The electoral college is a disaster for democracy

[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.

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.

Damn --- that is so stupid ... and not even remotely true. Why don't you get smart?

 

[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.

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.

Damn --- that is so stupid ... and not even remotely true. Why don't you get smart?

Yeah I posted this in the thread that was closed.

2016’s States with the Most and Least Powerful Voters

In Arizona a person's Presidential vote is worth 207.05, where in California a person's vote is worth 0.37. And you think this is fair? It's unbelievable to think we live in a country where the Constitution says everyone is equal, yet one person's vote is worth more than someone else's based simply on where they live in the country.

 

[Pogo]

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

Again --- irrelevant to anything.

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).

No shit Miss Grundy. Gee tell us more about how it works Gosh whiz social studies class is fun.


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.

Too bad I never made such an argument.

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.

And I suggest a reading course, followed by one that instructs how to reply to a poster that actually made the claims cited.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

The hildabitch lost 30 States. What is it you fail to understand the this is the United States of America, not mob rule America.

 

[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.

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.

The hildabitch lost 30 States. What is it you fail to understand the this is the United States of America, not mob rule America.

The echobots keep obediently chanting "mob rule! mob rule!" yet none can explain it. Oblivious to the fact that they already elect their own Senators, Congresscritters, Governors and everybody else via "mob rule"

Too funny.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Said Donald Trump in 2012.

I betcha he wishes he could take that one back.

No, hes lauging on.the way to.the White.House

 

[OKTexas]

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.

The hildabitch lost 30 States. What is it you fail to understand the this is the United States of America, not mob rule America.

The echobots keep obediently chanting "mob rule! mob rule!" yet none can explain it. Oblivious to the fact that they already elect their own Senators, Congresscritters, Governors and everybody else via "mob rule"

Too funny.

There are no national elections, therefore there is no national popular vote. Also only people who reside in a city can vote on city issues, only people who live in a county can vote on county issues, only people who live in a congressional district can vote for the rep of that district, only people who live in a State can vote for their Senators or Governors. CA or NY can't dictate who TX wants for president. Got it?

 

[Onyx]

No, hes lauging on.the way to.the White.House

Yep, laughing about how he played you all with his bullshit.

One month before he transitions between ivory towers. Keep praising your greasy demagogue all the way to the top

 

[buckeye45_73]

No, hes lauging on.the way to.the White.House

Yep, laughing about how he played you all with his bullshit.

One month before he transitions between ivory towers. Keep praising your greasy demagogue all the way to the top

If he played us why arent you happy and why is your side rioting? Answer: because you know you're full of shit

 

[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. 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.

The hildabitch lost 30 States. What is it you fail to understand the this is the United States of America, not mob rule America.

The echobots keep obediently chanting "mob rule! mob rule!" yet none can explain it. Oblivious to the fact that they already elect their own Senators, Congresscritters, Governors and everybody else via "mob rule"

Too funny.

There are no national elections, therefore there is no national popular vote. Also only people who reside in a city can vote on city issues, only people who live in a county can vote on county issues, only people who live in a congressional district can vote for the rep of that district, only people who live in a State can vote for their Senators or Governors. CA or NY can't dictate who TX wants for president. Got it?

Zacly. And if you're voting for, say, a governator, the whole state votes --- it ain't "Austin gets 20 state EVs and East Jipip gets four". It's one voter, one vote. PERIOD.

That "mob rule"?



Echobots. Such cat toys.

 

[Onyx]

If he played us why arent you happy and why is your side rioting?

- Should I be happy that I share space with idiots?

- They are not my side.

Answer: because you know you're full of shit

Yes, excuse me while I go to the restroom.[/QUOTE]

 

[OKTexas]

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.

The hildabitch lost 30 States. What is it you fail to understand the this is the United States of America, not mob rule America.

The echobots keep obediently chanting "mob rule! mob rule!" yet none can explain it. Oblivious to the fact that they already elect their own Senators, Congresscritters, Governors and everybody else via "mob rule"

Too funny.

There are no national elections, therefore there is no national popular vote. Also only people who reside in a city can vote on city issues, only people who live in a county can vote on county issues, only people who live in a congressional district can vote for the rep of that district, only people who live in a State can vote for their Senators or Governors. CA or NY can't dictate who TX wants for president. Got it?

Zacly. And if you're voting for, say, a governator, the whole state votes --- it ain't "Austin gets 20 state EVs and East Jipip gets four". It's one voter, one vote. PERIOD.

That "mob rule"?



Echobots. Such cat toys.

Depends, people in Austin can't vote on my State reps, just like they can't vote on my US house rep, it's called a republican form of government, maybe you should read up on it.

 

[Pogo]

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.

The hildabitch lost 30 States. What is it you fail to understand the this is the United States of America, not mob rule America.

The echobots keep obediently chanting "mob rule! mob rule!" yet none can explain it. Oblivious to the fact that they already elect their own Senators, Congresscritters, Governors and everybody else via "mob rule"

Too funny.

There are no national elections, therefore there is no national popular vote. Also only people who reside in a city can vote on city issues, only people who live in a county can vote on county issues, only people who live in a congressional district can vote for the rep of that district, only people who live in a State can vote for their Senators or Governors. CA or NY can't dictate who TX wants for president. Got it?

Zacly. And if you're voting for, say, a governator, the whole state votes --- it ain't "Austin gets 20 state EVs and East Jipip gets four". It's one voter, one vote. PERIOD.

That "mob rule"?



Echobots. Such cat toys.

Depends, people in Austin can't vote on my State reps, just like they can't vote on my US house rep, it's called a republican form of government, maybe you should read up on it.

Actually I have read up on it. So much so that I actually know why the Electoral College exists.
It was set up to protect slavery. Which is the same time they negotiated the worth of a slave to be three-fifths of a person.

That is, three-fifths for the purpose of counting population that would then be used as a benchmark to allot Electoral Votes. But of course those slaves had no representation, they couldn't vote, and their white masters and electoral voters voted on their behalf, without any input from them.

Which is in effect the same thing it still does -- your state is red in Presidential elections. That means there's no point in your going out to vote --- not for President anyway. That's already decided. You can vote for the red team, the blue team, some third party, or stay home and ignore it --- they all have exactly the same effect. Your vote means absolutely NOTHING. Those who live in locked-blue states --- same thing.

Howzit feel to have no vote?

The EC perpetuates the Duopoly that gave us pathetic choices like the one we just did. It has no reason to exist. It discourages voting.

Of course--- we don't have slavery any more and nobody is counted as three-fifths of a person any more. That changed with the 14th Amendment ............... which entitled those former slaves to citizenship but at the same time restricted protection of voting rights to "the male inhabitants of such State" --- while counting non-male residents for its proportional representation.

In other words it did the same thing to women -- counted them as the new three-fifths persons (except this time counting them whole) yet still not granting them the right to vote for their own interests.

Now if a PV system had been in place, any state could have doubled its voting power by enfranchising women. But with the EC system there was no incentive to do that --- you could just count the women and take the Electoral Votes their numbers provided, and vote, again, on their behalf with no input from them.

This thing just keeps hitting it outta the park, donut?

 

[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.

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.

Yes you're correct, every vote in a single state carries exactly the same weight as any other vote in that state. However that vote certainly carries a different weight if the voter happens to be in another state. This is due of course to the method of allocating electors, 2 for each state and one for each representative. The result is that a vote in Montana will have a much greater impact on the election of a president than a vote cast in New York. In fact, the vote cast in Montana is 83 times more power that a vote cast in New York, all do to the number electors awarded to each state. There is a basic unfairness to this system. Why should my vote be so much more important because I happen to live in Montana today than when I lived in New York during the last election.

2016’s States with the Most and Least Powerful Voters

 

[Spare_change]

The hildabitch lost 30 States. What is it you fail to understand the this is the United States of America, not mob rule America.

The echobots keep obediently chanting "mob rule! mob rule!" yet none can explain it. Oblivious to the fact that they already elect their own Senators, Congresscritters, Governors and everybody else via "mob rule"

Too funny.

There are no national elections, therefore there is no national popular vote. Also only people who reside in a city can vote on city issues, only people who live in a county can vote on county issues, only people who live in a congressional district can vote for the rep of that district, only people who live in a State can vote for their Senators or Governors. CA or NY can't dictate who TX wants for president. Got it?

Zacly. And if you're voting for, say, a governator, the whole state votes --- it ain't "Austin gets 20 state EVs and East Jipip gets four". It's one voter, one vote. PERIOD.

That "mob rule"?



Echobots. Such cat toys.

Depends, people in Austin can't vote on my State reps, just like they can't vote on my US house rep, it's called a republican form of government, maybe you should read up on it.

Actually I have read up on it. So much so that I actually know why the Electoral College exists.
It was set up to protect slavery. Which is the same time they negotiated the worth of a slave to be three-fifths of a person.

That is, three-fifths for the purpose of counting population that would then be used as a benchmark to allot Electoral Votes. But of course those slaves had no representation, they couldn't vote, and their white masters and electoral voters voted on their behalf, without any input from them.

Which is in effect the same thing it still does -- your state is red in Presidential elections. That means there's no point in your going out to vote --- not for President anyway. That's already decided. You can vote for the red team, the blue team, some third party, or stay home and ignore it --- they all have exactly the same effect. Your vote means absolutely NOTHING. Those who live in locked-blue states --- same thing.

Howzit feel to have no vote?

The EC perpetuates the Duopoly that gave us pathetic choices like the one we just did. It has no reason to exist. It discourages voting.

Of course--- we don't have slavery any more and nobody is counted as three-fifths of a person any more. That changed with the 14th Amendment ............... which entitled those former slaves to citizenship but at the same time restricted protection of voting rights to "the male inhabitants of such State" --- while counting non-male residents for its proportional representation.

In other words it did the same thing to women -- counted them as the new three-fifths persons (except this time counting them whole) yet still not granting them the right to vote for their own interests.

Now if a PV system had been in place, any state could have doubled its voting power by enfranchising women. But with the EC system there was no incentive to do that --- you could just count the women and take the Electoral Votes their numbers provided, and vote, again, on their behalf with no input from them.

This thing just keeps hitting it outta the park, donut?

Go back and read it again .... the Electoral College was not implemented to protect slavery. The 3/5 rule was implemented to protect the Electoral College.

Ignorance is so ugly....

 

[Pogo]

The echobots keep obediently chanting "mob rule! mob rule!" yet none can explain it. Oblivious to the fact that they already elect their own Senators, Congresscritters, Governors and everybody else via "mob rule"

Too funny.

There are no national elections, therefore there is no national popular vote. Also only people who reside in a city can vote on city issues, only people who live in a county can vote on county issues, only people who live in a congressional district can vote for the rep of that district, only people who live in a State can vote for their Senators or Governors. CA or NY can't dictate who TX wants for president. Got it?

Zacly. And if you're voting for, say, a governator, the whole state votes --- it ain't "Austin gets 20 state EVs and East Jipip gets four". It's one voter, one vote. PERIOD.

That "mob rule"?



Echobots. Such cat toys.

Depends, people in Austin can't vote on my State reps, just like they can't vote on my US house rep, it's called a republican form of government, maybe you should read up on it.

Actually I have read up on it. So much so that I actually know why the Electoral College exists.
It was set up to protect slavery. Which is the same time they negotiated the worth of a slave to be three-fifths of a person.

That is, three-fifths for the purpose of counting population that would then be used as a benchmark to allot Electoral Votes. But of course those slaves had no representation, they couldn't vote, and their white masters and electoral voters voted on their behalf, without any input from them.

Which is in effect the same thing it still does -- your state is red in Presidential elections. That means there's no point in your going out to vote --- not for President anyway. That's already decided. You can vote for the red team, the blue team, some third party, or stay home and ignore it --- they all have exactly the same effect. Your vote means absolutely NOTHING. Those who live in locked-blue states --- same thing.

Howzit feel to have no vote?

The EC perpetuates the Duopoly that gave us pathetic choices like the one we just did. It has no reason to exist. It discourages voting.

Of course--- we don't have slavery any more and nobody is counted as three-fifths of a person any more. That changed with the 14th Amendment ............... which entitled those former slaves to citizenship but at the same time restricted protection of voting rights to "the male inhabitants of such State" --- while counting non-male residents for its proportional representation.

In other words it did the same thing to women -- counted them as the new three-fifths persons (except this time counting them whole) yet still not granting them the right to vote for their own interests.

Now if a PV system had been in place, any state could have doubled its voting power by enfranchising women. But with the EC system there was no incentive to do that --- you could just count the women and take the Electoral Votes their numbers provided, and vote, again, on their behalf with no input from them.

This thing just keeps hitting it outta the park, donut?

Go back and read it again .... the Electoral College was not implemented to protect slavery. The 3/5 rule was implemented to protect the Electoral College.

Ignorance is so ugly....

Bravo Madge. You actually quoted the right poster this time. Those remedial posting classes are really helping.

Hilarious post too.

 

[OKTexas]

The hildabitch lost 30 States. What is it you fail to understand the this is the United States of America, not mob rule America.

The echobots keep obediently chanting "mob rule! mob rule!" yet none can explain it. Oblivious to the fact that they already elect their own Senators, Congresscritters, Governors and everybody else via "mob rule"

Too funny.

There are no national elections, therefore there is no national popular vote. Also only people who reside in a city can vote on city issues, only people who live in a county can vote on county issues, only people who live in a congressional district can vote for the rep of that district, only people who live in a State can vote for their Senators or Governors. CA or NY can't dictate who TX wants for president. Got it?

Zacly. And if you're voting for, say, a governator, the whole state votes --- it ain't "Austin gets 20 state EVs and East Jipip gets four". It's one voter, one vote. PERIOD.

That "mob rule"?



Echobots. Such cat toys.

Depends, people in Austin can't vote on my State reps, just like they can't vote on my US house rep, it's called a republican form of government, maybe you should read up on it.

Actually I have read up on it. So much so that I actually know why the Electoral College exists.
It was set up to protect slavery. Which is the same time they negotiated the worth of a slave to be three-fifths of a person.

That is, three-fifths for the purpose of counting population that would then be used as a benchmark to allot Electoral Votes. But of course those slaves had no representation, they couldn't vote, and their white masters and electoral voters voted on their behalf, without any input from them.

Which is in effect the same thing it still does -- your state is red in Presidential elections. That means there's no point in your going out to vote --- not for President anyway. That's already decided. You can vote for the red team, the blue team, some third party, or stay home and ignore it --- they all have exactly the same effect. Your vote means absolutely NOTHING. Those who live in locked-blue states --- same thing.

Howzit feel to have no vote?

The EC perpetuates the Duopoly that gave us pathetic choices like the one we just did. It has no reason to exist. It discourages voting.

Of course--- we don't have slavery any more and nobody is counted as three-fifths of a person any more. That changed with the 14th Amendment ............... which entitled those former slaves to citizenship but at the same time restricted protection of voting rights to "the male inhabitants of such State" --- while counting non-male residents for its proportional representation.

In other words it did the same thing to women -- counted them as the new three-fifths persons (except this time counting them whole) yet still not granting them the right to vote for their own interests.

Now if a PV system had been in place, any state could have doubled its voting power by enfranchising women. But with the EC system there was no incentive to do that --- you could just count the women and take the Electoral Votes their numbers provided, and vote, again, on their behalf with no input from them.

This thing just keeps hitting it outta the park, donut?

Well that's what you get for reading regressive bullshit. The 3/5ths compromise was to reduce representation in slave holding areas to eventually make it easier to abolish slavery. Beside that the founders foresaw the westward expansion as inevitable and didn't want the new States to have no voice in how the country was ran. That would have happened then and would today if it weren't for the EC.

 

[Rustic]

The hildabitch lost 30 States. What is it you fail to understand the this is the United States of America, not mob rule America.

The echobots keep obediently chanting "mob rule! mob rule!" yet none can explain it. Oblivious to the fact that they already elect their own Senators, Congresscritters, Governors and everybody else via "mob rule"

Too funny.

There are no national elections, therefore there is no national popular vote. Also only people who reside in a city can vote on city issues, only people who live in a county can vote on county issues, only people who live in a congressional district can vote for the rep of that district, only people who live in a State can vote for their Senators or Governors. CA or NY can't dictate who TX wants for president. Got it?

Zacly. And if you're voting for, say, a governator, the whole state votes --- it ain't "Austin gets 20 state EVs and East Jipip gets four". It's one voter, one vote. PERIOD.

That "mob rule"?



Echobots. Such cat toys.

Depends, people in Austin can't vote on my State reps, just like they can't vote on my US house rep, it's called a republican form of government, maybe you should read up on it.

Actually I have read up on it. So much so that I actually know why the Electoral College exists.
It was set up to protect slavery. Which is the same time they negotiated the worth of a slave to be three-fifths of a person.

That is, three-fifths for the purpose of counting population that would then be used as a benchmark to allot Electoral Votes. But of course those slaves had no representation, they couldn't vote, and their white masters and electoral voters voted on their behalf, without any input from them.

Which is in effect the same thing it still does -- your state is red in Presidential elections. That means there's no point in your going out to vote --- not for President anyway. That's already decided. You can vote for the red team, the blue team, some third party, or stay home and ignore it --- they all have exactly the same effect. Your vote means absolutely NOTHING. Those who live in locked-blue states --- same thing.

Howzit feel to have no vote?

The EC perpetuates the Duopoly that gave us pathetic choices like the one we just did. It has no reason to exist. It discourages voting.

Of course--- we don't have slavery any more and nobody is counted as three-fifths of a person any more. That changed with the 14th Amendment ............... which entitled those former slaves to citizenship but at the same time restricted protection of voting rights to "the male inhabitants of such State" --- while counting non-male residents for its proportional representation.

In other words it did the same thing to women -- counted them as the new three-fifths persons (except this time counting them whole) yet still not granting them the right to vote for their own interests.

Now if a PV system had been in place, any state could have doubled its voting power by enfranchising women. But with the EC system there was no incentive to do that --- you could just count the women and take the Electoral Votes their numbers provided, and vote, again, on their behalf with no input from them.

This thing just keeps hitting it outta the park, donut?

In The Northern Plains states if they did not have the EC, the popular vote would be just a waste of time, money and resources… Fact

 

[Rustic]

There are no national elections, therefore there is no national popular vote. Also only people who reside in a city can vote on city issues, only people who live in a county can vote on county issues, only people who live in a congressional district can vote for the rep of that district, only people who live in a State can vote for their Senators or Governors. CA or NY can't dictate who TX wants for president. Got it?

Zacly. And if you're voting for, say, a governator, the whole state votes --- it ain't "Austin gets 20 state EVs and East Jipip gets four". It's one voter, one vote. PERIOD.

That "mob rule"?



Echobots. Such cat toys.

Depends, people in Austin can't vote on my State reps, just like they can't vote on my US house rep, it's called a republican form of government, maybe you should read up on it.

Actually I have read up on it. So much so that I actually know why the Electoral College exists.
It was set up to protect slavery. Which is the same time they negotiated the worth of a slave to be three-fifths of a person.

That is, three-fifths for the purpose of counting population that would then be used as a benchmark to allot Electoral Votes. But of course those slaves had no representation, they couldn't vote, and their white masters and electoral voters voted on their behalf, without any input from them.

Which is in effect the same thing it still does -- your state is red in Presidential elections. That means there's no point in your going out to vote --- not for President anyway. That's already decided. You can vote for the red team, the blue team, some third party, or stay home and ignore it --- they all have exactly the same effect. Your vote means absolutely NOTHING. Those who live in locked-blue states --- same thing.

Howzit feel to have no vote?

The EC perpetuates the Duopoly that gave us pathetic choices like the one we just did. It has no reason to exist. It discourages voting.

Of course--- we don't have slavery any more and nobody is counted as three-fifths of a person any more. That changed with the 14th Amendment ............... which entitled those former slaves to citizenship but at the same time restricted protection of voting rights to "the male inhabitants of such State" --- while counting non-male residents for its proportional representation.

In other words it did the same thing to women -- counted them as the new three-fifths persons (except this time counting them whole) yet still not granting them the right to vote for their own interests.

Now if a PV system had been in place, any state could have doubled its voting power by enfranchising women. But with the EC system there was no incentive to do that --- you could just count the women and take the Electoral Votes their numbers provided, and vote, again, on their behalf with no input from them.

This thing just keeps hitting it outta the park, donut?

Go back and read it again .... the Electoral College was not implemented to protect slavery. The 3/5 rule was implemented to protect the Electoral College.

Ignorance is so ugly....

Bravo Madge. You actually quoted the right poster this time. Those remedial posting classes are really helping.

Hilarious post too.

Guess what?

 

[Pogo]

The echobots keep obediently chanting "mob rule! mob rule!" yet none can explain it. Oblivious to the fact that they already elect their own Senators, Congresscritters, Governors and everybody else via "mob rule"

Too funny.

There are no national elections, therefore there is no national popular vote. Also only people who reside in a city can vote on city issues, only people who live in a county can vote on county issues, only people who live in a congressional district can vote for the rep of that district, only people who live in a State can vote for their Senators or Governors. CA or NY can't dictate who TX wants for president. Got it?

Zacly. And if you're voting for, say, a governator, the whole state votes --- it ain't "Austin gets 20 state EVs and East Jipip gets four". It's one voter, one vote. PERIOD.

That "mob rule"?



Echobots. Such cat toys.

Depends, people in Austin can't vote on my State reps, just like they can't vote on my US house rep, it's called a republican form of government, maybe you should read up on it.

Actually I have read up on it. So much so that I actually know why the Electoral College exists.
It was set up to protect slavery. Which is the same time they negotiated the worth of a slave to be three-fifths of a person.

That is, three-fifths for the purpose of counting population that would then be used as a benchmark to allot Electoral Votes. But of course those slaves had no representation, they couldn't vote, and their white masters and electoral voters voted on their behalf, without any input from them.

Which is in effect the same thing it still does -- your state is red in Presidential elections. That means there's no point in your going out to vote --- not for President anyway. That's already decided. You can vote for the red team, the blue team, some third party, or stay home and ignore it --- they all have exactly the same effect. Your vote means absolutely NOTHING. Those who live in locked-blue states --- same thing.

Howzit feel to have no vote?

The EC perpetuates the Duopoly that gave us pathetic choices like the one we just did. It has no reason to exist. It discourages voting.

Of course--- we don't have slavery any more and nobody is counted as three-fifths of a person any more. That changed with the 14th Amendment ............... which entitled those former slaves to citizenship but at the same time restricted protection of voting rights to "the male inhabitants of such State" --- while counting non-male residents for its proportional representation.

In other words it did the same thing to women -- counted them as the new three-fifths persons (except this time counting them whole) yet still not granting them the right to vote for their own interests.

Now if a PV system had been in place, any state could have doubled its voting power by enfranchising women. But with the EC system there was no incentive to do that --- you could just count the women and take the Electoral Votes their numbers provided, and vote, again, on their behalf with no input from them.

This thing just keeps hitting it outta the park, donut?

Well that's what you get for reading regressive bullshit. The 3/5ths compromise was to reduce representation in slave holding areas to eventually make it easier to abolish slavery. Beside that the founders foresaw the westward expansion as inevitable and didn't want the new States to have no voice in how the country was ran. That would have happened then and would today if it weren't for the EC.

Oh ******* bullshit. Counting three-fifths of the slaves you have who can't vote as part of your representation base doesn't REDUCE jack shit --- it ADDS to that number. Which in turn gives that state *MORE* representation -- not less.

It's called a 'compromise' because the slaveholding South wanted to count ALL the slaves while enfranchising none of them. They got to count 60% of them, which is WAY more than the 0% who could actually vote.

And when it was women, states got to count all of them while enfranchising, again, 0%.

Hitting the bottle already are we?