Walz says abolish the Electoral College

[Curried Goats]

The Simps are all on your side M14 Shooter. You're a collection of people who are happy to be conquered so long as the Constitution says its ok. I'd find that amusing too.

 

[marvin martian]

No. We just believe the person who receives the most votes from citizens should win.

No you don't.

 

[Curried Goats]

No you don't.

That's what the popular vote does dummy.

 

[para bellum]

It counts when it comes to getting Trump over the popular vote hump. If we get that and an EC win, it just solidifies his victory.

Well the popular vote doesn't decide anything so it's not really significant other than in some emotional way. We are a republic and the electoral college is the system, and campaigns are organized around that system of electing the President. If the popular vote meant anything, campaigns would be organized to win that vote.

I'm trying to look at the context of voter participation, and how allocating EV's by district might affect that. We are a 60% turnout country. 4 out of 10 voters don't bother. There are blue voters in blue states that sit it out because they know their side will win. There are red voters in blue states that sit it out because they know their side will lose. And vice-versa. Winner-take-all yields predetermined outcomes in most states, based on the urban/rural breakdown, and the national election is decided in 6 or 7 states.

I'm leaning to the view that allocating EV's by district would change that because every voter would know that their own district would count. And I think it would change campaigns, because candidates would have to spend more time outside the big cities, since the rural districts' EV's would no longer be allocated by the urban voters.

I hear liberals whining about Wyoming voters having more say than California voters, but whose votes really count? It is the voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, Arizona, and North Carolina who will decide the next President, not the voters in Wyoming or California.

The rest of us are observers. We can give ourselves participation trophies, but the voters in those swing States are the ones with the deciding votes, and we all know it in advance...

 

[martybegan]

Well the popular vote doesn't decide anything so it's not really significant other than in some emotional way. We are a republic and the electoral college is the system, and campaigns are organized around that system of electing the President. If the popular vote meant anything, campaigns would be organized to win that vote.

I'm trying to look at the context of voter participation, and how allocating EV's by district might affect that. We are a 60% turnout country. 4 out of 10 voters don't bother. There are blue voters in blue states that sit it out because they know their side will win. There are red voters in blue states that sit it out because they know their side will lose. And vice-versa. Winner-take-all yields predetermined outcomes in most states, based on the urban/rural breakdown, and the national election is decided in 6 or 7 states.

I'm leaning to the view that allocating EV's by district would change that because every voter would know that their own district would count. And I think it would change campaigns, because candidates would have to spend more time outside the big cities, since the rural districts' EV's would no longer be allocated by the urban voters.

I hear liberals whining about Wyoming voters having more say than California voters, but whose votes really count? It is the voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, Arizona, and North Carolina who will decide the next President, not the voters in Wyoming or California.

The rest of us are observers. We can give ourselves participation trophies, but the voters in those swing States are the ones with the deciding votes, and we all know it in advance...

Winning the popular vote removes from play "THE PEOPLE WANTED HARRIS" as a rallying cry for violence if Trump wins.

 

[Nostra]

Your lack of a counter argument and reliance on name calling is obvious.

You made no argument to counter, goat blower.

 

[para bellum]

There's a very easy way to handle it. I already explained it to you. The States have already ratified the 14th amendment. We just need to pack the court with Justices who are of the opinion that it renders the electoral college unconstitutional.

LMAO.

Can you explain to me how something that is mandated by the Constitution can be ruled "unconstitutional"?

 

[Nostra]

Except that's not fact. That's you imagining to tell the future like you're cosplaying as Ms. Cleo. The fact that you're such a moron that you don't know what a fact is is ******* hilarious. You people need a better debate strategy than feigning stupidity because it's becoming a rather convincing argument.

Only America hating far left lunatics like you want to trash the EC, so it will never happen, Simp.

 

[para bellum]

Winning the popular vote removes from play "THE PEOPLE WANTED HARRIS" as a rallying cry for violence if Trump wins.

Yes, that is the predictable reaction, but they know how the contest is run as well as we do.

What they fail to grasp is that it's the winner-take-all allocation that is responsible for their "wasted votes" in California and New York and Illinois, not the electoral college itself. They can win by huge margins in California, but it just means their side won by more votes than were needed to win the State...

 

[Curried Goats]

LMAO.

Can you explain to me how something that is mandated by the Constitution can be ruled "unconstitutional"?

By constitutional amendment dummy. Just like how the original constitution said Senators were chosen by Legislatures in the State House and the 17th amendment changed it to a popular vote. Provisions in the constitution can be found unconstitutional by provisions that come after. The 14th amendment came after the ratification of the constitution which established electors as the means of determining President. All we need are a majority of Justice who find that the equal protection clause renders the electoral college unconstitutional.

 

[struth]

Slavers didn't make this the greatest country, black civil rights heroes did that. When you drop the fantasy maybe you'd recognize how uninviting the America the Founders and even segregationists like Lincoln, helped create. Simp.

They certainly helped, good Christian leaders, like Rev King, that actually quoted our founders often, and found the dem party back for civil rights

Americans made this the greatest country on earth.

 

[Curried Goats]

They certainly helped, good Christian leaders, like Rev King, that actually quoted our founders often, and found the dem party back for civil rights

Americans made this the greatest country on earth.

Slavers aren't good Christians, dumb dumb.

 

[para bellum]

By constitutional amendment dummy. Just like how the original constitution said Senators were chosen by Legislatures in the State House and the 17th amendment changed it to a popular vote. Provisions in the constitution can be found unconstitutional by provisions that come after. The 14th amendment came after the ratification of the constitution which established electors as the means of determining President. All we need are a majority of Justice who find that the equal protection clause renders the electoral college unconstitutional.

Haha, so it's not so easy that you just need to pack the court after all?

You don't need the Supreme Court to amend the Constitution, you just need the Congress to propose the amendment and have it ratified by 3/4 of the States.

Or you can get 34 States to call a convention if the Congress does not want to propose your amendment- either way will work.

The SCOTUS had no part in the 17th amendment, and the 14th Amendment does NOT override Article II Section 1. "Equal protection of the laws" does not mean the law is invalid for all.

Article II Section 1 leaves it up to each State how they allocate their electors. If you want to change that, then get your amendment going so that you can either abolish the EC, or pass an amendment that takes the allocation of EV's away from the States.

The SCOTUS can't help you with that, you need an Article V process, and good luck convincing 38 States to disenfranchise themselves from the Presidential election...

 

[M14 Shooter]

Haha, so it's not so easy that you just need to pack the court after all?

You don't need the Supreme Court to amend the Constitution, you just need the Congress to propose the amendment and have it ratified by 3/4 of the States.

Or you can get 34 States to call a convention if the Congress does not want to propose your amendment- either way will work.

The SCOTUS had no part in the 17th amendment, and the 14th Amendment does NOT override Article II Section 1. "Equal protection of the laws" does not mean the law is invalid for all.

Article II Section 1 leaves it up to each State how they allocate their electors. If you want to change that, then get your amendment going so that you can either abolish the EC, or pass an amendment that takes the allocation of EV's away from the States.

The SCOTUS can't help you with that, you need an Article V process, and good luck convincing 38 States to disenfranchise themselves from the Presidential election...

What he said.
Cope and seethe..

 

[Nostra]

By constitutional amendment dummy. Just like how the original constitution said Senators were chosen by Legislatures in the State House and the 17th amendment changed it to a popular vote. Provisions in the constitution can be found unconstitutional by provisions that come after. The 14th amendment came after the ratification of the constitution which established electors as the means of determining President. All we need are a majority of Justice who find that the equal protection clause renders the electoral college unconstitutional.

So you want a body that has zippo to do with Constitutional amendments to rule that something in the Constitution is unconstitutional?

Good luck with that, idiot.

 

[para bellum]

All we need are a majority of Justice who find that the equal protection clause renders the electoral college unconstitutional.

The Constitution, by definition, cannot be unconstitutional. This is pure cognitive dissonance on your part.

Amendments do what they are named- they amend the constitution. That means they change it in some way. If the 14th amendment abolished the EC, it would say so, and that would abolish the EC.

Section II of the 14th recognizes the EC, and it punishes a State if they disenfranchise a citizen, by taking away representation of that State in the EC, at a level proportional to the disenfranchisement.

It is clearly NOT abolishing the EC.

 

[Curried Goats]

Haha, so it's not so easy that you just need to pack the court after all?

You don't need the Supreme Court to amend the Constitution, you just need the Congress to propose the amendment and have it ratified by 3/4 of the States.

Or you can get 34 States to call a convention if the Congress does not want to propose your amendment- either way will work.

The SCOTUS had no part in the 17th amendment, and the 14th Amendment does NOT override Article II Section 1. "Equal protection of the laws" does not mean the law is invalid for all.

Article II Section 1 leaves it up to each State how they allocate their electors. If you want to change that, then get your amendment going so that you can either abolish the EC, or pass an amendment that takes the allocation of EV's away from the States.

The SCOTUS can't help you with that, you need an Article V process, and good luck convincing 38 States to disenfranchise themselves from the Presidential election...

You seem to think your opinion is the only opinion that matters but what matters is the opinion of the people who sit in power. This Republican majority Supreme Court just interpreted presidential immunity for official acts. The Supreme Court can interpret the Constitution any way it wants.

 

[Nostra]

You seem to think your opinion is the only opinion that matters but what matters is the opinion of the people who sit in power. This Republican majority Supreme Court just interpreted presidential immunity for official acts. The Supreme Court can interpret the Constitution any way it wants.

They can't rewrite the Constitution, simp.

 

[Curried Goats]

So you want a body that has zippo to do with Constitutional amendments to rule that something in the Constitution is unconstitutional?

Good luck with that, idiot.

The Supreme Court is the final say in what the Constitution says.

 

[Curried Goats]

They can't rewrite the Constitution, simp.

They don't have to. They can just interpret it in a way that suits them, Simp.