The electoral college is a disaster for democracy

[Rustic]

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.

OK you go change the law… LOL

 

[Divine Wind]

It would require a constitutional amendment.

It would recieve popular support, but with Republicans being strategically advantaged by it, they would oppose it. If the amendment process got underway, they would just make a state rights argument.

We need to get rid of it..

What's your plan to make the US voting system more fair? Is it right that citizens in cities dictate the laws for those in the country? or vice versa?

 

[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.

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.

I'm afraid you don't have an argument. You postulated something about "California and New York deciding every election". That's not a part of anything on the table here, it's just a non sequitur you threw in. Nobody anywhere suggested "let's count the votes of California and New York and ignore everybody else's". That's absurd.

 

[S.J.]

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.

You clearly suggested it. Go back and read your own damn post.

 

[S.J.]

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.

I'm afraid you don't have an argument. You postulated something about "California and New York deciding every election". That's not a part of anything on the table here, it's just a non sequitur you threw in. Nobody anywhere suggested "let's count the votes of California and New York and ignore everybody else's". That's absurd.

You still don't get it and you never will.

 

[Pogo]

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.

You clearly suggested it. Go back and read your own damn post.

That post you can't find because you made it up?

 

[Flopper]

We are a constitutional republic that elects representatives. An extent of that republicanism is that our EC elects the presidents. An amendment would have to change the process, and neither party wants such, despite what certain members of those parties may say.

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. 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.

There is another problem with the electoral college other than the fact that it's not democratic. If there were more than two parties, say a conservative party, republican party, democratic party, and socialist party and each had a strong following consider the results. Few elections would result in any candidate getting a majority of electors so the election would go to the House of Representatives and American will have made a big step away from democracy. The founders of course would have no problem with that because they didn't like the idea of democracy but people today have a much different opinion.

 

[S.J.]

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.

You clearly suggested it. Go back and read your own damn post.

That post you can't find because you made it up?

I already highlighted it, stupid. Damn, you're dumb.

 

[Pogo]

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.

You clearly suggested it. Go back and read your own damn post.

That post you can't find because you made it up?

I already highlighted it, stupid. Damn, you're dumb.

Then why can't you post it, Sparkly? Did you "highlight" it so well that you can't see it?

 

[Avatar4321]

It is a disaster for democracy. But it's great for a Republic

 

[Contumacious]

Said Donald Trump in 2012.

I betcha he wishes he could take that one back.

Im happy Trump won, but i agree with what he said. We need to get rid of that system and go with a system that requires photo IDs and then log every one of them in a computer database so no one can cheat. Trump would have beaten Hillary much worse if illegals werent able to vote.

The EC is working as designed - preventing or slowing down democracy .

 

[S.J.]

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.

You clearly suggested it. Go back and read your own damn post.

That post you can't find because you made it up?

I already highlighted it, stupid. Damn, you're dumb.

Then why can't you post it, Sparkly? Did you "highlight" it so well that you can't see it?

Are you so stupid you can't see what's highlighted?

 

[Lewdog]

We are a constitutional republic that elects representatives. An extent of that republicanism is that our EC elects the presidents. An amendment would have to change the process, and neither party wants such, despite what certain members of those parties may say.

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. 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.

There is another problem with the electoral college other than the fact that it's not democratic. If there were more than two parties, say a conservative party, republican party, democratic party, and socialist party and each had a strong following consider the results. Few elections would result in any candidate getting a majority of electors so the election would go to the House of Representatives and American will have made a big step away from democracy. The founders of course would have no problem with that because they didn't like the idea of democracy but people today have a much different opinion.

Yep, if there were strong third parties, and none of the candidates got the 270 votes needed, the decision would go to the House of Representatives, a third party would NEVER have a chance to win.

 

[Pogo]

We are a constitutional republic that elects representatives. An extent of that republicanism is that our EC elects the presidents. An amendment would have to change the process, and neither party wants such, despite what certain members of those parties may say.

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. 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.

There is another problem with the electoral college other than the fact that it's not democratic. If there were more than two parties, say a conservative party, republican party, democratic party, and socialist party and each had a strong following consider the results. Few elections would result in any candidate getting a majority of electors so the election would go to the House of Representatives and American will have made a big step away from democracy. The founders of course would have no problem with that because they didn't like the idea of democracy but people today have a much different opinion.

Indeed, that's what Evan McMullin had in mind, that's what the Dixiecrats had in mind, that's probably what every third party has in mind because it's their only chance, and it by definition requires that they concentrate their campaigning in a single state or a single small region to have a chance of winning any at all, which is further undemocratic ---- instead of this bizarre unsupported fantasy of "California and New York controlling the country" we might have "Utah controlling the country" or "the Deep South controlling the country".

So excellent point -- the EC perpetuates the Duopoly and ensures we get bullshit binary choices like we just did.

 

[Pogo]

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.

You clearly suggested it. Go back and read your own damn post.

That post you can't find because you made it up?

I already highlighted it, stupid. Damn, you're dumb.

Then why can't you post it, Sparkly? Did you "highlight" it so well that you can't see it?

Are you so stupid you can't see what's highlighted?

I can see what's highlighted just fine. Problem is it doesn't say what you think it says.
Maybe you should really think about that remedial reading course.

But not from me --- I don't have the patience.

 

[Spare_change]

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. 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.

It would require a constitutional amendment.

It would recieve popular support, but with Republicans being strategically advantaged by it, they would oppose it. If the amendment process got underway, they would just make a state rights argument.

We need to get rid of it..

... which clearly indicates that you don't understand the Electoral College.

 

[S.J.]

You clearly suggested it. Go back and read your own damn post.

That post you can't find because you made it up?

I already highlighted it, stupid. Damn, you're dumb.

Then why can't you post it, Sparkly? Did you "highlight" it so well that you can't see it?

Are you so stupid you can't see what's highlighted?

I can see what's highlighted just fine. Problem is it doesn't say what you think it says.
Maybe you should really think about that remedial reading course.

But not from me --- I don't have the patience.

**** off, you're beginning to bore me.

 

[S.J.]

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. 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.

It would require a constitutional amendment.

It would recieve popular support, but with Republicans being strategically advantaged by it, they would oppose it. If the amendment process got underway, they would just make a state rights argument.

We need to get rid of it..

... which clearly indicates that you don't understand the Electoral College.

Neither does pogo. Stupidity is common among liberals.

 

[Spare_change]

We are a constitutional republic that elects representatives. An extent of that republicanism is that our EC elects the presidents. An amendment would have to change the process, and neither party wants such, despite what certain members of those parties may say.

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. 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.

There is another problem with the electoral college other than the fact that it's not democratic. If there were more than two parties, say a conservative party, republican party, democratic party, and socialist party and each had a strong following consider the results. Few elections would result in any candidate getting a majority of electors so the election would go to the House of Representatives and American will have made a big step away from democracy. The founders of course would have no problem with that because they didn't like the idea of democracy but people today have a much different opinion.

Indeed, that's what Evan McMullin had in mind, that's what the Dixiecrats had in mind, that's probably what every third party has in mind because it's their only chance, and it by definition requires that they concentrate their campaigning in a single state or a single small region to have a chance of winning any at all, which is further undemocratic ---- instead of this bizarre unsupported fantasy of "California and New York controlling the country" we might have "Utah controlling the country" or "the Deep South controlling the country".

So excellent point -- the EC perpetuates the Duopoly and ensures we get bullshit binary choices like we just did.

Your lack of understanding is astounding ....

First of all, let's understand that Hillary did not get a majority of the popular vote ....

Second, the Electoral College is the end result of a series of 51 separate, and distinct, elections. Each state holds its own election of national candidates (keep in mind - it is possible for a national candidate to not even be on the ballot in a particular state).

These 51 separate elections identifies the candidate who can appoint electors to attend the Electoral College (most states have a law that requires the electors to follow the mandate of the people - in all but two states, a winner-take-all proposition).

Every vote in a single state carries exactly the same weight as any other vote in the state. Since the votes do not compete across state lines, the argument that a vote in Montana is worth more than a vote in New York is nonsensical, and frankly, reflects badly on the claimant.

The number of electors from each state is equal to the number of members of Congress (two senators and the number of members of the House of Representatives). Because of the two-senators-per-state rule, the ratio of voters to electors is slightly skewed in low-population states. Eliminate the senators and the ratio becomes exactly the same in every state.

These electors vote for the candidates - and THAT election is certified by the House of Representatives.

All this nonsense about the relative value of votes is indicative of a lack of fundamental understanding of the process. I suggest a Constitution remedial course at the local city college.

 

[Borillar]

We are a constitutional republic that elects representatives. An extent of that republicanism is that our EC elects the presidents. An amendment would have to change the process, and neither party wants such, despite what certain members of those parties may say.

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. 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 won't get 38 States to ratify that one.

Yep. Especially the ones that benefit the most from the inordinate representation they receive. If you live in Wyoming, your vote is worth 3.5X someone living in Texas. Everyone is equal in our country but some people are more equal than others.