Over 80% of Democrats recognize the flaws in the Electoral College and support abolishing it in favor of a National Popular Vote.

[Nickyjo]

LOL Duh. Of course the dems hate the EC ever since their chosen POTUS Hillary was defeated.

Get real. Concerns about it arose before then. (And remember, Hilary actually lost the popular vote because of 3 million fraudulent votes cast in 2016. You can look up the report of the commission established to demonstrate the frau… wait! You say there was no report? The commission disbanded without writing one?

Seriously the EC is undemocratic, giving a slight or significant advantage to smaller ovulated states. But it is not nearly as bad as the Senate, however. Nevertheless, that’s why conservatives want to keep it. My concerns about a purely popular vote are that it might simply create an all TV ads presidential race, possibly making money even more of a factor.

 

[ralfy]

Countries that follow the U.S. system, like the Philippines, has that, and more: a national popular vote for the President but based on plurality, a separate vote for the VP (which means the VP may come from a rival party), a Senate based on a national vote, too (they don't represent any provinces; rather, the top 12 candidates based on votes are elected), the Lower House that's similar to that of the U.S. but with a set number of seats for a partylist system, and only one six-year term allowed for the Pres. and VP., although I think any can run for another position.

 

[PoS]

Get real. Concerns about it arose before then. (And remember, Hilary actually lost the popular vote because of 3 million fraudulent votes cast in 2016. You can look up the report of the commission established to demonstrate the frau… wait! You say there was no report? The commission disbanded without writing one?

Seriously the EC is undemocratic, giving a slight or significant advantage to smaller ovulated states. But it is not nearly as bad as the Senate, however. Nevertheless, that’s why conservatives want to keep it. My concerns about a purely popular vote are that it might simply create an all TV ads presidential race, possibly making money even more of a factor.

Wrong, the EC was designed to give smaller states some influence over the tyranny of the majority, and thats why I think it should stay. The alternative is that the bigger states will end up squeezing out the smaller ones by sheer numbers of voters.

 

[Razoo]

1 person 1 vote is fair shut down the electoral college so that every vote counts ......

EC allows for only 17 states to determine the president = 17 states which hold the largest number EC
votes.

 

[redbeer]

Not true.

California has the largest number of electoral votes. You don't see the GOP spending more time and money in that state. I wonder...do you know why?


Because the national popular vote is irrelevant. Only the state popular vote matters.
This is one reason our country is called The United States of America...and not just America.


Sorry, but every vote DOES count. (Or, it would if there wasn't election fraud.)

Exactly right, the United "States" of America.....spot on.

 

[IQ57]

Propaganda and lies.

 

[Razoo]

Electoral College - The Daily Beast​

https://www.thedailybeast.com › keyword › electoral-co...

“I hope Mike Pence comes through for us,” President Trump said to cheering supporters in Georgia. “If he doesn't come through, I won't like him quite as ...

• 
  

  Samantha Bee Proves the Electoral College Is Garbage and ...​

  https://www.thedailybeast.com › samantha-bee-proves-t...
  
  Sep 12, 2019 — Trump's so-called election is just one of the many reasons the Electoral College sucks and should be abolished,” the “Full Frontal” host ...

 

[Razoo]

Over 80% of Democrats recognize the flaws in the Electoral College and support abolishing it in favor of a National Popular Vote. And 89% of those respondents want a constitutional amendment to get rid of it!

But the vast majority of Republicans oppose changing anything about it. They benefit from the Electoral College and its skewed representation – which means an amendment would never get through the 50-50 tied Senate.

That’s why the states have a plan to bypass Congress, ignore Mitch McConnell, and elect the popular vote winner directly.

It’s called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Let's make it law.

It's time to abolish the Electoral College | Brookings​

https://www.brookings.edu › uploads › 2019/10

by DM West · Cited by 10 — I said the founders created the institution to make sure that large states did not dominate small ones in presidential elections, that power between Congress ...

• 
  

  How to get rid of the Electoral College - Brookings​

  https://www.brookings.edu › blog › fixgov › 2020/12/09
  
  Dec 9, 2020 — These Americans, chosen for loyalty to their political party, will vote for the presidential candidate who won their state's popular vote.[1] ...

​

 

[Nickyjo]

Wrong, the EC was designed to give smaller states some influence over the tyranny of the majority, and thats why I think it should stay. The alternative is that the bigger states will end up squeezing out the smaller ones by sheer numbers of voters.

Most of us refer to your last sentence as “democracy.” Why should people in smaller states have a greater influence on public policy than people in larger states? Makes as much sense as doing it by geographic size. After all Wyoming’s plains and (admittedly gorgeous) mountains plus it’s short of 600k people already have equal representation in the Senate to California’s 39 million. Why does WY need an extra boost in the EC? I suppose the solution might be for California to split into a few dozen states to even the Senate score. I am sure the people of the Dakotas and Wyoming would agree to us becoming more like them, with half a million or so inhabitants rating two Senators.

 

[BirdinHand]

Over 80% of Democrats recognize the flaws in the Electoral College and support abolishing it in favor of a National Popular Vote. And 89% of those respondents want a constitutional amendment to get rid of it!

But the vast majority of Republicans oppose changing anything about it. They benefit from the Electoral College and its skewed representation – which means an amendment would never get through the 50-50 tied Senate.

That’s why the states have a plan to bypass Congress, ignore Mitch McConnell, and elect the popular vote winner directly.

It’s called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Let's make it law.

Nope.

80% of democrats is a far stretch.

I haven’t clicked the links - but I’m guessing that it is X% of people that responded to some random poll.

 

[PoS]

Most of us refer to your last sentence as “democracy.” Why should people in smaller states have a greater influence on public policy than people in larger states? Makes as much sense as doing it by geographic size. After all Wyoming’s plains and (admittedly gorgeous) mountains plus it’s short of 600k people already have equal representation in the Senate to California’s 39 million. Why does WY need an extra boost in the EC? I suppose the solution might be for California to split into a few dozen states to even the Senate score. I am sure the people of the Dakotas and Wyoming would agree to us becoming more like them, with half a million or so inhabitants rating two Senators.

Nobody says the smaller states are getting greater influence so your strawman fallacy is a fallacy. The EC is a check against the hordes in larger population states.

 

[Nickyjo]

Nobody says the smaller states are getting greater influence so your strawman fallacy is a fallacy. The EC is a check against the hordes in larger population states.

By definition “a check against the hordes” (nice — is that phrase prompted by the race or class or ethnicity of the hordes? It should get the Leona Helmsley “Only the Little People Pay Taxes” award) is preservation of an undemocratic advantage. This has precedent, as elitists have long deplored giving the “great unwashed” an equal seat at the table. Please explain why it makes sense to have the people of North Dakota, pop. < 800,000 have the same number of Senators as California.

 

[Helix]

The EC in the 21st century basically boils down to to letting land vote so that the Republican who lost the people vote might win anyway. Of course they don't want to get rid of it.

 

[PoS]

By definition “a check against the hordes” (nice — is that phrase prompted by the race or class or ethnicity of the hordes? It should get the Leona Helmsley “Only the Little People Pay Taxes” award) is preservation of an undemocratic advantage. This has precedent, as elitists have long deplored giving the “great unwashed” an equal seat at the table. Please explain why it makes sense to have the people of North Dakota, pop. < 800,000 have the same number of Senators as California.

Oh so you pull the race card now? Figures.

 

[Nickyjo]

Nobody says the smaller states are getting greater influence so your strawman fallacy is a fallacy. The EC is a check against the hordes in larger population states.

Oh so you pull the race card now? Figures.

Race, class, ethnicity… take your pick, as when someone refers to “the hordes” in largely populated areas, one naturally speculates what hordes is a euphemism for, given other frequent colorful references in our history for “those people.”

But are you still maintaining that smaller states don’t have a greater influence? How not? Let’s toss “greater.” Would you admit to “disproportionate”?

 

[Razoo]

The EC in the 21st century basically boils down to to letting land vote so that the Republican who lost the people vote might win anyway. Of course they don't want to get rid of it.

Yes yes exactly. This is the most accurate description to date.

 

[PoS]

Race, class, ethnicity… take your pick, as when someone refers to “the hordes” in largely populated areas, one naturally speculates what hordes is a euphemism for, given other frequent colorful references in our history for “those people.”

I dont make euphemisms, I write words. As usual whenever you lose the debate you pull the race card. Good job.

 

[Nickyjo]

I dont make euphemisms, I write words. As usual whenever you lose the debate you pull the race card. Good job.

View attachment 67438722

How am I losing the debate? You’re the one opposing democracy because of the urban hordes. Today it might be black and brown minorities implied, some time ago it was Italians and Jews in our cities, before that Irish and Germans. But you haven’t explained what you have against the urban hordes. Should I counter by concerns that the Senate gives to much power to rural rednecks? My argument is about people anywhere having the same power in elections. Yours seems to be about keeping power away from certain types of people, without explaining why that is desirable. Ball is in your court.

 

[Razoo]

When one states per vote counts as more than one vote where is the ethics? How is this fair?

 

[Razoo]

Nope.

80% of democrats is a far stretch.

I haven’t clicked the links - but I’m guessing that it is X% of people that responded to some random poll.

That is exactly right. That is how I assume it to be no matter what type of poll.

 

[PoS]

How am I losing the debate? You’re the one opposing democracy because of the urban hordes. Today it might be black and brown minorities implied, some time ago it was Italians and Jews in our cities, before that Irish and Germans. But you haven’t explained what you have against the urban hordes. Should I counter by concerns that the Senate gives to much power to rural rednecks? My argument is about people anywhere having the same power in elections. Yours seems to be about keeping power away from certain types of people, without explaining why that is desirable. Ball is in your court.

More race card drawing. Thats about the only thing youve got.

 

[Nickyjo]

More race card drawing. Thats about the only thing youve got.

My point is clear. Throughout our history, various forces have complained about power given or potentially taken by “urban hordes,” often newcomers, dating back to the arrival of the Irish. Your comments echoed that. But you still haven’t answered why you object to urban hordes.

 

[Sandy Shanks]

Over 80% of Democrats recognize the flaws in the Electoral College and support abolishing it in favor of a National Popular Vote. And 89% of those respondents want a constitutional amendment to get rid of it!

It is not going to happen. Ridding ourselves of the archaic Electoral College will require a Constitutional amendment that will in turn require the approval of small states (by population). The E.C. gives the small states power. They won't relinquish it.

Those small; states represent the rural base of the Republican Party.

 

[yankintx]

It will won't happen.

The current GOP realizes that the EC is the only mechanism to give them a chance at the WH.

 

[Tbird19482]

doing away with the EC is not the answer, they should stop all the winner take all stuff
as it is now a state could have 27 Congressional districts and it could split the vote 14 districts to 13 districts effectively taking away the wishes of those 13 districts and that 14 th district win could be won by say as little as one vote
each Congressional district should get 1 vote and say two at large votes for the state
Have a nice day