USA's Electoral College isn't likely to ever be replaced by a national popularity election.

[LeftofLeft]

Because the rich control the system AND they control the minds of the easily manipulated.

"You don't like Proportional Representation" "NO, WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT IT IS, YOU DIDN'T TELL US AND WE DON'T CARE. FEED US"

Do you know how many Democrats are rich?

 

[RhodyPatriot]

USA's Electoral College isn't likely to ever be replaced by a national popularity election.

Electoral College is part of our constitutional compromise; it's unlikely to ever be replaced with other than some compensating provisions for the lesser populated states while such states remain to be no less than a third of USA's states.
Respectfully,Supposn

But the Dems will keep on trying.

Because they hate the answer Ben Franklin gave outside the Philadelphia Convention:

"A Republic, if we can keep it".

 

[frigidweirdo]

Do you know how many Democrats are rich?

What's your point?

 

[OKTexas]

I'd rather see us fix a "system" that incentivizes and rewards the worst impulses of its participants.

Term limits, publicly-funded elections, ranked choice voting. Get the money out of politics.

If we don't fix the system, we're bending over for it.

Screw ranked choice voting, there are no mulligans in the voting booth. Term limits, see article 5, USSC. Money, see the 1st Amendment. And screw publicly funded elections, I don't want one mili-cent of my money going to a commiecrat.

.

 

[OKTexas]

When the NPV is approved, the Electoral College will lose its current power.

It will never be approved, it's unconstitutional.

.

 

[scruffy]

maybe not, but at least the Electors should be assigned proportionally. The winner take all system in most states completely disenfranchise one side except in the "battleground" states.

It's designed that way.

And it works.

Checks and balances.

 

[candycorn]

maybe not, but at least the Electors should be assigned proportionally. The winner take all system in most states completely disenfranchise one side except in the "battleground" states.

How would you do it?

For example, if a state has 10 electoral votes, and someone gets 60% of the popular vote and the other candidate gets 40%, one gets 6 and the other gets 4? Or would you do it by congressional district balloting? We already know the districts are heavily gerrymandered. So it's possible to get the majority of the votes but not win the majority of congressional districts.

In either case, what do you do with the few thousand who don't vote for either a Democrat or Republican? Aren't they disenfranchised? If your goal is to eliminate disenfranchisement...it doesn't completely work--proportionally awarding electors.

 

[candycorn]

When the NPV is approved, the Electoral College will lose its current power.

It will never happen.

 

[justoffal]

USA's Electoral College isn't likely to ever be replaced by a national popularity election.

Electoral College is part of our constitutional compromise; it's unlikely to ever be replaced with other than some compensating provisions for the lesser populated states while such states remain to be no less than a third of USA's states.
Respectfully,Supposn

It would disenfranchise 80 percent of the states actually.

 

[candycorn]

USA's Electoral College isn't likely to ever be replaced by a national popularity election.

Electoral College is part of our constitutional compromise; it's unlikely to ever be replaced with other than some compensating provisions for the lesser populated states while such states remain to be no less than a third of USA's states.
Respectfully,Supposn

We should strengthen the Electoral College...keep the requirement to get to 270. BUT...also make the president elect get the plurality of the nationwide popular vote. If not, the 12th amendment (I think it is) takes over.

 

[22lcidw]

How would you do it?

For example, if a state has 10 electoral votes, and someone gets 60% of the popular vote and the other candidate gets 40%, one gets 6 and the other gets 4? Or would you do it by congressional district balloting? We already know the districts are heavily gerrymandered. So it's possible to get the majority of the votes but not win the majority of congressional districts.

View attachment 951820

In either case, what do you do with the few thousand who don't vote for either a Democrat or Republican? Aren't they disenfranchised? If your goal is to eliminate disenfranchisement...it doesn't completely work--proportionally awarding electors.

Whenever I watch entertainment now, I envision men and women who are extremist progs wearing Nazi or Soviet Union uniforms to the stage and putting on the clothes they wear for the show. So even if they do American war films, they are really on the other side.

 

[candycorn]

Whenever I watch entertainment now, I envision men and women who are extremist progs wearing Nazi or Soviet Union uniforms to the stage and putting on the clothes they wear for the show. So even if they do American war films, they are really on the other side.

Yeah, Don Lemon looks like a nazi...they were all black right?

You're a moron.

 

[22lcidw]

Yeah, Don Lemon looks like a nazi...they were all black right?

You're a moron.

Don Lemon should never have been on TV. And I am speaking of people who do movies and TV shows of the same. Tom Hanks doing Private Ryan means nothing if he is a communist.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

It will never happen.

It needs nine more states. It's constitutionality has already been ruled on.

 

[candycorn]

It needs nine more states. It's constitutionality has already been ruled on.

It will never happen.

It is like the GOP voting to replace Obamacare; they screamed about it for 8 years but the moment they could do it...they realized they couldn’t go through with it. The NPV is a non-starter.

 

[candycorn]

Don Lemon should never have been on TV. And I am speaking of people who do movies and TV shows of the same. Tom Hanks doing Private Ryan means nothing if he is a communist.

You shouldn’t be anywhere near sharp objects. You’re a moron.

 

[AsherN]

How would you do it?

For example, if a state has 10 electoral votes, and someone gets 60% of the popular vote and the other candidate gets 40%, one gets 6 and the other gets 4? Or would you do it by congressional district balloting? We already know the districts are heavily gerrymandered. So it's possible to get the majority of the votes but not win the majority of congressional districts.

View attachment 951820

In either case, what do you do with the few thousand who don't vote for either a Democrat or Republican? Aren't they disenfranchised? If your goal is to eliminate disenfranchisement...it doesn't completely work--proportionally awarding electors.

Nothing will completely work. But right now, it just doesn't work. In heavy Red or Blue Staes, it's almost pointless. That's why the election always comes down to a handful of the same States.

 

[candycorn]

Nothing will completely work. But right now, it just doesn't work. In heavy Red or Blue Staes, it's almost pointless. That's why the election always comes down to a handful of the same States.

Okay, again, how would you proportion the electors?

 

[Independent thinker]

USA's Electoral College isn't likely to ever be replaced by a national popularity election.

Electoral College is part of our constitutional compromise; it's unlikely to ever be replaced with other than some compensating provisions for the lesser populated states while such states remain to be no less than a third of USA's states.
Respectfully,Supposn

It is there for a reason. People in Wyoming and other small states don't need Californians and New Yorkers deciding who the president will be and these small states not having any say at all.

 

[Billiejeens]

The day will come that the ONLY election in this country to be determined by anything but the will of the people will be ended.

That leaves you out