The Electoral College

longknife

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2012
Messages
42,221
Reaction score
13,046
Points
2,250
Location
Sin City
First thing first – Hillary DID NOT win a majority of the vote! And, to be fair, neither did Trump. Think about it.

And then this:

But even if states were to adopt this reform (states allocating electors based on the popular vote) on their own, while it would smooth over the one-person, one-vote problem, it would only amplify the majority-rule problem. Creating a system in which the Electoral College better mirrors the popular vote only increases the probability that no presidential candidate received a majority of Electoral College votes.

So, there's a big possibility that in this 2016 election, no one could win a majority of the electoral college votes. We wouldn't have a president!

See more at: The Electoral College: We Can’t Live with It; We Can’t Live Without It - Online Library of Law & Liberty
 

BuckToothMoron

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2016
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
1,758
Points
290
First thing first – Hillary DID NOT win a majority of the vote! And, to be fair, neither did Trump. Think about it.

And then this:

But even if states were to adopt this reform (states allocating electors based on the popular vote) on their own, while it would smooth over the one-person, one-vote problem, it would only amplify the majority-rule problem. Creating a system in which the Electoral College better mirrors the popular vote only increases the probability that no presidential candidate received a majority of Electoral College votes.

So, there's a big possibility that in this 2016 election, no one could win a majority of the electoral college votes. We wouldn't have a president!

See more at: The Electoral College: We Can’t Live with It; We Can’t Live Without It - Online Library of Law & Liberty
The states which allocate their electoral votes based on the popular vote are minimized, especially the smaller ones. The canidates ignored certain states. Usually, as in Trump and California , because they know they will not win the majority of votes, so why bother, because he will get no electoral votes. But other states like Nebraska and Maine were ignored because there is not much to win. A state with 9 electoral votes which is all or nothing offers a bigger reward for winning the state. Colorado considered the allocation of electoral votes, but since they didn't, the canidates spent a lot of time there and gave the people of Colorado a voice. I would love for New York and California to allocate rather than be all or nothing, because I am a Republican.
 

BuckToothMoron

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2016
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
1,758
Points
290
First thing first – Hillary DID NOT win a majority of the vote! And, to be fair, neither did Trump. Think about it.

And then this:

But even if states were to adopt this reform (states allocating electors based on the popular vote) on their own, while it would smooth over the one-person, one-vote problem, it would only amplify the majority-rule problem. Creating a system in which the Electoral College better mirrors the popular vote only increases the probability that no presidential candidate received a majority of Electoral College votes.

So, there's a big possibility that in this 2016 election, no one could win a majority of the electoral college votes. We wouldn't have a president!

See more at: The Electoral College: We Can’t Live with It; We Can’t Live Without It - Online Library of Law & Liberty
The states which allocate their electoral votes based on the popular vote are minimized, especially the smaller ones. The canidates ignored certain states. Usually, as in Trump and California , because they know they will not win the majority of votes, so why bother, because he will get no electoral votes. But other states like Nebraska and Maine were ignored because there is not much to win. A state with 9 electoral votes which is all or nothing offers a bigger reward for winning the state. Colorado considered the allocation of electoral votes, but since they didn't, the canidates spent a lot of time there and gave the people of Colorado a voice. I would love for New York and California to allocate rather than be all or nothing, because I am a Republican.
Correction, I am a conservative registered unaffiliated, but generally vote Republican.
 

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,298
Reaction score
3,300
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
First thing first – Hillary DID NOT win a majority of the vote! And, to be fair, neither did Trump. Think about it.

And then this:

But even if states were to adopt this reform (states allocating electors based on the popular vote) on their own, while it would smooth over the one-person, one-vote problem, it would only amplify the majority-rule problem. Creating a system in which the Electoral College better mirrors the popular vote only increases the probability that no presidential candidate received a majority of Electoral College votes.

So, there's a big possibility that in this 2016 election, no one could win a majority of the electoral college votes. We wouldn't have a president!

See more at: The Electoral College: We Can’t Live with It; We Can’t Live Without It - Online Library of Law & Liberty
The states which allocate their electoral votes based on the popular vote are minimized, especially the smaller ones. The canidates ignored certain states. Usually, as in Trump and California , because they know they will not win the majority of votes, so why bother, because he will get no electoral votes. But other states like Nebraska and Maine were ignored because there is not much to win. A state with 9 electoral votes which is all or nothing offers a bigger reward for winning the state. Colorado considered the allocation of electoral votes, but since they didn't, the canidates spent a lot of time there and gave the people of Colorado a voice. I would love for New York and California to allocate rather than be all or nothing, because I am a Republican.
Thanks BuckToothMoron
[is that reference to "Trump" a typo for "Texas"?]

I can't find a map or CHART that lists how many DISTRICTS in CA were actually Red or DISTRICTS in TX were Blue. I'd like to count these for NY, IL, FL and PA also, since these have the most Electoral Votes.

Would Trump still beat Clinton if the top states allocated their votes? [2 for the winner of the state overall, and 1 Vote for the winner in each District of each state]
 

SwimExpert

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
16,247
Reaction score
1,674
Points
280
First thing first – Hillary DID NOT win a majority of the vote! And, to be fair, neither did Trump. Think about it.

And then this:

But even if states were to adopt this reform (states allocating electors based on the popular vote) on their own, while it would smooth over the one-person, one-vote problem, it would only amplify the majority-rule problem. Creating a system in which the Electoral College better mirrors the popular vote only increases the probability that no presidential candidate received a majority of Electoral College votes.

So, there's a big possibility that in this 2016 election, no one could win a majority of the electoral college votes. We wouldn't have a president!

See more at: The Electoral College: We Can’t Live with It; We Can’t Live Without It - Online Library of Law & Liberty
Popular plurality elections. That's what needs to happen. Plain and simple. Anything less is support for a system that was built to protect slavery and disenfranchisement. Period.
 

BuckToothMoron

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2016
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
1,758
Points
290
First thing first – Hillary DID NOT win a majority of the vote! And, to be fair, neither did Trump. Think about it.

And then this:

But even if states were to adopt this reform (states allocating electors based on the popular vote) on their own, while it would smooth over the one-person, one-vote problem, it would only amplify the majority-rule problem. Creating a system in which the Electoral College better mirrors the popular vote only increases the probability that no presidential candidate received a majority of Electoral College votes.

So, there's a big possibility that in this 2016 election, no one could win a majority of the electoral college votes. We wouldn't have a president!

See more at: The Electoral College: We Can’t Live with It; We Can’t Live Without It - Online Library of Law & Liberty
Popular plurality elections. That's what needs to happen. Plain and simple. Anything less is support for a system that was built to protect slavery and disenfranchisement. Period.
Have you read anything about what the framers said about pure democracy and why they feared it? Educate yourself and then get back to us.
Why Our Founders Feared a Democracy

There has been a historical writing floating around for a number of years on principles that were well known to our founders, which is:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: "From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage." (Emphasis added) http://www.democrats.com/node/807
 

SwimExpert

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
16,247
Reaction score
1,674
Points
280
First thing first – Hillary DID NOT win a majority of the vote! And, to be fair, neither did Trump. Think about it.

And then this:

But even if states were to adopt this reform (states allocating electors based on the popular vote) on their own, while it would smooth over the one-person, one-vote problem, it would only amplify the majority-rule problem. Creating a system in which the Electoral College better mirrors the popular vote only increases the probability that no presidential candidate received a majority of Electoral College votes.

So, there's a big possibility that in this 2016 election, no one could win a majority of the electoral college votes. We wouldn't have a president!

See more at: The Electoral College: We Can’t Live with It; We Can’t Live Without It - Online Library of Law & Liberty
Popular plurality elections. That's what needs to happen. Plain and simple. Anything less is support for a system that was built to protect slavery and disenfranchisement. Period.
Have you read anything about what the framers said about pure democracy and why they feared it? Educate yourself and then get back to us.
Why Our Founders Feared a Democracy

There has been a historical writing floating around for a number of years on principles that were well known to our founders, which is:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: "From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage." (Emphasis added) http://www.democrats.com/node/807
Moron, I've already addressed this in a thread I started a few days ago. James Madison's records of the convention prove that the only reason popular election by the people was rejected by the Framers was because southern states wouldn't allow a consensus, due to slavery and disenfranchisement in the south.
 

BuckToothMoron

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2016
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
1,758
Points
290
First thing first – Hillary DID NOT win a majority of the vote! And, to be fair, neither did Trump. Think about it.

And then this:

But even if states were to adopt this reform (states allocating electors based on the popular vote) on their own, while it would smooth over the one-person, one-vote problem, it would only amplify the majority-rule problem. Creating a system in which the Electoral College better mirrors the popular vote only increases the probability that no presidential candidate received a majority of Electoral College votes.

So, there's a big possibility that in this 2016 election, no one could win a majority of the electoral college votes. We wouldn't have a president!

See more at: The Electoral College: We Can’t Live with It; We Can’t Live Without It - Online Library of Law & Liberty
Popular plurality elections. That's what needs to happen. Plain and simple. Anything less is support for a system that was built to protect slavery and disenfranchisement. Period.
Have you read anything about what the framers said about pure democracy and why they feared it? Educate yourself and then get back to us.
Why Our Founders Feared a Democracy

There has been a historical writing floating around for a number of years on principles that were well known to our founders, which is:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: "From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage." (Emphasis added) http://www.democrats.com/node/807
Moron, I've already addressed this in a thread I started a few days ago. James Madison's records of the convention prove that the only reason popular election by the people was rejected by the Framers was because southern states wouldn't allow a consensus, due to slavery and disenfranchisement in the south.
Sorry Swimmer boi- I don't follow all your postings, and that is in fact untrue. The framers never wanted strict popular vote for pres. I assume you didn't bother reading the link I provided, and noticed you didn't provide one to support your erroneous claim. As is typical with many Libs, your mind is made up so you can't be bothered with the facts. You must be living a blissful life.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top