60
   

Let's get rid of the Electoral College

 
 
BillW
 
  3  
Reply Tue 9 Mar, 2021 11:05 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Id feel better if they jut would vote to do away with the "winner take all" assignment of electors.
That would make every state more representative of a "one man, one vote" set-up.

I think the President should be elected by national popular vote. HofR is by district/state, Senator by state then President should be by nation.

The way the district and states gets into the Presidential election is via the nomination elections. Maybe even have two rounds of nominations. First round include everybody by party. Second round include only top 3 or 4 vote getters by party. This 2 fold system would hopefully eliminate theRumps of the world!

The final round of the election would include the top vote getter of each party. The winner on a national basis gets to be POTUS. First election in January, 2nd in June and 3rd in middle of December (get rid of most of that stupid lame duck period). President takes office on January 5th for a 6 year term.
BillW
 
  3  
Reply Tue 9 Mar, 2021 11:29 pm
@BillW,
Leave the Senate terms the same at 6 years but revote half every 3 years (instead of 1/3 every w years). Make HofR revote everyone every 3 years.
I think time is much shorter today than it was in 1776.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  5  
Reply Tue 9 Mar, 2021 11:42 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:

When you raise the issue of my intelligence
I dont bring up your SB score, YOU DO. Everyone else here merely responds in kind.
You are a fraud, a stupid wanker and someone who is least able to analyze abstractly.
Region Philbis
 
  2  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2021 04:12 am
@farmerman,

if you stop talking to him, maybe he'll go away...
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2021 04:28 am
@Region Philbis,
If progressives stopped talking that would result in all sorts of improvements to the world.

But if that happens I'll still be happy to discuss facts and reality with normal people.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2021 04:32 am
@BillW,
BillW wrote:
That's a major part of the definition of a fool, not knowing one is one.

Do you need help with a mirror there or do you think you might be able to figure out how to use it on your own?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2021 04:33 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
I dont bring up your SB score, YOU DO. Everyone else here merely responds in kind.

Liar.

Using this thread as the most recent example, you started resorting to lying about me in this post:
https://able2know.org/topic/125928-47#post-7111347

You expanded your lies to cover my mathematical abilities in this post:
https://able2know.org/topic/125928-47#post-7111790

And you expanded your lies to cover my overall mental abilities in this post:
https://able2know.org/topic/125928-48#post-7112435


farmerman wrote:
You are a fraud,

Liar. I actually provide cites on request to back up my positions.

You're the one who can't back up anything that he says and resorts to lies and name-calling instead.


farmerman wrote:
a stupid wanker and someone who is least able to analyze abstractly.

Liar. My IQ is 170. You and BillW are the only stupid people present.
farmerman
 
  5  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2021 06:44 am
@oralloy,
SO, lemme see if I can understand what youre trying to peddle.
1You say something really vapid (Like winner take all is NOT voter disenfranchisement), and THEN ,
2 I call attention by saying that youve just made a stupid remark

3. TO which you assert that Im bringing up youre self-proclaimed IQ? ,


Ya know, I think, besides acquiring math skills, becoming waay more creative, and learning more history, I think you need help in handling your ass backwards self -esteem problem. You seem to be using an SB test to hide behind and avoid any actual debate.

Superiority complexes are really inferiority complexes turned upside down.

I know youll post some seriatim Bullshit and I will herein and hereon, ignore your masturbatory assertions

izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2021 06:49 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

I will herein and hereon, ignore your masturbatory assertions


Thank **** for that.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2021 07:23 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
1You say something really vapid (Like winner take all is NOT voter disenfranchisement),

On the off chance that you are interested in getting back on topic and not talking about me: What is vapid about it? It's a true statement.


farmerman wrote:
2 I call attention by saying that youve just made a stupid remark

Incorrect. You tend to make untrue comments about other posters, and not address their remarks at all.


farmerman wrote:
3. TO which you assert that Im bringing up youre self-proclaimed IQ?

When you start talking about how intelligent other people are, you are indeed bringing up the subject of their intelligence.


farmerman wrote:
Ya know, I think, besides acquiring math skills, becoming waay more creative, and learning more history, I think you need help in handling your ass backwards self -esteem problem.

My math, history, and self esteem are just fine.

Notice that it is again you who brought up the subject of my capabilities?


farmerman wrote:
Superiority complexes are really inferiority complexes turned upside down.

I'm not the one who keep diverting the subject to my capabilities.


farmerman wrote:
I know youll post some seriatim Bullshit

You know very well that I stick to facts and reality.


farmerman wrote:
your masturbatory assertions

Again, these are subject that you are bringing up.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2021 09:26 am
@BillW,
I believe the Electoral College must be retained , otherwise we would have to make a major Constitutional Amendment drive converting our Rep Govt away from Democratic Republic. Im satisfied with the Republic concept. Im jut annoyed at the way the EC has been fiddled with. "Winner take all " strips the loser of any states plurality of ANY electors.
Im including Calif . The GOP has glued themselves to the "WTA" means of selecting electors.

It would do away with these key states that often win an election for a popular vote LOSER (Like Trump).
In reqlity, it would turn our presidential elections into as close to a popular vote without having to overhaul our entire Constitution.
Frank Apisa
 
  4  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2021 10:07 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

I believe the Electoral College must be retained , otherwise we would have to make a major Constitutional Amendment drive converting our Rep Govt away from Democratic Republic. Im satisfied with the Republic concept. Im jut annoyed at the way the EC has been fiddled with. "Winner take all " strips the loser of any states plurality of ANY electors.
Im including Calif . The GOP has glued themselves to the "WTA" means of selecting electors.

It would do away with these key states that often win an election for a popular vote LOSER (Like Trump).

In reqlity, it would turn our presidential elections into as close to a popular vote without having to overhaul our entire Constitution.


I think getting any kind of change is a long shot, but it seems that changing the "winner take all" feature has the best shot of happening.

The notion that the Republican candidate was still in play although being 7,000,000 votes behind should disgust anyone who champions the notion of democracy...which seems to eliminate a huge segment of the Republican Party.

Quite frankly, I am more worried by the fact that a state like Wyoming (population less than 600,000) has 2 senators representing its people...and a state like California (population almost 40,000,000) has only 2.

That also should disgust anyone who champions the notion of democracy.

In any case, an attempt by the Democrats to right this wrong SHOULD be made while they have any fire-power whatever. At least an attempt to rectify it should be made.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2021 01:08 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Im jut annoyed at the way the EC has been fiddled with.

Your term "fiddled with" is curious. They had to select one of the available means of deciding the winner when the vote is counted.


farmerman wrote:
"Winner take all" strips the loser of any states plurality of ANY electors.
Im including Calif.

Agreed.


farmerman wrote:
The GOP has glued themselves to the "WTA" means of selecting electors.

That's not necessarily the case. But it does seem likely that they will resist change if no one can present a good reason for that change.


farmerman wrote:
It would do away with these key states that often win an election for a popular vote LOSER (Like Trump).

Expanding the battleground to many more states will not necessarily result in an alignment with the popular vote.


farmerman wrote:
In reality, it would turn our presidential elections into as close to a popular vote without having to overhaul our entire Constitution.

Claim dismissed for lack of evidence or supporting argument.

Let me know if you ever manage to come up with a claim that you can support.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2021 01:09 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
I think getting any kind of change is a long shot, but it seems that changing the "winner take all" feature has the best shot of happening.

True. That's because each state is free to choose the method by which they will decide the winners of their elections.


Frank Apisa wrote:
The notion that the Republican candidate was still in play although being 7,000,000 votes behind should disgust anyone who champions the notion of democracy...

Not really.


Frank Apisa wrote:
which seems to eliminate a huge segment of the Republican Party.

The only party with a recent history of disenfranchising voters is the Democratic Party.


Frank Apisa wrote:
Quite frankly, I am more worried by the fact that a state like Wyoming (population less than 600,000) has 2 senators representing its people...and a state like California (population almost 40,000,000) has only 2.

Why should size deprive Wyoming of their voice in the federal government?


Frank Apisa wrote:
That also should disgust anyone who champions the notion of democracy.

Not really.


Frank Apisa wrote:
In any case, an attempt by the Democrats to right this wrong SHOULD be made while they have any fire-power whatever. At least an attempt to rectify it should be made.

The only "wrong" that I can see in your post is your call to deny small states a say in the federal government.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2021 03:22 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Its the desire for "one prson, one vote". Winnr take all just dumps that into an ash bin.
Most of the mutants of the Trumpy crowd know thi but insist on making voter suppression , gerrymndering, and disenfranchisement as the only ways they can possibly win.
The GOP has been caught now with the Ga bill. I hope the USSC comes down on that, if not, we are heading for a GOP driven fascist state.
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2021 03:31 pm
@farmerman,
I would hate to see the electors open this issue up for changes. In the end it would just be voted down because it would require to much unity to pass (2/3 and 3/4 vote requirements). And the amount of concessions that would have to be allowed would water some things down and open up other evils.

I already know all this and totally agree with you! I was just brain farting what I would like to see in today's world as compared to the 1776 world.
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2021 03:51 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Its the desire for "one prson, one vote". Winnr take all just dumps that into an ash bin.
Most of the mutants of the Trumpy crowd know thi but insist on making voter suppression , gerrymndering, and disenfranchisement as the only ways they can possibly win.
The GOP has been caught now with the Ga bill. I hope the USSC comes down on that, if not, we are heading for a GOP driven fascist state.


My guess is that the SCOTUS will come down on those new laws, FM. I expect a lower court will nullify them...and the SCOTUS will refuse to hear a challenge.

They are such bullshit, I cannot understand how anyone with any integrity at all can propose or vote for them.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2021 06:05 pm
@BillW,
not really. Winner take All is not a Constitutional Provision. Its been enacted by the several states. There are still 3 states that practice proportional selection of electors
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2021 06:14 pm
@farmerman,
That reminds me that part of the electoral process is determined by the state. OK, there is Maine, Nebraska and who? Iowa? If so, Texas use to be also.

I never said it was a "really" situation, BTW. But, if you want to make it that way so you can "correct" me, go ahead - make your day!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 04/14/2021 at 06:11:02