Let's get rid of the Electoral College

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

The 40,000,000 voters of California should be counted individually as should the 600,000 voters of Wyoming.

They are counted individually, when votes are tallied to determine which candidate wins that state's electoral votes.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

Baldimo wrote:

You don't want any sort of fairness, you want leftist control of the govt. That sort of overwhelming control is exactly why the EC was put into place and why we don't use the popular vote for the presidential election. Why would people in my state of CO bother to vote if NY, CA will dominate the elections? But that's exactly what you want, not fairness but control.

That about sums it up perfectly.

If the elections were ending up with the Republicans getting more votes...but winning because of the Electoral College...

...people like you would be going ape, McG.

The only reason you think this to be fair...is because it helps the conservatives.

The MORON, Trump, actually wanted to change the Electoral College. He claimed it was working against the Republicans just after he was elected.

The MORON was correct that the EC is unfair...but the MORON was seeing it unfair in the wrong direction.

He should have asked the GOP to start a movement to end the EC because it was unfair to them. I'll bet that would have gone far!

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Quote:

The EC was created well before those states were added to the country, so there was no "cheating" with the creation of the EC.

I'm well aware of that. The example was to show how it can be used in a shameless manner to thwart the choice of the voters and that the GOP has done this before.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

If the elections were ending up with the Republicans getting more votes...but winning because of the Electoral College...
...people like you would be going ape, McG.

No. Conservatives don't throw tantrums when they lose. Only progressives act that way.

Frank Apisa wrote:

The only reason you think this to be fair...is because it helps the conservatives.

It has more to do with the reality that it is perfectly fair.

If you want to reduce the discrepancy between large and small states, that can be substantially reduced without harming the Electoral College. Just pass the Apportionment Amendment and most of the discrepancy will vanish.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Baldimo...California...is a land mass. It doesn't get to vote. Humans get to vote.

This is a pointless throw away line developed by the left as some form of argument against the EC, but it doesn't mean anything. The only people concerned with the size of a state are those against the EC and consider the middle of the country to be "fly over".

Quote:

The 40,000,000 voters of California should be counted individually as should the 600,000 voters of Wyoming.

40 million voters? You sure about that? CA shows they have about 24 million voters. Also there has never been and individual vote for President, it's always been done by the EC.

Quote:

Try to think this through on a more dynamic level. You'll get it.

There is nothing dynamic about what you are doing, you are trying to cheat the Constitution because you know you don't have the votes to change the Constitution.

Quote:

If things were fair (one person/one vote)...California would have over 200 votes in the Electoral College.

Why are you so concenred with a state that only votes blue? How about those counties in southern CA that vote for the GOP, their votes don't count now and would count even less in a straight vote system. Like I said, you are not concerned with fairness, you are concerned with how you can get the left into control of the US. That's all that matter to you.

Quote:

And in fairness to you, you apparently do not grasp the concept I am attempting to share, because you do not understand fairness.

Nothing you have posted here has to do with fairness, you are concerned with leftist control of the US and changing the voting system to make that happen. When you lose you accuse the other side of cheating and then you try to change the rules to favor your weak points and win elections.

1 Reply

@hightor,

Quote:

I'm well aware of that. The example was to show how it can be used in a shameless manner to thwart the choice of the voters and that the GOP has done this before.

It's weak and has no bearing on the discussion at hand. It's the left who is trying to change the election laws to benefit their candidates, so they can cheat the Constitution.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

The states have a;ready cheated the Constitution with a "winner take all" policy. Thats all the facts you need understand. Otherwise youre part of the moron squad headed by pinky and "Einstein"

2 Replies

@Baldimo,

Quote:

There is no provision for the popular vote in the Constitution

Nor i there a provision for "Winner Take All" genius.
Youre trying to make an argument cobbled from total bullshit partisanship.

The EC method in effect today is unfairly distributed and you know it and are just trying to sound like you know what youre talking of(PS, youre hed is up your cloaca)

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

The EC method in effect today is unfairly distributed

Has the method changed? When did it change, and how?

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

Quote:

In fact the FF spoke directly against any such device to elect the President, hence the invention fo the EC. They spoke out against mob rule as you very well know but deny

The Federalist Papers is the only place where its memorialized and that document is just a manifesto, its NOT CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY.
We operate un der a hybrid system that tries to incorporate EC and popular vote (and its totally fucked up)> Why not look it up and tell us what you find about when the hybrid voting system was emplaced. I already told you about the date of "Winner take all EC votes"

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

Quote:
Baldimo...California...is a land mass. It doesn't get to vote. Humans get to vote.

This is a pointless throw away line developed by the left as some form of argument against the EC, but it doesn't mean anything. The only people concerned with the size of a state are those against the EC and consider the middle of the country to be "fly over".

It is not a pointless "throw away" line...it is a reasonable, cogent argument line.

Quote:

Quote:
The 40,000,000 voters of California should be counted individually as should the 600,000 voters of Wyoming.

40 million voters? You sure about that? CA shows they have about 24 million voters. Also there has never been and individual vote for President, it's always been done by the EC.

I screwed up there. I was wrong. You are correct. My bad. For both states.

Those are population numbers...not voter numbers. But the EC is determined partly by population numbers...not voter numbers.

And the vote of every voter should be counted.

Quote:

Quote:
Try to think this through on a more dynamic level. You'll get it.

There is nothing dynamic about what you are doing, you are trying to cheat the Constitution because you know you don't have the votes to change the Constitution.

I do know that...and acknowledge it. The Electoral College has almost no chances of being changed right now. There are too many Republican conservatives being served by the absurdity of the system.

Quote:

Quote:
If things were fair (one person/one vote)...California would have over 200 votes in the Electoral College.

Why are you so concenred with a state that only votes blue? How about those counties in southern CA that vote for the GOP, their votes don't count now and would count even less in a straight vote system. Like I said, you are not concerned with fairness, you are concerned with how you can get the left into control of the US. That's all that matter to you.

I care about Red States also. Texas is a Red State. It has 29,000,000 people...and 38 Electoral votes. If it had 3 votes for every 600,000 people like Wyoming does...it would have 145 votes. California and Texas have 4 senators representing their almost 70,000,000 citizens. That is one senator for every 17.5 million people. Wyoming has 2 senators for 600,000 people. If you cannot see the injustice of that...perhaps this is not the thread for you. There are several dealing with movies or songs you might look at.

Quote:

Quote:
And in fairness to you, you apparently do not grasp the concept I am attempting to share, because you do not understand fairness.

Nothing you have posted here has to do with fairness, you are concerned with leftist control of the US and changing the voting system to make that happen. When you lose you accuse the other side of cheating and then you try to change the rules to favor your weak points and win elections.

Give it a break, Baldimo.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Otherwise youre part of the moron squad headed by pinky and "Einstein"

Who leads the name calling squad? I bet you are the water boy. You have some questions about the EC to answer. When did it change, and how did it change?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

The Federalist Papers is the only place where its memorialized and that document is just a manifesto, its NOT CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY.

You are right, it isn't Constitutional Authority, but it tells you exactly what the intentions of the founders were and why they believed what they did. They can't be ignored when debating the purpose of the Constitution.

Quote:

We operate un der a hybrid system that tries to incorporate EC and popular vote (and its totally fucked up)>

No, we do not operate under a hybrid system. We operate under a Representative Republic and only use a direct democracy at our local level. Anything larger than a city or county and it is done by representative govt. In fact large cities don't usually have any direct votes on anything. CO is the only state I can think of where all tax increases must be voted on by the people and not the legislature.

Quote:

Why not look it up and tell us what you find about when the hybrid voting system was emplaced. I already told you about the date of "Winner take all EC votes"

You told me a date but you provided no other info. When I did a search for this, it came back to the Missouri Compromise and then points to some election regulations. Why don't you provide some actual proof of what you are claiming.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Quote:

Why don't you provide some actual proof of what you are claiming.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

It is not a pointless "throw away" line...it is a reasonable, cogent argument line.

No, it's a pointless line that means nothing. Land doesn't vote...It's not based on land size, it's based on the population of the state. If it had to do with land mass, Tx and Alaska would have the most EC votes. So, yes, it's a throw away line that means nothing.

It's like when AOC was driving through corn country and started making stupid comments about "Look at all these voters"... stupid line.

Quote:

Those are population numbers...not voter numbers. But the EC is determined partly by population numbers...not voter numbers.

Parly? How about completely, the only EC votes not determined by population are done by Senate seats, in which every state has 2 Senators. So where do you get partly, how else are EC votes determined? Is there some other secret formula only the leftists know about?

Quote:

And the vote of every voter should be counted.

The problem with this is that EC population isn't done by the voter population, it's done by the total population, which I don't agree with. It should only be based on US citizens since only US citizens can vote.

Quote:

I do know that...and acknowledge it. The Electoral College has almost no chances of being changed right now.

Or ever, the votes and support isn't there. That's why those Dem states won't put the Compact vote to a public vote, it would lose as well.

Quote:

I care about Red States also. Texas is a Red State. It has 29,000,000 people...and 38 Electoral votes. If it had 3 votes for every 600,000 people like Wyoming does...it would have 145 votes. California and Texas have 4 senators representing their almost 70,000,000 citizens. That is one senator for every 17.5 million people. Wyoming has 2 senators for 600,000 people. If you cannot see the injustice of that...perhaps this is not the thread for you. There are several dealing with movies or songs you might look at.

So you change how the reps are given out, you don't change the EC. You would have a better chance of getting Reps added, but the left won't do that, they would lose seats because of more people having more options. That's another reason why you want the EC gone.

Quote:

Give it a break, Baldimo.

Look at the left's reaction since the 2016 election and you have your answer. They proclaimed Trump wouldn't accept the election results and then spent the last 4 years screaming about the election results and trying to change how the election works. They have even recommended that 16 year olds should get to vote... that's a sign of desperation on the left.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

Quote:
It is not a pointless "throw away" line...it is a reasonable, cogent argument line.

No, it's a pointless line that means nothing. Land doesn't vote...It's not based on land size, it's based on the population of the state. If it had to do with land mass, Tx and Alaska would have the most EC votes. So, yes, it's a throw away line that means nothing.

It's like when AOC was driving through corn country and started making stupid comments about "Look at all these voters"... stupid line.

Quote:
Those are population numbers...not voter numbers. But the EC is determined partly by population numbers...not voter numbers.

Parly? How about completely, the only EC votes not determined by population are done by Senate seats, in which every state has 2 Senators. So where do you get partly, how else are EC votes determined? Is there some other secret formula only the leftists know about?

Quote:
And the vote of every voter should be counted.

The problem with this is that EC population isn't done by the voter population, it's done by the total population, which I don't agree with. It should only be based on US citizens since only US citizens can vote.

Quote:
I do know that...and acknowledge it. The Electoral College has almost no chances of being changed right now.

Or ever, the votes and support isn't there. That's why those Dem states won't put the Compact vote to a public vote, it would lose as well.

Quote:
I care about Red States also. Texas is a Red State. It has 29,000,000 people...and 38 Electoral votes. If it had 3 votes for every 600,000 people like Wyoming does...it would have 145 votes. California and Texas have 4 senators representing their almost 70,000,000 citizens. That is one senator for every 17.5 million people. Wyoming has 2 senators for 600,000 people. If you cannot see the injustice of that...perhaps this is not the thread for you. There are several dealing with movies or songs you might look at.

So you change how the reps are given out, you don't change the EC. You would have a better chance of getting Reps added, but the left won't do that, they would lose seats because of more people having more options. That's another reason why you want the EC gone.

Quote:
Give it a break, Baldimo.

Look at the left's reaction since the 2016 election and you have your answer. They proclaimed Trump wouldn't accept the election results and then spent the last 4 years screaming about the election results and trying to change how the election works. They have even recommended that 16 year olds should get to vote... that's a sign of desperation on the left.

There is no getting through to you...so I won't even try further.

You...and your kind...are on the way out. I think we will finally be rid of you because of Trump.

Good. Not only our nation...but the whole of humanity will be the better for erosion of the right wing. We will become world leaders again...and lead the world in humanity's rejection of right wing idiocy.

My guess is we will be generous in welcoming you guys back to humanity when you finally realize you've burnt out.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank, I am concerned about your idea of what our government does and how it works.

The United States of America is a single country made up of 50 individual states. Those states are pretty sovereign within their boundaries. They have their own laws, their own governments and they are elected in a true Democratic method of using the popular vote. Basically, what is legal in New York may be illegal in Pennsylvania or vice versa.

You get that, I am sure. Right?

Our founding fathers knew that if we stayed a collection of individual states with each state doing its own thing that we would be under the yoke of British rule forever. However, if we had a single government that was representative of all the states we could combine certain things and get an independent nation with a federal government that had an executive elected by the states to run the Federal government.

Did you get that last part? The Executive is elected by the states, NOT the people. Earlier you said that California was just a landmass, but California has specific boundaries that make it a state and that state has a specific population that is polled every 10 years. Based on the population count, the Constitution says

Quote:

Article I, Section II of the Constitution says that each state shall have at least one U.S. Representative, while the total size of a state's delegation to the House depends on its population. The number of Representatives also cannot be greater than one for every thirty thousand people.

That means more populous states get more Representatives in the House of Representatives. But, that is hardly fair! That would mean that the big states decide EVERYTHING!!! That is why the Senate has 2 representatives from every state. So every state has an equal say in how things are done! Balance.

Still with me Frank? I hope so as this a too much typing for you to just ignore.

The electoral college equals the number of representatives plus the number of Senators and allows each state to have a number of votes to elect the Executive branch of the Federal government. Bigger states get more votes as they have more representatives. This all goes back to states being basically sovereign. Each state has it's own way of doing things and what you want is to have the Federal Government tell the states how to run their states!

No offense, but no ******* way will a single state get away with that ****. Please stop trying to tell the states that you know better than they do.

I am a Federalist far more than a Republican. I believe in states rights and a small Federal government doing only what the Federal government should be doing.

Does all this make sense Frank? I'd love to keep an adult conversation going about it if you, or Farmerman or anyone else would like to continue.

3 Replies

@McGentrix,

How are your federalist states doing with the virus? Not so good I am afraid. We need the federal government to take a hand in this problem. Perhaps after Trump is driven from government?

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

RABEL222 wrote:

How are your federalist states doing with the virus? Not so good I am afraid. We need the federal government to take a hand in this problem. Perhaps after Trump is driven from government?

You mean YOU need the Federal government to hold your hand. All 50 states have the ability to do the same thing the Federal government can do.

If you don't like the way that your state is doing things, you are free to move or vote for people that will run things the way you want them run.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

That's pretty much what I've been saying...

1 Reply

Let's get rid of the Electoral College

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know