The Electoral College is as outdated as the 2nd Amendment

[C_Clayton_Jones]

‘"The framers, with their talent for ambiguity, were hazy on the question of the electors' freedom to choose." Certainly it was there to some extent. As Keech wrote, "the possibility of electors substituting their own judgments for those of their state's voters was not ruled out by the Constitution. Such a practice was not implausible or offensive by the political values of the day."’

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...nt-work-the-way-the-founding-fathers-intended

Indeed, the notion that the Electors should blindly follow the vote of their states runs counter to the very purpose of the EC.

 

[dblack]

‘"The framers, with their talent for ambiguity, were hazy on the question of the electors' freedom to choose." Certainly it was there to some extent. As Keech wrote, "the possibility of electors substituting their own judgments for those of their state's voters was not ruled out by the Constitution. Such a practice was not implausible or offensive by the political values of the day."’

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...nt-work-the-way-the-founding-fathers-intended

Indeed, the notion that the Electors should blindly follow the vote of their states runs counter to the very purpose of the EC.

Definitely. If anything is "broken" about the EC, it's that. We need to reinforce the EC, not get rid of it.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

‘"The framers, with their talent for ambiguity, were hazy on the question of the electors' freedom to choose." Certainly it was there to some extent. As Keech wrote, "the possibility of electors substituting their own judgments for those of their state's voters was not ruled out by the Constitution. Such a practice was not implausible or offensive by the political values of the day."’

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...nt-work-the-way-the-founding-fathers-intended

Indeed, the notion that the Electors should blindly follow the vote of their states runs counter to the very purpose of the EC.

You're not exactly presenting a strawman here, but this isn't as all-or-nothing as you seem to be making it out to be. Yes, the electors have the absolute freedom to vote as they wish. That said, the party submitting the candidate in question chooses their electors, the assumption being that they'd be smart enough not to choose electors that weren't on board with the candidate for whom they would ostensibly be voting. It wasn't exactly the founders way of saying the electors should take it upon themselves to choose the president, more like a failsafe in the event that a state decided to vote for something so heinous that an appropriate number of electors couldn't be found who would support their own party in said decision.

Technically, though, yeah, obviously you're correct. Thus the self important celebrities in ads begging the electors to tank Trump after the 2016 general.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A pure popular vote in presidential elections = mob rule

Dem voter fraud in Illinois and California only impacts already safe Dem EC votes.
If we switched to a national vote, Chicago fraud could potentially flip the entire nation.

No thanks.

 

[skookerasbil]

This thread needs to be nominated for the DUMBEST THREAD OF THE YEAR award. Its like debating whether a slug is in a trance or not in a trance.

Conversation only on message boards in the nether regions of the internet...…but nowhere else.

Once again, bubblehead progressives thinking the country thinks like LA, New York and DC!

 

[2aguy]

A pure popular vote in presidential elections = mob rule

Dem voter fraud in Illinois and California only impacts already safe Dem EC votes.
If we switched to a national vote, Chicago fraud could potentially flip the entire nation.

No thanks.

see....that't the feature, not the flaw in their plan...

 

[Yarddog]

No, what you don't see is a few very large population centers are much easier to bribe and control than an entire country. And what does someone who lives in Los Angeles necessarily know about the life of farmers throughout the midwest or North Dakota. Someone like Hillary or Warren in office could do an amazing amount of damage in a short period of time.... thank god for the EC

Look, there have only been FIVE presidents who didn't also win the popular vote - so your point is moot. Meaning that 40 presidents also won the popular vote.

Well, I KNOW that had Hillary won the electoral college instead of Trump we would not be having this conversation. Had Trump lost, I would have accepted it as would have most all who voted for Trump.WHY is it that whenever Democrats lose they have to start talking about changing the rules? I mean, they changed the whistle blower rules to help get rid of Trump, and they changed Impeachment rules as well..... all to suit their needs.
Now doubt, should Democrats win a presidency, they will also attempt to stack the supreme court..... because, again, they always need to change things when they lose.
And now, its getting rid of the E.C. because they lost. Why dont they just try appealing to the needs of the country? Hillary hardly tried at all and Trump out campaigned her while she could barely stand on her own two feet.

BS. If this happened to Trump, he would still be challenging the results and all the anti Hillary people would demand congress get rid of the EC. And as republicans were the majority until 2018, the EC would have been abolished. Trump didn't out campaign anyone if he lost the popular vote. Republicans support Trump because he is stacking the courts. Why do you republicans lie so fucking much?

Nobody changed any rules to get Trump. The motherfucker violated the law as well as broke his oath of office. Republicans don't get to live by a different set of rules and you need to quit believing what a person who has lied over 13,000 times tells you.

Stacking the supreme court? No he hasn't. There are still only 9 Supreme court judges. The Democrats are the ones who were talking about increasing the number to make up for the fact that Trump nominated judges. And no doubt from what I've seen from the Democrats they would certainly do that.

Trump out campaigned Hillary. Her ass was lazy and she didnt make as many road trips. FACT. It cost her in the rust belt. She could have won. Trump violated nothing , other than the opinions of some people. Some people who have been trying to impeach him from the very day he was elected, because they are Washington Elites who want to keep the status quo.
At least Clinton was not impeached until his second term. Whats going on now is bullshit and unheard of. Hillary is a whiney bitch who needs someone to blame for why she lost... all she needs to do is look in the mirror.
Court-packing, Democrats’ nuclear option for the Supreme Court, explained

2020 Dems warm to expanding Supreme Court

As I said, Democrats are all about changing the rules to suit their needs.

Trump is stacking all the courts with right wing judges. That's why democrats are suggesting changes. And I guess denying a president to appoint a justice because liberals would be the majority is OK. Trump lost the popular vote so he didn't out campaign anyone. Clinton should never have been impeached, unless you consider him getting a blow job while working was against company standards. By the same company standards trying to stop and obstruct an investigation is a fireable offense on any job in this country.

What you just posted is what pisses me off about republicans. You're dishonest. Trump has violated laws. Over 900 prosecuting attorneys from both parties didn't sign a letter talking about how Trump obstructed justice because he violated their opinions.

Trump is appointing Justices just as he is supposed to do as president. When The Supreme Court was majority Liberal, you didnt see the Republicans trying to increase the number of seats to balance things out. The Democrats on the other hand started crying immediately and also want to impeach certain judges. Yes, they are the party of changing the rules or changing outcomes into their favor.

Clinton? was it about a blow job? Now you are being dishonest. The impeachment was over violating the civil rights of a certain woman who took him to civil court by lying under testimony. Yes, the lie was about Lewinsky... in itself not a big deal but it was an attempt to escape justice for what he did to a private citizen.

And yes, its just peoples opinions. The transcript said nothing about money, or bribes, or quid pro quo, yet its people like Schiff who make up shit as they go along to help form other peoples opinions.

 

[2aguy]

Look, there have only been FIVE presidents who didn't also win the popular vote - so your point is moot. Meaning that 40 presidents also won the popular vote.

Well, I KNOW that had Hillary won the electoral college instead of Trump we would not be having this conversation. Had Trump lost, I would have accepted it as would have most all who voted for Trump.WHY is it that whenever Democrats lose they have to start talking about changing the rules? I mean, they changed the whistle blower rules to help get rid of Trump, and they changed Impeachment rules as well..... all to suit their needs.
Now doubt, should Democrats win a presidency, they will also attempt to stack the supreme court..... because, again, they always need to change things when they lose.
And now, its getting rid of the E.C. because they lost. Why dont they just try appealing to the needs of the country? Hillary hardly tried at all and Trump out campaigned her while she could barely stand on her own two feet.

BS. If this happened to Trump, he would still be challenging the results and all the anti Hillary people would demand congress get rid of the EC. And as republicans were the majority until 2018, the EC would have been abolished. Trump didn't out campaign anyone if he lost the popular vote. Republicans support Trump because he is stacking the courts. Why do you republicans lie so fucking much?

Nobody changed any rules to get Trump. The motherfucker violated the law as well as broke his oath of office. Republicans don't get to live by a different set of rules and you need to quit believing what a person who has lied over 13,000 times tells you.

Stacking the supreme court? No he hasn't. There are still only 9 Supreme court judges. The Democrats are the ones who were talking about increasing the number to make up for the fact that Trump nominated judges. And no doubt from what I've seen from the Democrats they would certainly do that.

Trump out campaigned Hillary. Her ass was lazy and she didnt make as many road trips. FACT. It cost her in the rust belt. She could have won. Trump violated nothing , other than the opinions of some people. Some people who have been trying to impeach him from the very day he was elected, because they are Washington Elites who want to keep the status quo.
At least Clinton was not impeached until his second term. Whats going on now is bullshit and unheard of. Hillary is a whiney bitch who needs someone to blame for why she lost... all she needs to do is look in the mirror.
Court-packing, Democrats’ nuclear option for the Supreme Court, explained

2020 Dems warm to expanding Supreme Court

As I said, Democrats are all about changing the rules to suit their needs.

Trump is stacking all the courts with right wing judges. That's why democrats are suggesting changes. And I guess denying a president to appoint a justice because liberals would be the majority is OK. Trump lost the popular vote so he didn't out campaign anyone. Clinton should never have been impeached, unless you consider him getting a blow job while working was against company standards. By the same company standards trying to stop and obstruct an investigation is a fireable offense on any job in this country.

What you just posted is what pisses me off about republicans. You're dishonest. Trump has violated laws. Over 900 prosecuting attorneys from both parties didn't sign a letter talking about how Trump obstructed justice because he violated their opinions.

Trump is appointing Justices just as he is supposed to do as president. When The Supreme Court was majority Liberal, you didnt see the Republicans trying to increase the number of seats to balance things out. The Democrats on the other hand started crying immediately and also want to impeach certain judges. Yes, they are the party of changing the rules or changing outcomes into their favor.

Clinton? was it about a blow job? Now you are being dishonest. The impeachment was over violating the civil rights of a certain woman who took him to civil court by lying under testimony. Yes, the lie was about Lewinsky... in itself not a big deal but it was an attempt to escape justice for what he did to a private citizen.

And yes, its just peoples opinions. The transcript said nothing about money, or bribes, or quid pro quo, yet its people like Schiff who make up shit as they go along to help form other peoples opinions.

They are simply the party of "Power at any cost." They are tired of waiting 4 years and 2 years, and have decided to end those delays...... the judicial branch gives them power to make laws without votes, so they will no longer leave that open to debate....

 

[Lakhota]

Presidents should be elected based on national popular votes - not electoral votes based on acreage and just rubber-stamped by partisans!

Popular vote - not acres!

In each state, whichever party garners a majority of popular votes, regardless of how narrow the margin, wins all the electoral votes. By forcing residents in each state ultimately to vote as a block, the system is supposed to ensure that small states' interests are not drowned out by those of larger states.

U.S. Electoral Vote Map

Long past time for this old dinosaur to die! Should be based on people - not acres!

 

[fncceo]

Should be based on people - not acres!

In fact, electoral vote representation is based on population in each state.

 

[justinacolmena]

Popular vote - not acres!

The Electoral College provides for some control by state and district to prevent the election from being stolen by the mob that counts the most ballots for the pro-organized crime candidate in the worst mob towns like Chicago and New York City.

 

[Lakhota]

What's wrong with that?

Presidents should be elected based on people - not acres! People!

 

[westwall]

Presidents should be elected based on people - not acres! People!

Nope. Then you get the tyranny of the mob. No thanks.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Long past time for this old dinosaur to die! Should be based on people - not acres!

/—-/ We would be ruled by Southern California and downstate New York.

 

[Lakhota]

Nope. Then you get the tyranny of the mob. No thanks.

The "tyranny of the mob" is Republicans passing laws to rig the Electoral College to overturn the will of the people. Fact.

 

[justinacolmena]

Nope. Then you get the tyranny of the mob. No thanks.

The Mob that stuffs the ballot boxes the fullest in the biggest cities and counts itself the most votes for the capos and made men.

 

[fncceo]

Presidents should be elected based on people - not acres! People!

Did you just get a new T-Shirt? Did the Che one wear out?

 

[justinacolmena]

Did you just get a new T-Shirt? Did the Che one wear out?

South American Latino? Or Native American without the pride?

 

[Cellblock2429]

The "tyranny of the mob" is Republicans passing laws to rig the Electoral College to overturn the will of the people. Fact.

/——/ So why isn’t Trump in the White House? Bwhahahaha

 

[Lakhota]

The Mob that stuffs the ballot boxes the fullest in the biggest cities and counts itself the most votes for the capos and made men.

What is particularly hilarious is that you NaziCon morons can't provide any proof of such claims - which have been dismissed by all the courts including SCOTUS.