The Electoral College is ripe for reform

How about a compromise of sorts. Recognize that democrats win by gerrymandering, and the suppression of votes. At least be honest. Start by understanding that if you are a citizen, and you meet the requirements of the law, you can vote. Democrats wish to allow non citizens, criminals, et al to vote. why? Speaking of not being able to win hearts of minds, and being propped up by structural weakness. But you do you by dude. Continue to try everything you can to advocate for the US becoming a third world banana republic that you feel will enrich you in the future. IT's what you do.

 

Hillary Clinton made is very clear why the EC is vital. She openly dismissed everyone who didn’t vote for her so she ignored them. Imagine what happens to the people living in areas once a Democrat determines they are not needed anymore? Hillary told us exactly what the Leftist elites really think.

 

glad we agree

 

Under no form of government that I am aware of besides the US are voters actively disenfranchised based solely on their location. Seems like an unfair rule set.

For voting? One vote equals one point. Not “if you are on this side of the line one vote is .67 points and on this side of the line one vote is 1.28 points.

I love when politics are compared to a sports game. Shows the true narrative.

In your scenario, one team would only need to make it to 3rd base while the other needs to make it to home plate. It’s also ironic that you are using an event called the World Series when it’s only played by two countries.

 

I am sure many more women are crying since their bodily autonomy has been stripped and they are now being forced to carry their rapists child to term because of republican religious beliefs.

Almost like some knew what was being planned.

You mentioned you had three grandchildren, would you be cheering so loudly if this happened to them?

 

Funny that when you started losing the argument, you changed the topic. Thanks for proving my initial comment.
By the way, you seem to be under the assumption that I am pro-life.

 

which is precisely and purposely what the founder, framers, and state conventions wanted.

Why don't we just tale a national vote on amendments? Get a million signatures for a proposed amendment, put in up for a national election and vwȁla, one more amendment based on 50.1% of the voters. We might be able to muster an amendment a year this way.

 

There are rules in place. People set their campaign strategy with winning according to those rules in mind. Strategy changes when rules change. We have no way of knowing how it would turn out if popular vote were in fact the rules in place. Such a change in rules would change the calculus drastically.

The World Series is the best of 7 games. The Presidential election is the best of 50 different state election ( obviously with accommodations being made for different sized states). There is nothing nefarious about this, just as there is nothing nefarious about a best of seven World Series. Whomever gets the most runs in the World Series is not the winner any more than the person with the most votes nationally is the winner. Whether or not the loser won one of their games by 15 runs means nothing. It only counts as one win in that best of 7.

You play according to the rules. If the rules change, so does the strategy.

What about this do you find to be so confusing? For you to take the loser according to the rules, and then call them the winner is nonsensical.

 

Don't put a lot of credence of idle musings of a few of the founders. The founders and framers tried for an everlasting Constitution (while allowing for changes but with a tedious and difficult process) because they knew that was the only viable kind. Anything less cannot be called a constitution.

That is not precise but damn close to what the framers deliberately and for good reason constructed. But, it has been frittered away one court ruling at a time until it is now almost non existent, and we are on the road to the end of our democratic republic. Getting rid of the EC moves us one little step closer.

How about voting for the federal regulators who make probably a half or more of the laws all by themselves? Or how about not allowing regulators, nay the federal government, to make all these laws?

 

Is this somehow meant to be rationale???

 

That you cannot understand the difference in the electorate and the governing in 1600 vs 2024 is your issue.
Perhaps a middle school history text would help.

 

I disagree but appreciate your rationale and reasoning (except for the 3/5 rabbit hole you went down which has zero to do with the EC). There have been very few times that a candidate with a minority popular vote was elected president and then by a close margin. Throw out CA and Trump won the popular vote in 49 of the 50 states and the vast majority of counties in 2016.

The basic argument against is the recognition that individuals are emotional, get fiery easily for transient reasons, and often are not as smart as they should be, and there should be a buffer between their fickleness and serious decisions. Hence the only federal people elected directly by the people are the Representatives, and that took some hand wringing at the constitutional convention (but it was agreed there cannot be a democratic republic without at least some direct voting), and why Representatives are elected for only two years.

 

It still seems a non sequitur, but why do you chose 1600 instead of 1789, the first time any electoral college existed (which is what his thread is about, BTW)?

 

I dont see how anyone can take you seriously if you don't vote.

 

One man, one vote.

One woman, one vote.

Anything to add to that is irrelevant to the principle.

"cities and countries' do not vote, people vote.

....[the] fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail.

---Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 22.

 

...[the] fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail.
--Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 22.

The framers NEVER intended on minority rule.

That it has happened twice in the last couple of decades means that the EC is ripe for reform.

At the minimum, we should eliminate 'winner takes all', which allows for unearned electors. All electors should be earned, that is fair.

We can't get rid of the EC because of the constitution, but we can make it more fair, and the NVPIC will do that.

 

Non sequitur. No one is suggesting a one party system.

 

Non sequitur. Off topic.

 

You want 1789?
Sure...
Why the EC?
The elite have been afraid of the people since...FOREVER
That's why the EC elects the president, to keep the riff-raff at bay
The same reason Senators were selected by legislatures.

It's called history.

 

Well. THAT was a mouthful.... Guess you'd better get busy and amend the Constitution to get rid of the Electoral College. Hurry -- you're "burnin' daylight"!

 

Since when are States merely tracts of land?

 

So you are not the one that posted a photo of women crying? I didn’t lose an argument because you didn’t make one.

I noticed that you didn't answer the question.

 

What would be the enforcement mechanism BETWEEN STATES. If one state suddenly decided it didn't like the what the outcome might be and reneged on the "Compact" what enforcement would there be since it would be outside of the Federal Government?

 

We're aware.

Slavery. Like so many things that conservatives support, the EC is a relic of slavery.

The slave states demanded it, along with the 3/5 rule, as a way of giving themselves more influence.

That is what "rural states" meant at the time, slave states.

 

I don’t find any of it to be confusing. I understand the concept. I just don’t agree with it.

In no system is one side purposely handicapped. If your team had any other way to win such as ideas or platform then you too would be pissed at such a miscarriage. Republicans previously were for abolishing the EC until they learned they could not win without it