of our nations great experiment.

You think our entire nation will end if we become an actual democracy? Yeah, okay....

You’ve never read the federalist papers have you

 

[Pogo]

I didn't cite that because it's not a real thing. It's a contemporary mythology and one not based on any kind of logic. Again, one person, one vote, still holds.

One person, one vote can't be true, as most people in my county never get their presidential vote to count. Because of the Electoral College as currently organized.

Most people believe that the point of the Electoral College is to give rural voters a chance -- otherwise we'd be entirely overwhelmed by the cities. Usually we are anyway --- but not in 2016! And hopefully not in 2020, but the Supreme Court needs to clean up this faithless elector situation.

Regardless what some wag on the internets claims "most people believe", the Electoral College simply was NEVER set up for any consideration about "cities" at all. Again, a voter who lives in a city is the same number of voters as a voter who lives in the suburbs, same as one who lives in the sticks, and that in every case is "ONE". You can't start excluding voters based on where they live, that's absurd.

 

[Pogo]

However, in a way, that's actually an argument FOR national popular vote isnt it? Or at least a reason to get away from winner take all. If WTA were dispensed with, how many more voters would that activate, if they knew that maybe their vote would actually matter.

It's certainly a reason to get away from winner take all, IMO.

I agree, to be able to have most high population areas, which are generally democrat, be able to out negate the voice of people in lower population rural areas isnt right. Why should ny, la, san Antonio, etc be able to win an election which could affect residents in Montana, kansas, and missouri?

The problem as I see it is that New York and Los Angeles would ALWAYS, without exception, win all the elections and thus throw the whole middle of the country into wanting to secede. Because the values of our ruined big cities are very, very, very different from the values of country people in America.

Each state should have their own voice. Also, wouldnt most people be upset if they knew their state voted overwhelmingly for one candidate, but their new electoral vote rules forced them to give their votes to the other candidate?

Apparently several states ARE in such an unholy "pact." I can't understand how they got that through the state houses. It's a recipe for rebellion. What is the use in anyone voting at all, if the elites just change the result to favor the Dems after every election? Because that is the intent.

No it is absolutely NOT the intent and in fact was conceived and set up by a coaltion from both parties and independents, and passed in those states by similar bipartisan support.

What is the use in anyone voting at all now since the states are throwing most of those votes directly into the scrap heap?

 

[Circe]

You can't start excluding voters based on where they live, that's absurd.

Well, we're trying to. That's the point of the Electoral College as currently operated: for votes in smaller rural states to count more. I support that. Take that away and give every election to the big bad cities and the nation falls.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

The Corrupt Democratic Party cannot function in a free democracy*, therefore they must destroy it.

The weak Republican party must not love their country much either....therefore they will passively allow it....

 

[Circe]

What is the use in anyone voting at all now since the states are throwing most of those votes directly into the scrap heap?

This is the most important thing I've learned on this thread, perhaps. That changing to iron-clad "robot voting" that is allocated by congressional district would result in a LOT more people voting. Quite a few people here commented on that, and I can see it and I agree.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Regardless what some wag on the internets claims "most people believe", the Electoral College simply was NEVER set up for any consideration about "cities" at all. Again, a voter who lives in a city is the same number of voters as a voter who lives in the suburbs, same as one who lives in the sticks, and that in every case is "ONE". You can't start excluding voters based on where they live, that's absurd.

Moron.
The EC system is all about making sure the MINORITY is not ruled by the Majority.
What a F'n dumbass you are.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

No it is absolutely NOT the intent and in fact was conceived and set up by a coaltion from both parties and independents, and passed in those states by similar bipartisan support.
What is the use in anyone voting at all now since the states are throwing most of those votes directly into the scrap heap?

Imbecile.
You are CLUELESS.

Once again for idiots who can't comprehend.....or prefer tyranny

The EC system is all about making sure the MINORITY is not ruled by the Majority.
What a F'n dumbass you are.

 

[Pogo]

You can't start excluding voters based on where they live, that's absurd.

Well, we're trying to. That's the point of the Electoral College as currently operated: for votes in smaller rural states to count more. I support that. Take that away and give every election to the big bad cities and the nation falls.

You CAN'T prejudice the vote that way. Nobody in a city, a rural area, a state that begins with a consonant, or any other random criterion should count any more, or less, than everybody else's. We haven't done anything like that since Slavery.

 

[Pogo]

No it is absolutely NOT the intent and in fact was conceived and set up by a coaltion from both parties and independents, and passed in those states by similar bipartisan support.
What is the use in anyone voting at all now since the states are throwing most of those votes directly into the scrap heap?

Imbecile.
You are CLUELESS.

Once again for idiots who can't comprehend.....or prefer tyranny

The EC system is all about making sure the MINORITY is not ruled by the Majority.
What a F'n dumbass you are.

Go forth and lurn to reed. The post you quoted is about the NPV, Dumbass.

Maybe if you didn't cut out the rest of the post and what it quoted you wouldn't be as ridiculously lost as you are right now.

 

[Pogo]

What is the use in anyone voting at all now since the states are throwing most of those votes directly into the scrap heap?

This is the most important thing I've learned on this thread, perhaps. That changing to iron-clad "robot voting" that is allocated by congressional district would result in a LOT more people voting. Quite a few people here commented on that, and I can see it and I agree.

Not sure if you answered the point that such a system would then lead to widespread gerrymandering to game the system (?)

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

You CAN'T prejudice the vote that way. Nobody in a city, a rural area, a state that begins with a consonant, or any other random criterion should count any more, or less, than everybody else's. We haven't done anything like that since Slavery.

The system has been working for several hundred years and all of a sudden Communists want to change everything.....

Only reason Communists are upset is because Orange Man is going to be re-elected.

 

[task0778]

What is the use in anyone voting at all now since the states are throwing most of those votes directly into the scrap heap?

This is the most important thing I've learned on this thread, perhaps. That changing to iron-clad "robot voting" that is allocated by congressional district would result in a LOT more people voting. Quite a few people here commented on that, and I can see it and I agree.

It's an interesting idea and I like it - BUT - the reality is that the 15-20 or so blue states won't go for it, they don't want to give up any of their electoral votes. They want to dismiss the EC altogether and go for a national vote winner, and I doubt they'll move away from that. They'll be fine with some red states going to that new system though, cuz then they get all of theirs and some of the red states EC votes. The district by district concept only works if every states switches to it, and I don't think it would be constitutional if the US Congress tried to force the states to make the switch. IOW, it ain't happening. JMO.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Go forth and lurn to reed. The post you quoted is about the NPV, Dumbass.
Maybe if you didn't cut out the rest of the post and what it quoted you wouldn't be as ridiculously lost as you are right now.

Maybe if you continue reporting nearly every post I make you can get me banned.

Communists LOVE to silence the opposition don't they?

No doubt you already ran to mommy and reported what ever you're talking about.

 

[Denizen]

what the left wants to do is evidence that millions of illegal votes were casted in 2016. thats the only way they can win elections, does anyone actually believe that not one illegal alien voted in 2016?

The only illegal alien in the 2016 election was Donald Trump, Agent Orange.

 

[task0778]

I'm thinking percentage division. Would that not be fair? It wouldnt have the effect that the national vote would have, but it would give more accurate representation to people, right?

If if a state goes 48%/52%, then however many ec votes that state has, then that is how many is awarded to each side.

So, if california goes 70% dem, 30% repub, then the dem candidate would get 38 votes, the repub would get 16.

This way, population concerns are still kept in tact, so higher population states would still get more ec votes, but the votes are distributed based on actual representation of what the people want.

The problem is whether your idea would be constitutional. Each state has the power to make their own rules for how their EC votes are distributed.

I do like the idea BTW, but I don't think it'll happen.