Americans Still Favor Replacing Electoral College System

Sunday, September 29, 2024

Americans favor amending the Constitution to elect presidents based on the popular vote (58%) rather than keeping the current system ...

Posted by retort at 09:47 PM | 114 COMMENTS | permalink

Comments

The E.C. allows far too much representation for states
with little to no real population. (eg. WY, MT, ND, SD)
Most of these states should have like 1 electoral vote.
Either that, or more populous states need even more votes.
Besides, the E.C. is antiquated and set up in a different age,
when tabulating the vote was a difficult time consuming process.

It is not anymore with the advent of computers/super computers.

Unless you are Georgia, or some other backwater red state trying
to still practice bigotry in the form of restricting black and brown
people's votes, and insisting on 20 hoops to jump through to vote,
and hand tabulations by only 'good Christian southern white folk' (aka racists)...

#1 | Posted by earthmuse at 2024-09-30 06:57 AM

On the other hand, and this is why the far right white nationalists ramped up for Trump, is that in about twenty or so years we whites will be just another minority in America. So getting rid of the Electoral "college" would be opposed by the Trump conspiracy. It would mean the end of the Republican Party and the power of we whites.
Me, I look at the Presidency of Barack Obama, for instance, a very successful Presidency all in all, and I am fine with the American people having as a leader the man and woman who wins the popular vote.

#2 | Posted by Hughmass at 2024-09-30 08:35 AM

@#2 ... It would mean the end of the Republican Party and the power of we whites. ...

I'd word it more as...

It would mean the end of the Republican Party and the power of those who oppose Democracy.

But I'm not so sure about the "end of the Republican Party" aspect. The GOP would still be strong at the state and local level.

#3 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-09-30 12:49 PM

Also, there's this...

... The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among a group of U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential ticket wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The compact is designed to ensure that the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide is elected president, and it would come into effect only when it would guarantee that outcome.[2][3][4]

Introduced in 2006, as of April 2024 it has been adopted by seventeen states and the District of Columbia. These jurisdictions have 209 electoral votes, which is 39% of the Electoral College and 77% of the 270 votes needed to give the compact legal force.

Certain legal questions may affect implementation of the compact. Some legal observers believe states have plenary power to appoint electors as prescribed by the compact; others believe that the compact will require congressional consent under the Constitution's Compact Clause or that the presidential election process cannot be altered except by a constitutional amendment. ...

#4 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-09-30 01:35 PM

Title should read 'liberal democrat Americans .......'

#5 | Posted by MSgt at 2024-09-30 02:22 PM

Title should read 'liberal democrat Americans .......'

#5 | Posted by MSgt

Perhaps you should give a give a good reason that the power of a persons vote should depend on which zip code they live in.

#6 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2024-09-30 02:30 PM

In reference: #5 | Posted by MSgt at 2024-09-30 02:22 PM

A MAGAt supporting the racist Electoral College.

Color me surprised.

MAGAts post and re-post 100% BS because they believe that everyone is as gullible and stupid as they are.

#7 | Posted by Hans at 2024-09-30 02:32 PM

"The E.C. allows far too much representation for states
with little to no real population. (eg. WY, MT, ND, SD)
Most of these states should have like 1 electoral vote."

Don't forget Vermont, New Hampshire, Delaware, and Rhode Island.

The small states kind of cancel each other out.

#8 | Posted by eberly at 2024-09-30 02:38 PM

The small states kind of cancel each other out.

#8 | Posted by eberly a

As if empty large places deserve the same power as crowded small places.

#9 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2024-09-30 02:42 PM

In fact, if you remove California, the winner of the popular vote wins the electoral college.

California and New York skew the results.

With that said, I'm still fine with eliminating the electoral college

#10 | Posted by eberly at 2024-09-30 02:44 PM

rollcall.com

Understand, if you want a popular vote then watch the GOP start spending some actual money in California and New York.

#11 | Posted by eberly at 2024-09-30 02:46 PM

"As if empty large places deserve the same power as crowded small places."

It pisses you off a voter in Montana has the same voting power as someone from Rhode Island? 2 states with very similar populations?

The Montana voter can go ---- himself because Montana has more land than Rhode Island?

#12 | Posted by eberly at 2024-09-30 02:49 PM

You understand it's people who vote.....not the actual land....right?

#13 | Posted by eberly at 2024-09-30 02:49 PM

Well, better get busy drafting an amendment to the Constitution.

#14 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-09-30 04:07 PM

They think the cows can vote.

#15 | Posted by sentinel at 2024-09-30 04:14 PM

"The Electoral College is Affirmative Action for Republicans."

#16 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-09-30 04:34 PM

It pisses you off a voter in Montana has the same voting power as someone from Rhode Island? 2 states with very similar populations?

The Montana voter can go ---- himself because Montana has more land than Rhode Island?

#12 | Posted by eberly

The montana voter has FAR more power because of the undemocratic structure of the senate, where 1 million people in the dakotas get 4 senators and 40 million californians get 2.

#17 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2024-09-30 04:37 PM

" You understand it's people who vote.....not the actual land....right?"

That's a distinction without a difference when you compare how many votes it takes to elect a Senator in Alaska vs how many it takes in California.

#18 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-09-30 04:39 PM

-The montana voter has FAR more power because of the undemocratic structure of the senate

The Montana voter has similar power to a Rhode Island voter.

Which you don't like.

You don't care about democracy....just winning.

#19 | Posted by eberly at 2024-09-30 04:40 PM

heres eberly using his seer stone to ascribe motiives to other people again. badly. pick a new hill to die on.

#20 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2024-09-30 04:42 PM

-That's a distinction without a difference when you compare how many votes it takes to elect a Senator in Alaska vs how many it takes in California.

But a voter in Rhode Island gets the same advantage over the California voter.

What the significance of the land in that comparison?

#21 | Posted by eberly at 2024-09-30 04:44 PM

if you remove California, the winner of the popular vote wins the electoral college.
California and New York skew the results.
#10 | POSTED BY EBERLY

All you gotta do is remove voters and republicans can win?

Brilliant!

That's what republicans have been trying to do all along.

#22 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-09-30 04:46 PM

If we just remove Texas, Republicans would never win again.

#23 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-09-30 04:47 PM

What WY, ND, SD, and MT do to California is what NH, RI, DL, and VT do to Texas.

Right?

#24 | Posted by eberly at 2024-09-30 04:49 PM

-If we just remove Texas, Republicans would never win again.

Nobody is suggesting we remove a state and compare just to win an argument.

My point is that California, and NY skew the results.

I'd like to see an election where both parties campaign in all 50 states for all the votes.

#25 | Posted by eberly at 2024-09-30 04:51 PM

#20 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2024-09-30 04:42 PM | Reply | Flag: wishes he had something to contribute....but has to toss spitwads from a big distance.

#26 | Posted by eberly at 2024-09-30 04:52 PM

" My point is that California, and NY skew the results."

My point is they don't get the proper Electoral Votes. Yes, WY and VT get roughly the same return per vote; it's CA that's getting screwed.

Representatives are 1/200,000 in WY, vs 1/660,000 in CA.

#27 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-09-30 05:00 PM

-Yes, WY and VT get roughly the same return per vote;

If you removed the senate generated electoral votes (take 2 from everyone) and refigure any election the republican won the white house.

You get a different result?

I know the reality of senate representation. no need to discuss that.

#28 | Posted by eberly at 2024-09-30 05:07 PM

My point is that California, and NY skew the results.

Could be your use of the word Skew.

But when American voters vote - regardless of state - they're contributing to the results, they're not skewing anything.

That's like saying voters in Kansas skew the results.

California and New York skew the vote is bullshht republicans say to excuse the fact their policies are generally not popular with Americans.

#29 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-09-30 05:11 PM

-But when American voters vote - regardless of state - they're contributing to the results, they're not skewing anything.

skewing doesn't imply intent....it's just a way to interpret the results.

and skewed results are why we should move to a popular vote.

#30 | Posted by eberly at 2024-09-30 05:15 PM

"Skewing the results" - the way republicans use it - means to cause results to appear higher than they actually are.

That's bullshht.

#31 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-09-30 05:17 PM

-Could be your use of the word Skew.

I can't keep track of everything you want to be offended by.

I'm curious how many conservatives who live in California and New York don't vote because of the electoral college.

I'm sure many red states generate a similar amount of apathy in liberals.

drop the electoral college and many things will happen but the first several things come to mind..

1. Both parties withdraw hundreds of millions of dollars from a few swing states and spend that money elsewhere
2. both parties find new voters who were sitting on their asses because their vote now counts.

sounds much more democratic to me....

#32 | Posted by eberly at 2024-09-30 05:21 PM

You don't care about democracy....just winning.

#19 | Posted by eberly

Let's see which one of us cares about democracy: Should your voting power be determined by where you are born?

#33 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2024-09-30 05:43 PM

I can't keep track of everything you want to be offended by.

I'm trying to help you understand your misuse of the word "skew".

Fine by me if you don't care.

I'm curious how many conservatives who live in California and New York don't vote because of the electoral college.

Not sure how to calculate who doesn't vote or what party affiliation they are.

But in 2020, 6 million Californians voted for Trump.

More than the population of most states.

#34 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-09-30 05:47 PM

Should your voting power be determined by where you are born?

#35 | Posted by eberly at 2024-09-30 05:47 PM

-Let's see which one of us cares about democracy

You're the one on record trying to reduce the power of a vote in Montana because RI has less land mass even though their votes currently count the same.

we both agree voters in California and Texas have less voting power.

#36 | Posted by eberly at 2024-09-30 05:49 PM

Looking on Google. Only 19 states (including California) have a population higher than 6 million.

#37 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-09-30 05:49 PM

-But in 2020, 6 million Californians voted for Trump.

and they didn't count for ----.......are you enjoying their tears?

#38 | Posted by eberly at 2024-09-30 05:51 PM

-Only 19 states (including California) have a population higher than 6 million.

Gee, when you put it that way then that makes it seem like when you include California in with the other states....it may skew the results......

LOL

#39 | Posted by eberly at 2024-09-30 05:54 PM

The EC was an anti-democratic political payoff to the slave states that needs to go away.

#40 | Posted by anton at 2024-09-30 05:58 PM

Should your voting power be determined by where you are born?

#35 | Posted by eberly

Then you oppose the electoral college and the senate representation system.

#41 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2024-09-30 05:58 PM

"I'm sure many red states generate a similar amount of apathy in liberals."

Who cares?

#42 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-09-30 06:02 PM

The EC was never an issue until Democrats started losing. It's never about campaigning more effectively. It's always about trying to change the rules of the game to benefit Democrats. Last time they did that was nuking the filibuster for presidential appointments. Two years later they were crying into their cereal when Trump had a majority in the Senate and no filibuster to stop the likes of Betsy Devon from being appointed.

#43 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-09-30 06:06 PM

The EC was never an issue until ...

Republicans realized they couldn't win a national election without it.

#44 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-09-30 06:11 PM

Gee, when you put it that way then that makes it seem like when you include California in with the other states....it may skew the results......
#39 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Why? Is California the only winner take all state?

What are the number of democratic voters in Texas or Florida?

Seems you don't know what the word "skew" means.

You're repeating republican propaganda.

#45 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-09-30 06:13 PM

The EC was never an issue until Democrats started losing.
#43 | Posted by BellRinger

The EC was never an issue until slavers and traitors insisted they be given undeserved electoral advantage if they rejoined the union.

Because it didn't exist.

#46 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2024-09-30 06:30 PM

-Seems you don't know what the word "skew" means.

LOL

People who work with numbers, obviously, we're not talking about you, use that term all the time

#47 | Posted by eberly at 2024-09-30 06:32 PM

You should look up the word.

Because the numbers in our election aren't skewed.

Again. You're just repeating Republican propaganda without understanding what you're talking about.

#48 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-09-30 06:39 PM

-Then you oppose the electoral college and the senate representation system.

I didn't say anything about the senate system.

What is your solution? Abolish the senate entirely? 1 chamber only?

I'm open to abolishing the EC and move to a popular vote.

#49 | Posted by eberly at 2024-09-30 06:39 PM

-Again. You're just repeating Republican propaganda without understanding what you're talking about.

No I'm not. You're just offended because the words hurt your feelings.

Along with everyone else apparently.

Facts really hurt you

#50 | Posted by eberly at 2024-09-30 06:41 PM

-Who cares?

Republicans who live in California Democrats who live in Texas

I'm sure they'd like to see their vote count more meaningfully in a presidential election.

#51 | Posted by eberly at 2024-09-30 06:42 PM

Facts really hurt you
#50 | POSTED BY EBERLY

What facts have you presented to this discussion?

Btw, those 6 million Californians who voted for Trump are included in the popular vote.

Again. Nothing is skewed.

You've got nothing.

Stop parroting Republican propaganda.

You won't seem as stupid.

#52 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-09-30 07:00 PM

I didn't say anything about the senate system.

It's the same argument: outsized representation for less populated states when calculated on a per capita basis.

#53 | Posted by tonyroma at 2024-09-30 07:05 PM

The EC was never an issue until Democrats started losing.

It became an "issue" the second it was conceived because it denied human beings any right of self determination, instead allowing the owners of said human beings political power they never deserved. The EC is completely anti-democratic in every sense of the word. Only a privileged, blind ignoramus would make such an intellectually vacuous claim.

Why not claim that no one complained about slavery too? It's as ridiculous as your assertion about the EC.

Can you cite one single national election in any other country on Planet Earth where the popular winner can be denied victory because of ancient fealty to an institution built to enshrine unearned political power to those who enslaved other human beings?

That is what you're defending, cretin.

#54 | Posted by tonyroma at 2024-09-30 07:12 PM

What is your solution? Abolish the senate entirely? 1 chamber only?

I'm open to abolishing the EC and move to a popular vote.

#49 | Posted by eberly

Proportion senators allocated via number of citizens in their state.

Or even by the size of the ECONOMY of their state, which would still be lame, but giving political representation based on money would make more sense than giving political representation based on empty land.

#55 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2024-09-30 07:13 PM

I'd like to see every state receive one Senator and then the other 50 would be proportioned based on population.

The whole point of the Senate was that it was supposed to be the more apolitical body of Congress, removed from the electorate's passions of the moment, hence they serve the longest term in all of government, 6 years.

That simply isn't true anymore, the Senate is just as partisanly driven today as the House - maybe a smidge less. Perhaps any reform of the Senate would also include reducing their terms to 4 years with states/regions having more than one, their voters would vote for someone every two years.

#56 | Posted by tonyroma at 2024-09-30 07:32 PM

Angry
Triggered
Offended

#57 | Posted by eberly at 2024-09-30 07:36 PM

You got nothing?

Didn't think so.

#58 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-09-30 07:40 PM

"I'm open to abolishing the EC and move to a popular vote."

That. Will. Never. Happen.

Why?

Just look at this year's EC: Folks are going to ~10 states, including NE and ME.

Nobody would GAF about Maine or Nebraska in a popular vote contest, especially when it's more valuable to run up the score in NY and CA. Instead, we'd see much more legislation designed to benefit larger states.

Also, due to the bastardized version of RROR used in Congress, 9 states (the difference between a majority and a super-majority) would have to voluntarily cede power they currently have.

Too many Constitutional Scholars for that.

#59 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-09-30 08:06 PM

"The EC was never an issue until Democrats started losing."
~Bellringer

Somebody buy that moron a history book.

#60 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-09-30 08:07 PM

@#49 ... I'm open to abolishing the EC and move to a popular vote. ...

So... in favor of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact mentioned in #4?

#61 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-09-30 08:09 PM

"...the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact"

How many "red" states have signed on?

#62 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-09-30 08:11 PM

Here's another reason: Remember Florida in 2000?

A close popular vote would create 100,000 Floridas, since a win might be found in ANY district.

Right now, filing suit in MA or TX is as worthless as a fart in a windstorm.

With the popular vote, the winning (R) vote might be found in the bluest of districts.

#63 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-09-30 08:16 PM

@#62 ... How many "red" states have signed on? ...

My guess, which seems to be mostly confirmed by the map, ... none.

And why have not the red states signed on?

My first guess would be that agreeing to such a proposal for Electoral Votes would eliminate the lop-sided advantage the red states have in the Electoral College.

How far off am I with that guess?

#64 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-09-30 08:23 PM

"How far off am I with that guess?"

Dead-center.

#65 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-09-30 08:32 PM

red states?

"none"

Exactly my point. I can't IMAGINE Texas voting for, say, Obama.

#66 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-09-30 08:38 PM

The goal of the NPVIC is to get states equalling or exceeding 270 electoral votes. At that point, it doesn't matter what other states do because 270 guarantees the popular winner gets the White House.

Now, I'm fully aware that reaching 270 entails getting states which are currently Republican-led to sign on as well. But legislative majorities and governors can and do change, sometimes very swiftly.

#67 | Posted by tonyroma at 2024-09-30 08:42 PM

-So... in favor of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact mentioned in #4?

absolutely not. It's either the popular vote or keep it the same.

That solution will never happen.

#68 | Posted by eberly at 2024-09-30 09:34 PM

-You got nothing?

I got you angry, triggered, and offended.

which was not my intention.

grow up.

#69 | Posted by eberly at 2024-09-30 09:36 PM

keep it the same.

That's pretty much what you are stuck with.

#70 | Posted by REDIAL at 2024-09-30 09:37 PM

-That. Will. Never. Happen.

of course not.

I'm just entertaining the kids and their fantasies.

#71 | Posted by eberly at 2024-09-30 09:38 PM

Art Tatum - Have You Met Miss Jones? (1956)
www.youtube.com

Mr Tatum is one of the best pianists I've listened to.

And then there is Ben Webster's sax entering into the song. How Mr Webster conveys such emotion in his playing is amazing.

Wow, two great musicians ...

#72 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-09-30 10:00 PM

I got you angry, triggered, and offended.
#69 | POSTED BY EBERLY

You keep telling yourself that.

Hope it helps you feel better about your misconception.

#73 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-09-30 10:14 PM

@#69 ... I got you angry, triggered, and offended.

which was not my intention. ...

Or was it?

Based upon the participation of your alias in various threads here, that seems to be an intent.

Not contributing to a discussion, but more trying to trigger replies.

Arguing for the sake of arguing.

And that's why I've have mostly stopped replying to the comments your alias posts.

Yeah, I'll reply here and there when a comment of your alias seems to be egregiously inane (something that seems to be occurring more frequently of late. Why?)

But, for the most part, the comments your alias posts seem to be little more than nasal dribble nowadays.

Such a change from those of a few months ago when it was actually enjoyable to joust with your alias on a topic. Indeed, I once complimented your alias for its discussions.

Oh well, I guess we all move one from our past ...

#74 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-09-30 11:15 PM

"Arguing for the sake of arguing."

#74 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER AT 2024-09-30 11:15 PM | FLAG:

You've got that right. I can't always be on these threads day in and day out like the rest of you guys, but I dropped in to see Eberly had taken over this thread with inane, repetitive comments that seem to intentionally misrepresent others' views.

#75 | Posted by cbob at 2024-10-01 06:22 AM

It is patently ridiculous that presidents only have to campaign and pay attention to a few swing states. In fact, most counties within states are pretty much pre determined as to vote distribution. It all comes down to a few counties.

Our country, nay the world, depends on the votes of 20,000 idiots

#76 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-10-01 07:33 AM

I see some people are still pushing the myth/outright lie that the EC was linked to slavery. If you have to resort to such propaganda, it shows how shaky your arguments are.

#77 | Posted by sentinel at 2024-10-01 07:40 AM

Sentinel is here to rehabilitate the Electoral College.

#78 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2024-10-01 07:45 AM

I see some people are still pushing the myth/outright lie that the EC was linked to slavery. If you have to resort to such propaganda, it shows how shaky your arguments are.

Of course, the Framers had a number of other reasons to engineer the Electoral College. Fearful that the president might fall victim to a host of civic vices - that he could become susceptible to corruption or cronyism, sow disunity, or exercise overreach - the men sought to constrain executive power consistent with constitutional principles such as federalism and checks and balances.

When the idea of a popular vote was raised, they griped openly that it could result in too much democracy. With few objections, they quickly dispensed with the notion that the people might choose their leader.

But delegates from the slaveholding South had another rationale for opposing the direct election method, and they had no qualms about articulating it: Doing so would be to their disadvantage. Even James Madison, who professed a theoretical commitment to popular democracy, succumbed to the realities of the situation. The future president acknowledged that "the people at large was in his opinion the fittest" to select the chief executive. And yet, in the same breath, he captured the sentiment of the South in the most "diplomatic" terms:

"There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections."

Behind Madison's statement were the stark facts: The populations in the North and South were approximately equal, but roughly one-third of those living in the South were held in -------. Because of its considerable, nonvoting slave population, that region would have less clout under a popular-vote system. The ultimate solution was an indirect method of choosing the president, one that could leverage the three-fifths compromise, the Faustian bargain they'd already made to determine how congressional seats would be apportioned. With about 93 percent of the country's slaves toiling in just five southern states, that region was the undoubted beneficiary of the compromise, increasing the size of the South's congressional delegation by 42 percent. When the time came to agree on a system for choosing the president, it was all too easy for the delegates to resort to the three-fifths compromise as the foundation. The peculiar system that emerged was the Electoral College.

www.brennancenter.org

Jesus, Sentinel is a friggin idiot of epic proportions. How long did it take to show just how historically ignorant and supremacist apologizing he really is? So, James Madison was spouting 'propaganda' stunod? Just stop, please.

#79 | Posted by tonyroma at 2024-10-01 08:17 AM

Further:

If the system's pro-slavery tilt was not overwhelmingly obvious when the Constitution was ratified, it quickly became so. For 32 of the Constitution's first 36 years, a white slaveholding Virginian occupied the presidency.

Southerner Thomas Jefferson, for example, won the election of 1800-01 against Northerner John Adams in a race where the slavery-skew of the electoral college was the decisive margin of victory: without the extra electoral college votes generated by slavery, the mostly southern states that supported Jefferson would not have sufficed to give him a majority. As pointed observers remarked at the time, Thomas Jefferson metaphorically rode into the executive mansion on the backs of slaves.

The 1796 contest between Adams and Jefferson had featured an even sharper division between northern states and southern states. Thus, at the time the Twelfth Amendment tinkered with the Electoral College system rather than tossing it, the system's pro-slavery bias was hardly a secret. Indeed, in the floor debate over the amendment in late 1803, Massachusetts Congressman Samuel Thatcher complained that "The representation of slaves adds thirteen members to this House in the present Congress, and eighteen Electors of President and Vice President at the next election." But Thatcher's complaint went unredressed. Once again, the North caved to the South by refusing to insist on direct national election.

In light of this more complete (if less flattering) account of the electoral college in the late 18th and early 19th century, Americans should ask themselves whether we want to maintain this odd - dare I say peculiar? - institution in the 21st century.

time.com

How can any sentient person look at the results of the EC and not see that it was a direct link to slavery and proportioning outsized, undeserved political power to slave holding states over all others? This isn't arguable because it's settled history - proven by contemporaneous statements of those involved in the politics that enshrined the EC.

#80 | Posted by tonyroma at 2024-10-01 08:27 AM

#5 | Posted by MSgt
Perhaps you should give a give a good reason that the power of a persons vote should depend on which zip code they live in.

Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2024-09-30 02:30 PM | Reply |

Well because it favors the sh*thole candidates he votes for.

#81 | Posted by Nixon at 2024-10-01 08:57 AM

"And that's why I've have mostly stopped replying to the comments your alias posts."

No, it isn't. You don't respond to me because I don't give you an angle to argue with me.

And you can't do on this subject either.

You just stumble in with your "your alias" cute little schtick.

You (sorry, I meant your alias) post a lot of thoughtworthy and relevant posts and you'll see me post on those threads.

I'll leave it at that.

CBOB, did I post any lies or distortions or push something not true?

#82 | Posted by eberly at 2024-10-01 09:05 AM

"inane, repetitive comments that seem to intentionally misrepresent others' views."

you poor thing.

#83 | Posted by eberly at 2024-10-01 09:06 AM

-Not contributing to a discussion, but more trying to trigger replies.

You little pansy.

On THIS thread, I agree with getting rid of the EC. Not defending it.

Clown argues I'm trying to push GOP talking points.....which isn't what I'm doing and you 100% know it.

The person NOT contributing (other than your alias for the moment) was Clown by calling others stupid, dumb, etc.

Geez......get your head out of your ---

#84 | Posted by eberly at 2024-10-01 09:34 AM

"The EC was never an issue until slavers and traitors insisted they be given undeserved electoral advantage if they rejoined the union.
Because it didn't exist."

Someone is hallucinating here.

#85 | Posted by sentinel at 2024-10-01 09:37 AM

THAT is the reason to drop the EC

#86 | Posted by eberly at 2024-10-01 09:48 AM

In my many years I've lived in a swing state (in a very red district) for 1 presidential election 1988

Every other election I've lived in deep blue districts and states my vote has never counted

Btw if we get rid of the EC voter participation will probably increase. You know cause the votes will matter

#87 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-10-01 10:04 AM

Screw revamping the electoral college. The fact that all the most important aspects of our civilization's operation are hidden, manipulated and obfuscated by the powerful makes a joke of the very idea of democracy in the first place.

How can people be educated enough to know what government policies to vote for if they can't even clearly discern those policies?

How can people know what to vote for when everything about their understanding of the world is being actively distorted for the benefit of the powerful?

The very nature of our most sacred institutions is hidden from us, and that includes not only our government institutions but the political, media, corporate and financial institutions which control so much of our society. Their nature is hidden not only by a complete lack of transparency but by things like mass media propaganda, internet censorship and algorithm manipulation, and the fact that the most amplified voices in our society just so happen to be those who more or less support the narrow spectrum discourse of the status quo.

#88 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2024-10-01 11:17 AM

We would have a handful of states always controlling the election results which would be grossly unfair to some other states.

United States is a collection of states where every state should have representation.

#89 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2024-10-01 12:05 PM

There's always going to have to be a compromise. In a pure democracy, there would be no elected representatives. Every law and every executive and judicial decision would be subject to a popular vote. That is definitely possible with today's technology.

#90 | Posted by sentinel at 2024-10-01 12:23 PM

"There's always going to have to be a compromise. In a pure democracy, there would be no elected representatives. Every law and every executive and judicial decision would be subject to a popular vote. That is definitely possible with today's technology."

Thanks for the civics lesson but no one wants such a pure democracy but we do wan a representative democracy where the word "one man, one vote" mean something. every popular vote cast should have the same ekectoral importance as every other popular vote and the our elected law makers could do their jobs as intended without the unfairness of the electoral Collrge wgich was designed to make slave states able to prevent an end to slavery.

#91 | Posted by danni at 2024-10-01 12:47 PM

Sen,

You mean let people with no legal training or experience vote based on "feelings"?

You got to be kidding.....

THAT'S why our system of government exists. To keep wacky opinions like yours from running the country.

#92 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2024-10-01 12:47 PM

Danni,

You are failing to understand the US is a coalition of states.

Not mob rule.

#93 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2024-10-01 12:49 PM

Sen was correct about compromise though.

#94 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2024-10-01 12:50 PM

"You are failing to understand the US is a coalition of states." - #93 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2024-10-01 12:49 PM

Live in the now ...

"Before the war, it was said the United States are'"grammatically it was spoken that way and thought of as a collection of independent states. And after the war it was always the United States is,' as we say today without being self-conscious at all. And that sums up what the war accomplished. It made us an is.' - Shelby Foote, on the American Civil War

Yep.

Live in the now.

#95 | Posted by Hans at 2024-10-01 01:03 PM

In a pure democracy, there would be no elected representatives. Every law and every executive and judicial decision would be subject to a popular vote.

We don't live in a pure democracy and no one is advocating that we should. We live in a representative democracy where every other elected official from the local school board to U.S. Senators are elected by the popular vote of their constituencies, period, full stop.

The rationale of the Founders is no longer operative when most citizens have access to whatever information they chose to consume right in the palm of their hands.

THAT'S why our system of government exists. To keep wacky opinions like yours from running the country.

AGAIN, Silly Billy, every single election in America - but for the country's presidency and vice presidency - are determined by the popular vote total, which most certainly include voters and candidates with what you'd consider 'wacky opinions'. Such opinions are tempered by the overall diversity of the electorate and its ability to elect representatives who coalesce a majority or strong plurality in their support from which they then govern from or represent.

Not mob rule.

Do you consider every single election in America outside of the Presidency representative of 'mob rule'? Think before you answer, for if you answer in the affirmative, then every elected politician in America only holds their offices due to what you call 'mob rule.' Do you advocate we should abandon all elections not weighted by an EC-type construct? Then why wasn't this in the Constitution itself, especially for other federal elections?

It's amazing how little you understand of American government at every level.

#96 | Posted by tonyroma at 2024-10-01 01:24 PM

The EC is not going anywhere.

If we did it the liberals way, the only states that would matter would be NY and CA, where most of the people are. When you talk about getting rid of the EC, you are really speaking on silencing the conservative vote so it cant interfere with liberal plans.

The U.S. isnt a mob democracy. If it was, there would be nothing to "change" for liberals. Thats why they ALWAYS run on "change".

I dont want NY or CA making policy for me. We arent the same. And my vote deserves to count as much as a crowded cities vote.

#97 | Posted by boaz at 2024-10-01 01:55 PM

I dont want NY or CA making policy for me. We arent the same. And my vote deserves to count as much as a crowded cities vote.

#97 | Posted by boaz

Yes your vote should count THE SAME as everyone else's. Not MORE.

Why is it unfair for dems to make policy for you, but not unfair for you to make policy for dems?

#98 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2024-10-01 02:13 PM

What policy is that?
Give a few examples. Or just one.

#99 | Posted by YAV at 2024-10-01 02:21 PM

Why is it unfair for dems to make policy for you, but not unfair for you to make policy for dems?

Boaz is of the opinion that if Democrats win an election, minority Republicans should dictate policy. On the other hand, if Republicans win a election, majority Republicans should dictate policy.

#100 | Posted by REDIAL at 2024-10-01 02:22 PM

#100 - sure sound like it.

Perhaps he thinks that anyone that doesn't believe like him should move out of the state he lives in or just deal with living under what he deems is the proper way to be, act, live. What he never understood is that you can't protect freedom for one group at the expense of another. You protect ALL groups. You just can't count on always being the one "in power" making the rules. That is the entire reason behind this nation's creation.

That's the fundamental reason for Freedom of Speech for all.
That's the why being separation of Church and State.
This is why we don't have a national or state religion.
It's why there should be no prayer in school, no 10 commandments, and why sex education should be truthful, accurate, and mandatory unless a parent says otherwise.
It is also why ALL rights should be granted to CITIZENS of the United States, and not by a state. We don't have "state citizenship." No one should have different rights based on where they live.

This is basic Civics 101 stuff.

#101 | Posted by YAV at 2024-10-01 02:30 PM

Abraham Lincoln probably wouldn't have been elected without the EC. He only got about 39% of the popular vote the first time he ran, but the electoral votes gave him a decisive win.

#102 | Posted by sentinel at 2024-10-01 03:17 PM

In the 10 presidential elections I have voted in, my vote counted exactly 1x.

#103 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-10-01 03:24 PM

False

#104 | Posted by THEBULL at 2024-10-01 03:50 PM

False

#104 | Posted by THEBULL

Well I'm convinced. A trumper says it's false and they are experts on truth.

#105 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2024-10-01 04:29 PM

"In the 10 presidential elections I have voted in, my vote counted exactly 1x."

How exactly did it count that one time? Was it the time the person you voted for won? Anyone can claim their vote "didn't count" if it failed to sway the election, but that's BS just like saying votes for 3td party don't count.

The fact of the matter is that the elections are run by the states, and every vote counts directly at the state level.

#106 | Posted by sentinel at 2024-10-01 05:09 PM

If so many 'want it' then it should be easy to eliminate it, as all they have to do is amend the US Constitution, easy to do, right?

'Amendments may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate; or by a convention to propose amendments called by Congress at the request of two-thirds of the state legislatures. To become part of the Constitution, an amendment must then be ratified by either"as determined by Congress"the legislatures of three-quarters of the states or by ratifying conventions conducted in three-quarters of the states, a process utilized only once thus far in American history with the 1933 ratification of the Twenty-First Amendment. The vote of each state (to either ratify or reject a proposed amendment) carries equal weight, regardless of a state's population or length of time in the Union.'

#107 | Posted by MSgt at 2024-10-01 05:16 PM

IMHO, the Founding Fathers had the right idea about not mostly disenfranchising rural States, but came up with a really lousy unfair solution. And if I had a better solution, I would share it with all of you.

The South and the Confederacy managed to come up with an even worse solution than the EC, so there is that.

#108 | Posted by moder8 at 2024-10-01 05:24 PM

Sen,
You mean let people with no legal training or experience vote based on "feelings"?
You got to be kidding.....
THAT'S why our system of government exists. To keep wacky opinions like yours from running the country.
#92 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2024-10-01 12:47 PM

Is there an inexpensive class on voting that would provide "experience or training"?

Maybe something single mom's who need that child tax credit can study so they feel included.

Do you want all voting materials to be strictly in English too?

Isn't removing the vote another way to eliminate what constitutes full citizenship?

Which lawyers do you personally trust to vote in your interests?

#109 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2024-10-01 06:29 PM

Red,

"Is there an inexpensive class on voting that would provide "experience or training"?"

You're taking my post out of context.

Sentinel wrote, "In a pure democracy, there would be no elected representatives. Every law and every executive and judicial decision would be subject to a popular vote."

That's what I was responding to when I said "you've got to be kidding"

#110 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2024-10-01 06:55 PM

Is that not pure democracy?

#111 | Posted by sentinel at 2024-10-01 07:31 PM

Sen,

"Is that not pure democracy?"

No...it's pure fantasy.

Even families don't function that way.

If someone isn't running the household, there's always negotiations at a minimum "I'll vote with you if you do this or that for me".

The idea of a culture operating by "pure democracy" would fail due to everyone voting in their own best interest with the least amount of responsibility.

#112 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2024-10-01 08:23 PM

If you follow Democrat political elites they obviously hate whites because they are scheming haters and racists at their core. They hate Americans while absurdly accusing them of racism when they know they are not.

Take note Democrats scream about putting down average people because their party is strangely obsessed with identity and false racism as they have no real policy. For 75 years or more Democrats and members of their sister group KKK ridiculously accuse others of what they are. They use falsities such as the Electoral College. Most Americans are tired of their persistent whining fretting and complaining. Do something productive instead of crying.....please!

#113 | Posted by Robson at 2024-10-01 08:32 PM

"Even families don't function that way."

Don't be a knucklehead, Bill. No one ever said families were democratic.

#114 | Posted by sentinel at 2024-10-02 07:16 AM

Drudge Retort Headlines

This Is Post-Roe America (173 comments)

Central Park 5 Sue Trump for Defamation (71 comments)

U.S. Infant Deaths Rose After Fall of Roe v. Wade (59 comments)

Harris Leads Trump 2-1 Among the Earliest Voters (36 comments)

Trump Talking About Arnold Palmer's Private Parts is Just Weird (36 comments)

Guardrails Will Avert Manipulation of Election Outcome (30 comments)

McDonald's Donald Trump Worked at Failed Last Health Inspection (29 comments)

Trump Calls Judge 'evil' for Releasing Files Before Election (24 comments)