The electoral college is a disaster for democracy

[xyz]

Interesting read (short), electoral college controversies of the 19th century:

President Elect - Articles - Electoral College vs popular vote in 1824, 1876, and 1888

 

[owebo]

Said Donald Trump in 2012.

I betcha he wishes he could take that one back.

It's good for the rich though. The right wanted to stop the rich controlling the country a few days ago, by electing a rich person, now the rich person won, they don't want to change the system any more. Could you make this up?

We won.....and elections have consequences....build a bridge and get over it....

Making America Great again is going to really suck for you....

 

[JakeStarkey]

If we didn't have the EC, Trump would have simply used a different strategy and would still have won. Get over it, libs, Hillary lost. Deal with it.

That is a fool statement by you. If it had been a winner take all victory by majority vote, she would have won easily.

 

[Pogo]

It's insane to think that smaller states would abide with the erosion of their rights.

And exactly what "rights" would those be then?

To hold slaves? And count 3/5 of them as part of their representation?

Let's face it --- you have no argument.

I don't care if you're black, that's too stupid for words. The smaller states are all in the West and North-East. None of them slave states!

I see you didn't touch the question at all. You proposed "erosion of their rights", yet you cannot explain what the hell that means.

Which is exactly what I knew was coming. That's why I set you up, and you waltzed right into it.

Again --- it has nothing to do with the West. It has nothing to do with who has slavery --- although it DID at the time it was constructed. That was the whole point.

And do we have slavery now? Why no we don't. Not legally anyway.
And can African-Americans vote? Why yes they can.

Whelp --- *NEITHER* of those were the case when the EC system was made up, and that's WHY it was made up.

Go do your homework before you dig yourself even deeper, Dippy.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Odd, it was wonderful in '08 & '12

 

[Pogo]

I have no idea where you conjured up your misguided notion that we somehow had a system of direct popular election prior to the 12th amendment, or why you feel we should now.

Nor do I, since I never posted such.

I corrected you that it came from the 12th, which you apparently now acknowledge, and was not there from the beginning.

You're welcome.

Dayum.

 

[Pogo]

If we didn't have the EC, Trump would have simply used a different strategy and would still have won. Get over it, libs, Hillary lost. Deal with it.

That is a fool statement by you. If it had been a winner take all victory by majority vote, she would have won easily.

I have to defend S.J. here at least in part. Had we a direct PV system rather than our states voting on our behalf, then obviously every candidate's campaign strategy would be different. They'd be concentrating on plaes where they had the best chance of generating new votes, not in states that were closely contested because the winner takes all. Hillary for example might have gone to Alaska. Or Utah. Places where she's little known on a direct basis. So he is correct that Rump would have used a different strategy. Everybody would.

What the outcome would have been is far more a reach though. The PV doesn't support his conclusion. That would have had to be turned around.

In any event this is yet another argument for abolishing the antiquated EC -- it would expose vast swaths of the electorate to candidates they have little experience with, because the EC dictates that their state is already a "lock" and they don't need to. That would change.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Neither party wants it so far. We lost the election in 2000 because of the EC. The Democrats need to push for abolition of the EC.

Yes, then every four years we can have the government California prefers.

I predict Trump will be a one term president and that in 2020 the presidency, the House and the Congress will go to the Democrats, and then we can get rid of the EC, as we should have done 40 or more years ago.

You can't predict anything four years from now. He may turn out to be the clown you and I believe he is or he may shock everyone and be the next Reagan. Even if the Dems won in 2020 and took both houses of Congress they still couldn't abolish the EC. A Constitutional Amendment requires a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress and three-fourths of the states to ratify it. Smaller states are never going to agree to let California and New York decide every election.

 

[Pogo]

Neither party wants it so far. We lost the election in 2000 because of the EC. The Democrats need to push for abolition of the EC.

Yes, then every four years we can have the government California prefers.

I predict Trump will be a one term president and that in 2020 the presidency, the House and the Congress will go to the Democrats, and then we can get rid of the EC, as we should have done 40 or more years ago.

You can't predict anything four years from now. He may turn out to be the clown you and I believe he is or he may shock everyone and be the next Reagan. Even if the Dems won in 2020 and took both houses of Congress they still couldn't abolish the EC. A Constitutional Amendment requires a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress and three-fourths of the states to ratify it. Smaller states are never going to agree to let California and New York decide every election.

That argument STILL doensn't work. If anything California and New York already have *more* influence deciding every election. As does Texas, as does Florida.

That's because every New Yorker who wants to vote red and every Texan who wants to vote blue is in effect disenfranchised. Were the EC to be abolished their votes would suddenly COUNT.

And among other things it would draw more voters out, since there would now be a point to them showing up. Hence more people participate, hence more democratic.

There's really no way to spin that away. We don't vote for "President of California" or "President of Texas". We vote for President of the United States, and that means all 57.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Neither party wants it so far. We lost the election in 2000 because of the EC. The Democrats need to push for abolition of the EC.

Yes, then every four years we can have the government California prefers.

I predict Trump will be a one term president and that in 2020 the presidency, the House and the Congress will go to the Democrats, and then we can get rid of the EC, as we should have done 40 or more years ago.

You can't predict anything four years from now. He may turn out to be the clown you and I believe he is or he may shock everyone and be the next Reagan. Even if the Dems won in 2020 and took both houses of Congress they still couldn't abolish the EC. A Constitutional Amendment requires a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress and three-fourths of the states to ratify it. Smaller states are never going to agree to let California and New York decide every election.

That argument STILL doensn't work. If anything California and New York already have *more* influence deciding every election. As does Texas, as does Florida.

That's because every New Yorker who wants to vote red and every Texan who wants to vote blue is in effect disenfranchised. Were the EC to be abolished their votes would suddenly COUNT.

And among other things it would draw more voters out, since there would now be a point to them showing up. Hence more people participate, hence more democratic.

There's really no way to spin that away. We don't vote for "President of California" or "President of Texas". We vote for President of the United States, and that means all 57.

If my argument didn't work we'd have President-Elect Clinton right now and would have spent the last 16 years talking about former President Gore.

 

[S.J.]

If we didn't have the EC, Trump would have simply used a different strategy and would still have won. Get over it, libs, Hillary lost. Deal with it.

That is a fool statement by you. If it had been a winner take all victory by majority vote, she would have won easily.

I have to defend S.J. here at least in part. Had we a direct PV system rather than our states voting on our behalf, then obviously every candidate's campaign strategy would be different. They'd be concentrating on plaes where they had the best chance of generating new votes, not in states that were closely contested because the winner takes all. Hillary for example might have gone to Alaska. Or Utah. Places where she's little known on a direct basis. So he is correct that Rump would have used a different strategy. Everybody would.

What the outcome would have been is far more a reach though. The PV doesn't support his conclusion. That would have had to be turned around.

In any event this is yet another argument for abolishing the antiquated EC -- it would expose vast swaths of the electorate to candidates they have little experience with, because the EC dictates that their state is already a "lock" and they don't need to. That would change.

You still don't get it. Listen carefully and put your partisan guard down for a minute. Clinton got more PVs than Trump because of California being so heavily populated, and being a welfare nanny state, she got far more votes. Trump could have spent more time in Texas and racked up many more votes (which is what he would have done if the EC didn't exist). He also would have spent more time in California and rack up many more votes. You still don't grasp this.

 

[Meathead]

It's insane to think that smaller states would abide with the erosion of their rights.

And exactly what "rights" would those be then?

To hold slaves? And count 3/5 of them as part of their representation?

Let's face it --- you have no argument.

I don't care if you're black, that's too stupid for words. The smaller states are all in the West and North-East. None of them slave states!

I see you didn't touch the question at all. You proposed "erosion of their rights", yet you cannot explain what the hell that means.

Which is exactly what I knew was coming. That's why I set you up, and you waltzed right into it.

Again --- it has nothing to do with the West. It has nothing to do with who has slavery --- although it DID at the time it was constructed. That was the whole point.

And do we have slavery now? Why no we don't. Not legally anyway.
And can African-Americans vote? Why yes they can.

Whelp --- *NEITHER* of those were the case when the EC system was made up, and that's WHY it was made up.

Go do your homework before you dig yourself even deeper, Dippy.

You obviously detest being bested personally and politically. That the smallest states had a legacy of slavery is absolute BS. Vermont, N & S Dakota, Montana, RI, NH, Idaho, Wyoming and Maine are the states with the fewest electoral votes (3 or 4) and not a damned slave state among them. Those are also a solid block to any constitutional change.

The Beast lost - get over it!

Inner-city public education be damned!

 

[BuckToothMoron]

It's insane to think that smaller states would abide with the erosion of their rights.

And exactly what "rights" would those be then?

To hold slaves? And count 3/5 of them as part of their representation?

Let's face it --- you have no argument.

I don't care if you're black, that's too stupid for words. The smaller states are all in the West and North-East. None of them slave states!

I see you didn't touch the question at all. You proposed "erosion of their rights", yet you cannot explain what the hell that means.

Which is exactly what I knew was coming. That's why I set you up, and you waltzed right into it.

Again --- it has nothing to do with the West. It has nothing to do with who has slavery --- although it DID at the time it was constructed. That was the whole point.

And do we have slavery now? Why no we don't. Not legally anyway.
And can African-Americans vote? Why yes they can.

Whelp --- *NEITHER* of those were the case when the EC system was made up, and that's WHY it was made up.

Go do your homework before you dig yourself even deeper, Dippy.

Hey Meathead- I have made a mistake in trying to discuss/debate with this fool too. He is, well shall we say, special in a slow sort of way. Do yourself a favor and don't go down this path too far. It will only frustrate you and make you wonder who reads the direction to him on how to use a spoon.

 

[Pogo]

It's insane to think that smaller states would abide with the erosion of their rights.

And exactly what "rights" would those be then?

To hold slaves? And count 3/5 of them as part of their representation?

Let's face it --- you have no argument.

I don't care if you're black, that's too stupid for words. The smaller states are all in the West and North-East. None of them slave states!

I see you didn't touch the question at all. You proposed "erosion of their rights", yet you cannot explain what the hell that means.

Which is exactly what I knew was coming. That's why I set you up, and you waltzed right into it.

Again --- it has nothing to do with the West. It has nothing to do with who has slavery --- although it DID at the time it was constructed. That was the whole point.

And do we have slavery now? Why no we don't. Not legally anyway.
And can African-Americans vote? Why yes they can.

Whelp --- *NEITHER* of those were the case when the EC system was made up, and that's WHY it was made up.

Go do your homework before you dig yourself even deeper, Dippy.

Hey Meathead- I have made a mistake in trying to discuss/debate with this fool too. He is, well shall we say, special in a slow sort of way. Do yourself a favor and don't go down this path too far. It will only frustrate you and make you wonder who reads the direction to him on how to use a spoon.

Translation -- you both got spanked. Bring your A game next time, losers.

 

[Pogo]

That the smallest states had a legacy of slavery is absolute BS.

It sure would be if anyone tried to make that point.
Why DID you try to make that point anyway? It's got nothing to do with anything I posted.

And half the states you just listed didn't even exist in the early 19th century when the EC was set up, so it's doubly irrelevant.

Again for the slow readers -- this isn't about who won or lost a specific election. It's about the Electrical College, what its purpose is (which doesn't exist) and in the case of my posts what its purpose was that caused it to be set up. I know you desperately wish it weren't about that and desperately try to make it go somewhere else, but that's a stupid approach.

And at the beginning it's specifically about Donald Rump's opinion tweeted four years ago --- which agrees with me, not you.

And again for the Special Class, it's a question that comes up every four years, because that's when it's active (Duh).

 

[Meathead]

It's insane to think that smaller states would abide with the erosion of their rights.

And exactly what "rights" would those be then?

To hold slaves? And count 3/5 of them as part of their representation?

Let's face it --- you have no argument.

I don't care if you're black, that's too stupid for words. The smaller states are all in the West and North-East. None of them slave states!

I see you didn't touch the question at all. You proposed "erosion of their rights", yet you cannot explain what the hell that means.

Which is exactly what I knew was coming. That's why I set you up, and you waltzed right into it.

Again --- it has nothing to do with the West. It has nothing to do with who has slavery --- although it DID at the time it was constructed. That was the whole point.

And do we have slavery now? Why no we don't. Not legally anyway.
And can African-Americans vote? Why yes they can.

Whelp --- *NEITHER* of those were the case when the EC system was made up, and that's WHY it was made up.

Go do your homework before you dig yourself even deeper, Dippy.[/QUOTE

Hey Meathead- I have made a mistake in trying to discuss/debate with this fool too. He is, well shall we say, special in a slow sort of way. Do yourself a favor and don't go down this path too far. It will only frustrate you and make you wonder who reads the direction to him on how to use a spoon.

Translation -- you both got spanked. Bring your A game next time, losers.

]You do realize who got spanked, right? I don't know if you've come to grips as to how badly so.

 

[Pogo]

If we didn't have the EC, Trump would have simply used a different strategy and would still have won. Get over it, libs, Hillary lost. Deal with it.

That is a fool statement by you. If it had been a winner take all victory by majority vote, she would have won easily.

I have to defend S.J. here at least in part. Had we a direct PV system rather than our states voting on our behalf, then obviously every candidate's campaign strategy would be different. They'd be concentrating on plaes where they had the best chance of generating new votes, not in states that were closely contested because the winner takes all. Hillary for example might have gone to Alaska. Or Utah. Places where she's little known on a direct basis. So he is correct that Rump would have used a different strategy. Everybody would.

What the outcome would have been is far more a reach though. The PV doesn't support his conclusion. That would have had to be turned around.

In any event this is yet another argument for abolishing the antiquated EC -- it would expose vast swaths of the electorate to candidates they have little experience with, because the EC dictates that their state is already a "lock" and they don't need to. That would change.

You still don't get it. Listen carefully and put your partisan guard down for a minute. Clinton got more PVs than Trump because of California being so heavily populated, and being a welfare nanny state, she got far more votes. Trump could have spent more time in Texas and racked up many more votes (which is what he would have done if the EC didn't exist). He also would have spent more time in California and rack up many more votes. You still don't grasp this.

As I just said above --- changing how the process works WOULD (not would not) change how campaigning works. But as I also pointed out, you don't know what the results of that would have been.

Go ahead -- prove me wrong.

 

[S.J.]

If we didn't have the EC, Trump would have simply used a different strategy and would still have won. Get over it, libs, Hillary lost. Deal with it.

That is a fool statement by you. If it had been a winner take all victory by majority vote, she would have won easily.

I have to defend S.J. here at least in part. Had we a direct PV system rather than our states voting on our behalf, then obviously every candidate's campaign strategy would be different. They'd be concentrating on plaes where they had the best chance of generating new votes, not in states that were closely contested because the winner takes all. Hillary for example might have gone to Alaska. Or Utah. Places where she's little known on a direct basis. So he is correct that Rump would have used a different strategy. Everybody would.

What the outcome would have been is far more a reach though. The PV doesn't support his conclusion. That would have had to be turned around.

In any event this is yet another argument for abolishing the antiquated EC -- it would expose vast swaths of the electorate to candidates they have little experience with, because the EC dictates that their state is already a "lock" and they don't need to. That would change.

You still don't get it. Listen carefully and put your partisan guard down for a minute. Clinton got more PVs than Trump because of California being so heavily populated, and being a welfare nanny state, she got far more votes. Trump could have spent more time in Texas and racked up many more votes (which is what he would have done if the EC didn't exist). He also would have spent more time in California and rack up many more votes. You still don't grasp this.

As I just said above --- changing how the process works WOULD (not would not) change how campaigning works. But as I also pointed out, you don't know what the results of that would have been.

Go ahead -- prove me wrong.

And neither do you but you suggested that Hillary would have won, based on the PV in this election. Once again, you still don't get it.

 

[Rustic]

If we didn't have the EC, Trump would have simply used a different strategy and would still have won. Get over it, libs, Hillary lost. Deal with it.

That is a fool statement by you. If it had been a winner take all victory by majority vote, she would have won easily.

I have to defend S.J. here at least in part. Had we a direct PV system rather than our states voting on our behalf, then obviously every candidate's campaign strategy would be different. They'd be concentrating on plaes where they had the best chance of generating new votes, not in states that were closely contested because the winner takes all. Hillary for example might have gone to Alaska. Or Utah. Places where she's little known on a direct basis. So he is correct that Rump would have used a different strategy. Everybody would.

What the outcome would have been is far more a reach though. The PV doesn't support his conclusion. That would have had to be turned around.

In any event this is yet another argument for abolishing the antiquated EC -- it would expose vast swaths of the electorate to candidates they have little experience with, because the EC dictates that their state is already a "lock" and they don't need to. That would change.

You still don't get it. Listen carefully and put your partisan guard down for a minute. Clinton got more PVs than Trump because of California being so heavily populated, and being a welfare nanny state, she got far more votes. Trump could have spent more time in Texas and racked up many more votes (which is what he would have done if the EC didn't exist). He also would have spent more time in California and rack up many more votes. You still don't grasp this.

As I just said above --- changing how the process works WOULD (not would not) change how campaigning works. But as I also pointed out, you don't know what the results of that would have been.

Go ahead -- prove me wrong.

The EC is not going anywhere, because voting would be a joke without it in national politics... fact

 

[Pogo]

If we didn't have the EC, Trump would have simply used a different strategy and would still have won. Get over it, libs, Hillary lost. Deal with it.

That is a fool statement by you. If it had been a winner take all victory by majority vote, she would have won easily.

I have to defend S.J. here at least in part. Had we a direct PV system rather than our states voting on our behalf, then obviously every candidate's campaign strategy would be different. They'd be concentrating on plaes where they had the best chance of generating new votes, not in states that were closely contested because the winner takes all. Hillary for example might have gone to Alaska. Or Utah. Places where she's little known on a direct basis. So he is correct that Rump would have used a different strategy. Everybody would.

What the outcome would have been is far more a reach though. The PV doesn't support his conclusion. That would have had to be turned around.

In any event this is yet another argument for abolishing the antiquated EC -- it would expose vast swaths of the electorate to candidates they have little experience with, because the EC dictates that their state is already a "lock" and they don't need to. That would change.

You still don't get it. Listen carefully and put your partisan guard down for a minute. Clinton got more PVs than Trump because of California being so heavily populated, and being a welfare nanny state, she got far more votes. Trump could have spent more time in Texas and racked up many more votes (which is what he would have done if the EC didn't exist). He also would have spent more time in California and rack up many more votes. You still don't grasp this.

As I just said above --- changing how the process works WOULD (not would not) change how campaigning works. But as I also pointed out, you don't know what the results of that would have been.

Go ahead -- prove me wrong.

And neither do you but you suggested that Hillary would have won, based on the PV in this election. Once again, you still don't get it.

Bullshit. I said no such thing. And again, this isn't about the most recent election; it's about ALL elections and why the EC is a stupid idea. Rump was right about that.

The only reason it's on the table now is because it's ALWAYS on the table around a Presidential election, because that's when it's in play. Ain't rocket surgery.