(02-24-2019 08:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-24-2019 07:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-24-2019 06:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-23-2019 10:43 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-23-2019 03:03 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Currently, swing states are the most catered to states by presidential candidates since that’s where the election is won and lost. Swing states would be idiots to join this pact. It seems to me, the best way to empower voters EVERYWHERE is to simply award a states electorial votes in a manner that reflects the vote. If a state goes 58% Democrat, 38% Republican, and 4% other—assign 58% of the electorial votes to democrats, 38% to republicans, and 4% to the biggest vote getter in the “other category”.

That said, I’ve always been fine with the concept of getting rid of the electorial college and going with the popular vote. Why? Because presidential campaigns would be forced into being much more broad based and national in scope. Every vote in every state would be important. It ceases to be an election that’s only fought in Florida and Ohio—with the other states largely safely in one column or the other.

Actually just the opposite would happen. Candidates currently have to broaden their appeal to cobble together very disparate voting blocs -- the goals of the people of Iowa can and will be be far different than those of coastal California as a whole. Likewise the goals and of the people of Iowa can and will be far different than those of Texas, as whole.

Popular vote means you pile all your money and ideas into carrying coastal California, Chicago, and the eastern Metro corridor and you have a win.

I dont know what rock you live in to understand that.

The 'bloc' voting Electoral college ensures that the candidates have to do something that makes the voting populations of enough singular, disparate backgroounds and locales get on board with you.

Your analysis is bass ackwards. To be honest, I will trust Madison and Hamilton's views on the the problems inherent in large populations being a tyrant of the majority far more than yours.

What you believe and the actual reality are very different. The only reason anyone spends a dime in Iowa is the early primaries. Once the general election starts---Iowa is forgotten. All the money, ads, and hours are expended in a handful of battleground states. That's just a fact.

Funny, Iowa is considered such a battleground state. I suggest you look at its electoral history. I mean, good god, when you get that fundamental fact absolutely wrong, yes it makes the rest of your argument very questionable.

Quote:The main reason that's true

But its not. Funny that.

Quote:Bottom line---the current system goal is to take the base you KNOW you already have in the bag--and win enough battleground states to reach the magic electorial number. The campaigns are not "broad based" at all. They are narrowly focused on key issues in the handful of battleground states that will decide the election---because thats how you win.

And it obvious from your analysis that you havent a clue about the concepts that Madison, Jefferson, Morris, Randolph, and King had an issue. Using your concept, the only voting blocs that will matter are urban, big city interests. Hate to tell you that there are more people to that than your targets are. In the current system, the needs and wants of both New Hampshire *and* New Mexico must be considered for a 'winning hand', as opposed to just sucking off and completing LA, SF, Chicago, NYC and the Eastern metro corridor. Funny that.

Quote:Without the electorial college---any vote anywhere has value as it adds to the total. It makes campaigning to everyone everywhere more important.

To the contrary. Simply roll the urban the interests. You win. The numbers are (especially as evidenced in the last Presidential election) show that. if your goal is to fk every interest over the needs and wants of the urban population -- your system does that beautifully. There is no way to dress that pig up like you attempt.

The MAIN reason that electorial system is there is because we didnt anticipate a simple 2 party system. We thought there would be several parties (and there were early on). The actual purpose of the electorial college was to ELECT a president if there was no majority after the first vote without having to execute yet another nationwide election. We can count votes quickly now---so we dont really need it. I also find it odd you are worried about the little states getting ignored--but arent you worried about big states being ignored right now. Seems like some pretty idiotic logic to me. Bottom line---using the popular vote simply means a vote ANYWHERE is as valuable as a vote located ANYWHERE else. Not sure how you get from there to "small states will get ignored". The difference between the number of conservatives and liberals nationwide is so small---it would be kinda dumb for Republicans to ignore their rural voters---even in small states. Same with Democrats---they need every vote too. By the way---your assumption is that urban interests and voters are monolithic---I assure you they are not. What the popular vote does do is give a voice to voters in the minority in ALL STATES. How is that bad? The current system renders the minority in every state worthless.

That said, I could see a compromise position being allocating the electorial college votes in each state on the basis of the actual vote in that state.

I think the main issue that you overlook is *what* power is being exercised in the Constitution. The vote within a state for the presidential electors is the *state* right and the *state* power being exercised. Thus, to be elected, a candidate has to appeal to individual state's interests. In that manner, the winner of Iowa, gets the ability to count the State of Iowa's support.

For all your thrashing, what you fundamentally and steadfastly cling to is the fact that you really dont give a flying fk about the sovereign power of any state. But, I have come to expect that from many progressives in many different avenues. I am *shocked*, mind you *shocked* that it pops up in the steadfast defense of the popular vote initiative.

The founders realized that the best methodology lay in the cobbling together of the will of the voters on a state by state basis. If you decide to go the easy brain-fart route, your method makes perfect sense. But surprisingly, they did not.

I suggest you actually read the Federalist Papers on this. It makes an amazing load of sense. Even in light of your trying to paper the issue over.

Quote: The actual purpose of the electorial college was to ELECT a president if there was no majority after the first vote without having to execute yet another nationwide election.

Utter fing hogwash. Again, read the source material before you bleat.

Specifically try reading Federalist 10 and Federalist 68.

Come back to us with a book report comparing those publications to your vapid comment quoted above.

Next time, dont pull **** out of thin air and pass it off as fact.

last time you stated that 'Iowa doesnt ever count is not a battleground', and here you state a reason that not only never fing appears in the source materials, but is actually refuted by the main reasons stated in those source materials.

Seriously, try some facts for a change.

(02-24-2019 10:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-24-2019 08:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-24-2019 07:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-24-2019 06:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-23-2019 10:43 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Actually just the opposite would happen. Candidates currently have to broaden their appeal to cobble together very disparate voting blocs -- the goals of the people of Iowa can and will be be far different than those of coastal California as a whole. Likewise the goals and of the people of Iowa can and will be far different than those of Texas, as whole.

Popular vote means you pile all your money and ideas into carrying coastal California, Chicago, and the eastern Metro corridor and you have a win.

I dont know what rock you live in to understand that.

The 'bloc' voting Electoral college ensures that the candidates have to do something that makes the voting populations of enough singular, disparate backgroounds and locales get on board with you.

Your analysis is bass ackwards. To be honest, I will trust Madison and Hamilton's views on the the problems inherent in large populations being a tyrant of the majority far more than yours.

What you believe and the actual reality are very different. The only reason anyone spends a dime in Iowa is the early primaries. Once the general election starts---Iowa is forgotten. All the money, ads, and hours are expended in a handful of battleground states. That's just a fact.

Funny, Iowa is considered such a battleground state. I suggest you look at its electoral history. I mean, good god, when you get that fundamental fact absolutely wrong, yes it makes the rest of your argument very questionable.

Quote:The main reason that's true

But its not. Funny that.

Quote:Bottom line---the current system goal is to take the base you KNOW you already have in the bag--and win enough battleground states to reach the magic electorial number. The campaigns are not "broad based" at all. They are narrowly focused on key issues in the handful of battleground states that will decide the election---because thats how you win.

And it obvious from your analysis that you havent a clue about the concepts that Madison, Jefferson, Morris, Randolph, and King had an issue. Using your concept, the only voting blocs that will matter are urban, big city interests. Hate to tell you that there are more people to that than your targets are. In the current system, the needs and wants of both New Hampshire *and* New Mexico must be considered for a 'winning hand', as opposed to just sucking off and completing LA, SF, Chicago, NYC and the Eastern metro corridor. Funny that.

Quote:Without the electorial college---any vote anywhere has value as it adds to the total. It makes campaigning to everyone everywhere more important.

To the contrary. Simply roll the urban the interests. You win. The numbers are (especially as evidenced in the last Presidential election) show that. if your goal is to fk every interest over the needs and wants of the urban population -- your system does that beautifully. There is no way to dress that pig up like you attempt.

The MAIN reason that electorial system is there is because we didnt anticipate a simple 2 party system. We thought there would be several parties (and there were early on). The actual purpose of the electorial college was to ELECT a president if there was no majority after the first vote without having to execute yet another nationwide election. We can count votes quickly now---so we dont really need it. I also find it odd you are worried about the little states getting ignored--but arent you worried about big states being ignored right now. Seems like some pretty idiotic logic to me. Bottom line---using the popular vote simply means a vote ANYWHERE is as valuable as a vote located ANYWHERE else. Not sure how you get from there to "small states will get ignored". The difference between the number of conservatives and liberals nationwide is so small---it would be kinda dumb for Republicans to ignore their rural voters---even in small states. Same with Democrats---they need every vote too. By the way---your assumption is that urban interests and voters are monolithic---I assure you they are not. What the popular vote does do is give a voice to voters in the minority in ALL STATES. How is that bad? The current system renders the minority in every state worthless.

That said, I could see a compromise position being allocating the electorial college votes in each state on the basis of the actual vote in that state.

I think the main issue that you overlook is *what* power is being exercised in the Constitution. The vote within a state for the presidential electors is the *state* right and the *state* power being exercised. Thus, to be elected, a candidate has to appeal to individual state's interests. In that manner, the winner of Iowa, gets the ability to count the State of Iowa's support.

For all your thrashing, what you fundamentally and steadfastly cling to is the fact that you really dont give a flying fk about the sovereign power of any state. But, I have come to expect that from many progressives in many different avenues. I am *shocked*, mind you *shocked* that it pops up in the steadfast defense of the popular vote initiative.

The founders realized that the best methodology lay in the cobbling together of the will of the voters on a state by state basis. If you decide to go the easy brain-fart route, your method makes perfect sense. But surprisingly, they did not.

I suggest you actually read the Federalist Papers on this. It makes an amazing load of sense. Even in light of your trying to paper the issue over.

Quote: The actual purpose of the electorial college was to ELECT a president if there was no majority after the first vote without having to execute yet another nationwide election.

Utter fing hogwash. Again, read the source material before you bleat.

Specifically try reading Federalist 10 and Federalist 68.

Come back to us with a book report comparing those publications to your vapid comment quoted above.

Next time, dont pull **** out of thin air and pass it off as fact.

last time you stated that 'Iowa doesnt ever count is not a battleground', and here you state a reason that not only never fing appears in the source materials, but is actually refuted by the main reasons stated in those source materials.

Seriously, try some facts for a change.

Welp. You are right. Its been awhile since I read that stuff. I remember the concept (quoted below) that the founders basically wanted a group of learned men well versed in the candidates doing the selection. For some reason I was thinking that they were released after the first vote if there was no candidate with a majority (like the conventions)---which is absolutely not the case. So, I definitely remembered my civics incorrectly on that. It actually goes to the House if no candidate gets a majority of the electorial college.


It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.


That said, I still prefer either a popular vote or for the electorial votes to be awarded in the same percentages as the vote in the state. To me it simply is a more effective way of making every vote cast significant. One other thing, I'm not a progressive. Ive always just thought it sucked for the voting minority in hard red or blue states----their votes are essentially meaningless votes under the current system. Frankly, the best thing for the me is if every Democrat state voted to apportion its vote on the basis of the actual state voting percentages---and all solidly Red states stay as "all or nothing" states...which is why I would actually vote against the move in Texas (unless it was instituted nationally in every state at the same time). I get its a states rights issue---and thats fine--but under the current system---Florida and Ohio are basically picking our president every 4 years (and sometimes it really seems like a just few counties in those states are actually doing the picking). At least a popular vote--or a percentage apportioned electorial vote---might spread the decision making around to more of the country.

(02-24-2019 11:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-24-2019 10:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-24-2019 08:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-24-2019 07:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-24-2019 06:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  What you believe and the actual reality are very different. The only reason anyone spends a dime in Iowa is the early primaries. Once the general election starts---Iowa is forgotten. All the money, ads, and hours are expended in a handful of battleground states. That's just a fact.

Funny, Iowa is considered such a battleground state. I suggest you look at its electoral history. I mean, good god, when you get that fundamental fact absolutely wrong, yes it makes the rest of your argument very questionable.

Quote:The main reason that's true

But its not. Funny that.

Quote:Bottom line---the current system goal is to take the base you KNOW you already have in the bag--and win enough battleground states to reach the magic electorial number. The campaigns are not "broad based" at all. They are narrowly focused on key issues in the handful of battleground states that will decide the election---because thats how you win.

And it obvious from your analysis that you havent a clue about the concepts that Madison, Jefferson, Morris, Randolph, and King had an issue. Using your concept, the only voting blocs that will matter are urban, big city interests. Hate to tell you that there are more people to that than your targets are. In the current system, the needs and wants of both New Hampshire *and* New Mexico must be considered for a 'winning hand', as opposed to just sucking off and completing LA, SF, Chicago, NYC and the Eastern metro corridor. Funny that.

Quote:Without the electorial college---any vote anywhere has value as it adds to the total. It makes campaigning to everyone everywhere more important.

To the contrary. Simply roll the urban the interests. You win. The numbers are (especially as evidenced in the last Presidential election) show that. if your goal is to fk every interest over the needs and wants of the urban population -- your system does that beautifully. There is no way to dress that pig up like you attempt.

The MAIN reason that electorial system is there is because we didnt anticipate a simple 2 party system. We thought there would be several parties (and there were early on). The actual purpose of the electorial college was to ELECT a president if there was no majority after the first vote without having to execute yet another nationwide election. We can count votes quickly now---so we dont really need it. I also find it odd you are worried about the little states getting ignored--but arent you worried about big states being ignored right now. Seems like some pretty idiotic logic to me. Bottom line---using the popular vote simply means a vote ANYWHERE is as valuable as a vote located ANYWHERE else. Not sure how you get from there to "small states will get ignored". The difference between the number of conservatives and liberals nationwide is so small---it would be kinda dumb for Republicans to ignore their rural voters---even in small states. Same with Democrats---they need every vote too. By the way---your assumption is that urban interests and voters are monolithic---I assure you they are not. What the popular vote does do is give a voice to voters in the minority in ALL STATES. How is that bad? The current system renders the minority in every state worthless.

That said, I could see a compromise position being allocating the electorial college votes in each state on the basis of the actual vote in that state.

I think the main issue that you overlook is *what* power is being exercised in the Constitution. The vote within a state for the presidential electors is the *state* right and the *state* power being exercised. Thus, to be elected, a candidate has to appeal to individual state's interests. In that manner, the winner of Iowa, gets the ability to count the State of Iowa's support.

For all your thrashing, what you fundamentally and steadfastly cling to is the fact that you really dont give a flying fk about the sovereign power of any state. But, I have come to expect that from many progressives in many different avenues. I am *shocked*, mind you *shocked* that it pops up in the steadfast defense of the popular vote initiative.

The founders realized that the best methodology lay in the cobbling together of the will of the voters on a state by state basis. If you decide to go the easy brain-fart route, your method makes perfect sense. But surprisingly, they did not.

I suggest you actually read the Federalist Papers on this. It makes an amazing load of sense. Even in light of your trying to paper the issue over.

Quote: The actual purpose of the electorial college was to ELECT a president if there was no majority after the first vote without having to execute yet another nationwide election.

Utter fing hogwash. Again, read the source material before you bleat.

Specifically try reading Federalist 10 and Federalist 68.

Come back to us with a book report comparing those publications to your vapid comment quoted above.

Next time, dont pull **** out of thin air and pass it off as fact.

last time you stated that 'Iowa doesnt ever count is not a battleground', and here you state a reason that not only never fing appears in the source materials, but is actually refuted by the main reasons stated in those source materials.

Seriously, try some facts for a change.

Welp. You are right. Its been awhile since I read that stuff. I remember the concept (quoted below) that the founders basically wanted a group of learned men well versed in the candidates doing the selection. For some reason I was thinking that they were released after the first vote if there was no candidate with a majority (like the conventions)---which is absolutely not the case. So, I definitely remembered my civics incorrectly on that. It actually goes to the House.


It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.


That said, I still prefer either a popular vote or for the electorial votes to be awarded in the same percentages as the vote in the state. To me it simply is a more effective way of making every vote cast significant. One other thing, I'm not a progressive. Ive always just thought it sucked for the voting minority in hard red or blue states----their votes are essentially meaningless votes under the current system. Frankly, the best thing for the me is if every Democrat state voted to apportion its vote on the basis of the actual state voting percentages---and all solidly Red states stay as "all or nothing" states...which is why I would actually vote against the move in Texas (unless it was instituted nationally in every state at the same time). I get its a states rights issue---and thats fine--but under the current system---Florida and Ohio are basically picking our president every 4 years (and sometimes it really seems like a just few counties in those states are actually doing the picking). At least a popular vote--or a percentage apportioned electorial vote---might spread the decision making around to more of the country.

Well the alternative is to do it like Maine and Nebraska and award 1 electoral vote in each House district in addition to the two statewide. Then you have 100 districts across the country that matter in addition to getting enough votes to win the 10-15 swing states.

The EC is a dumpster fire. Whichever way it goes, one person one vote is the only fair system. 3,000,000 votes were thrown in the garbage can in 2016.

(02-25-2019 09:40 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  The EC is a dumpster fire. Whichever way it goes, one person one vote is the only fair system. 3,000,000 votes were thrown in the garbage can in 2016.

Why is it a dumpster fire? Is it because it didn't go the way some wanted it to go last election? In reality the EC did exactly what it was designed to do. It worked perfectly. No votes were thrown in the proverbial "garbage can".

(02-25-2019 09:45 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(02-25-2019 09:40 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  The EC is a dumpster fire. Whichever way it goes, one person one vote is the only fair system. 3,000,000 votes were thrown in the garbage can in 2016.

Why is it a dumpster fire? Is it because it didn't go the way some wanted it to go last election? In reality the EC did exactly what it was designed to do. It worked perfectly. No votes were thrown in the proverbial "garbage can".

Some people don't understand Federalism. They worship at the altar of the great central government. All Power must flow to and from Washington.

(02-25-2019 09:47 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(02-25-2019 09:45 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(02-25-2019 09:40 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  The EC is a dumpster fire. Whichever way it goes, one person one vote is the only fair system. 3,000,000 votes were thrown in the garbage can in 2016.

Why is it a dumpster fire? Is it because it didn't go the way some wanted it to go last election? In reality the EC did exactly what it was designed to do. It worked perfectly. No votes were thrown in the proverbial "garbage can".

Some people don't understand Federalism. They worship at the altar of the great central government. All Power must flow to and from Washington.

I agree it comes down to simple ignorance and folks not getting their way. IMO, if the tables were turned last election and Trump received the most votes but lost the EC, the same people wanting the EC gone today would have had no issue with the EC.

(02-25-2019 09:40 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  The EC is a dumpster fire. Whichever way it goes, one person one vote is the only fair system. 3,000,000 votes were thrown in the garbage can in 2016.

The only real dumpster fire is the Politicians and their followers on the Left trying/wanting to change the rules of the game after it has been played because they lost.

It's like a baseball team trying to claim they should be awarded the victory, even though they lost 5-3, because they outhit the other team 10-6. Just like the rules in baseball state the winner to be the team with the most RUNS, the election for President in this country states the winner to be the side with 270+ ELECTORAL VOTES (not who got the biggest overall vote tally).

Hillary likely doesn't have a 3,000,000 popular vote advantage if the rules stated that the popular vote wins the election. If I am a conservative in California or NY I may not go through the motions of voting knowing how liberal those states are and my vote won't change anything under the Electoral College format. That said, the Electoral College was a brilliant stroke of genius by our Founding Fathers and it (along with our Constitution) should be kept as it.

(02-25-2019 09:40 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  The EC is a dumpster fire. Whichever way it goes, one person one vote is the only fair system. 3,000,000 votes were thrown in the garbage can in 2016.

This is a naive and arbitrary view. You could just as easily say every minority party vote in a strong red or blue state is "thrown in the garbage can". This popular vote whining continues to miss the point that elimination of the electoral college would drastically change the way candidates campaign.

(02-25-2019 09:45 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(02-25-2019 09:40 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  The EC is a dumpster fire. Whichever way it goes, one person one vote is the only fair system. 3,000,000 votes were thrown in the garbage can in 2016.

Why is it a dumpster fire? Is it because it didn't go the way some wanted it to go last election? In reality the EC did exactly what it was designed to do. It worked perfectly. No votes were thrown in the proverbial "garbage can".

Exactly.

If Hillary wasn't so incompetent, she wouldn't have thrown 1.2 billion in a dumpster fire of a campaign and spent minimal time in Georgia and Texas and California and spent some in Wisconsin instead of none and much more in Michigan and Pennsylvania. It was her campaign strategy that was a dumpster fire.

What's funny with all the whining is that there were articles before the election saying Hillary's campaign was worried Trump would win the popular vote and she would win the electoral college. So she was campaigning to try to win the popular vote instead of what mattered.

(02-25-2019 11:13 AM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  

(02-25-2019 09:40 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  The EC is a dumpster fire. Whichever way it goes, one person one vote is the only fair system. 3,000,000 votes were thrown in the garbage can in 2016.

The only real dumpster fire is the Politicians and their followers on the Left trying/wanting to change the rules of the game after it has been played because they lost.

It's like a baseball team trying to claim they should be awarded the victory, even though they lost 5-3, because they outhit the other team 10-6. Just like the rules in baseball state the winner to be the team with the most RUNS, the election for President in this country states the winner to be the side with 270+ ELECTORAL VOTES (not who got the biggest overall vote tally).

Hillary likely doesn't have a 3,000,000 popular vote advantage if the rules stated that the popular vote wins the election. If I am a conservative in California or NY I may not go through the motions of voting knowing how liberal those states are and my vote won't change anything under the Electoral College format. That said, the Electoral College was a brilliant stroke of genius by our Founding Fathers and it (along with our Constitution) should be kept as it.

The Clintons have always cheated. Their VP Gore tried to change the rules after the fact to steal Florida and the election in 2000. Hillary tried to change the rules after the fact in Florida to steal the nomination from Obama in 2008. They were trying to change the rules (and still trying) after the fact to steal the 2016 election.

(02-25-2019 12:36 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(02-25-2019 09:40 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  The EC is a dumpster fire. Whichever way it goes, one person one vote is the only fair system. 3,000,000 votes were thrown in the garbage can in 2016.

This is a naive and arbitrary view. You could just as easily say every minority party vote in a strong red or blue state is "thrown in the garbage can". This popular vote whining continues to miss the point that elimination of the electoral college would drastically change the way candidates campaign.

This. I think many are totally not seeing the entire picture (or they are purposely wearing blinders) and not understanding that when you change A - B and C can also change, so trying to apply popular voting to this past election is really not valid. The design of the electoral system was pretty ingenious and proof that our forefathers were some smart dudes.
BTW...Hello. I'm new to posting, but I've been following this board for a long, long time. I've been one of those nasty in the shadow lurkers. As an added, I'm also married to one of the board posting regulars whom shall be referred to as "He who must not be named". I'm a registered Independent and "He who must not be named" and I have in fact cancelled each other out in the voting booth on occasion.

I live in a state where my vote for president doesn't matter. Getting rid of the electoral college so that my vote matters as much as someone who lives in Pennsylvania makes sense to me.

(02-25-2019 01:20 PM)Penncinnati Wrote:  

(02-25-2019 12:36 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(02-25-2019 09:40 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  The EC is a dumpster fire. Whichever way it goes, one person one vote is the only fair system. 3,000,000 votes were thrown in the garbage can in 2016.

This is a naive and arbitrary view. You could just as easily say every minority party vote in a strong red or blue state is "thrown in the garbage can". This popular vote whining continues to miss the point that elimination of the electoral college would drastically change the way candidates campaign.

This. I think many are totally not seeing the entire picture (or they are purposely wearing blinders) and not understanding that when you change A - B and C can also change, so trying to apply popular voting to this past election is really not valid. The design of the electoral system was pretty ingenious and proof that our forefathers were some smart dudes.
BTW...Hello. I'm new to posting, but I've been following this board for a long, long time. I've been one of those nasty in the shadow lurkers. As an added, I'm also married to one of the board posting regulars whom shall be referred to as "He who must not be named". I'm a registered Independent and "He who must not be named" and I have in fact cancelled each other out in the voting booth on occasion.

This is a pattern for the left. Another example is the insane tax bracket AOC has supported for high earners. I can guarantee you she thinks that money would still be there for the taking IF that crazy tax bracket actually came to be.