Hillary Clinton says the Electoral College 'needs to be eliminated'

The votes and opinions of the American public are far more important than an electoral college. Thats why it needs to be eliminated. Should the roles had been reversed, you would be demanding an end to the electoral college. Thats just how your kind operates.
 
Yaya said:
The votes would not be equal, at all. We aren't talking about local or state elections, we are talking about voting for a President who represents all the states. We are not a direct democracy Thing.

The slavery issue was apart of it, however, it was also to protect the smaller states. That simply cannot be denied. Imagine founding a country and you know that (let's say you have 20 states) 5 states have the most population of all 20 combined. You're sitting down figuring out how votes should count to the President and you realize, if you're one of the 15, you basically have no say if it is a popular vote. You claim it is equal, but it is not. The President represents the entire country, not just the most populous states. If we go with the popular vote route, I believe (though I read tonight it is 10 states) that only a half dozen states will decide the Presidential election.

How is the representative of our Republic? How is that fair to our individual states?

People talk about direct democracy, but they never mention how those countries do not have states like we do.

I don't have it backwards, I have it exactly how the founders agreed. The only way to ensure a fair shake to all states, is through the EC. Without the EC, you would have at best, 40 states completely ignored. How is that fair or American?

EDIT: you're thinking in terms of dirt, when I believe you should be thinking of that "dirt" as states. States can almost be called miniature countries voting for a central leader, so take away the EC and you just took away the states. IMO.
Click to expand...

You're talking about states as though they are living - like they are entities that deserve representation. If we had a popular vote result, it would just mean that candidates would campaign in more populous areas more than they do now. It's melodramatic to suggest that the other areas would just fall off the map, and completely inaccurate to say that they would "not be represented." I don't even know what you mean by that, really.

You would have to at least acknowledge the negatives of the current system to be credible. I mean, think about it - if a candidate wins a state by even 100 votes (and that basically happened in FL in 2000), the votes of all of the losing candidate's supporters are basically tossed out; they mean nothing.

Plenty of countries have popular vote elections. It doesn't mean that certain provinces, states or localities lose their "representation." No one loses their vote.

Your argument doesn't really make sense to me. Like I said, I'm torn on it, because the electoral is tradition, but I definitely get the popular vote argument. I think it looks weird to much of the world that Hillary won by 3 million votes and still lost. And it's lazy to say "well, that's just California." Trump won the electoral by 80,000 votes in 3 states.

Tell me - how are California, NJ, NY and other populous states represented at all by our current President or government?
 
anatta said:
nope. we are not a pure democracy.
we are bound by the balance of power between the states / feds / "we the people".

The genius of the electoral college is that it factors all this in to elect the president
Click to expand...
Hillary was the best man for the job.

-- The Left
 
ocean515 said:
Agreed. As a 5th Generation Southern Californian, I can report California is well on it's way to becoming Venezuela North. In fact, it's doomed.

That's why I've sold my businesses and I will be moving out of the state in the next couple of years. Kids and Grandkids are keeping us here a little bit longer.

What the Progressives have done is hand out money and promises in order to get control and power. It's exactly what the Founding Fathers created the EC for. To protect the country from the tyranny of the majority.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

The CA elitists have made CA a place where only the rich and the poor can afford to live. I don't like my state taxes and I don't even want to think what they pay in taxes there.

It's on the way to becoming a state without a middle class. Like Venezuela.
 
floridafan said:
I can assure you that had the roles been reversed and Trump lost the electoral college, you would be DEMANDING, an end to this method of electing a president.
Click to expand...
Really? Why don't you link up some examples from past democrat victories? You can start with Hussein Obama and work backwards. ;)
 
floridafan said:
The votes and opinions of the American public are far more important than an electoral college. Thats why it needs to be eliminated. Should the roles had been reversed, you would be demanding an end to the electoral college. Thats just how your kind operates.
Click to expand...

You make a lot of assumptions about how people would have reacted had something gone differently. you do know how meaningless that makes everything you say afterwards, uhh, right?

and on the electoral college it's only been in place for, oh idunno since the constitution put it there.

So why is it you loons are just now whining about it? hmmmm, let's see, maybe because Hillary lost it, but millions of left wing loons in California and New York managed to put her over the top majority wise.

So lets just tell Iowa, and North Dakota, Vermont, Alaska and a host of other less populated states that WE, the most populated states will rule the country for you, just grab a seat in the bleachers.

you un-American nut-job, move to Russia, no electoral college there
 
My dear, if we no longer have an electoral college then it really won't matter where a vote comes from. A vote will be a vote. And that is exactly what you would be demanding had the roles been reversed. Your kind is so easy to "read".
 
When it looked like Bush was going to lose the electoral but win the popular in 2000, his admin and talk radio were floating trial balloons out there about actually challenging the results.

No doubt, if the situation was reversed, the right would be calling for an end to the electoral. I mean, if anyone has any doubt at all that Trump would be leading that charge, you haven't been paying attention.
 
Thing1 said:
When it looked like Bush was going to lose the electoral but win the popular in 2000, his admin and talk radio were floating trial balloons out there about actually challenging the results.

No doubt, if the situation was reversed, the right would be calling for an end to the electoral. I mean, if anyone has any doubt at all that Trump would be leading that charge, you haven't been paying attention.
Click to expand...
that's because of the questionability of "hanging chads" and peculiarities of the Florida votes -not the EC
 
anatta said:
floating what?
Click to expand...

Trial balloons - to see how the media & public would react if they actually did challenge an electoral vote win.

Trust me on this: if Trump won the popular & lost the electoral, you would have started 2 dozen threads by now about how archaic the EC is, and how it's time to get rid of it.
 
Was reading yesterday that sometime in the '70's removal of the EC was going through Congress and came up five votes short in the Senate or something like that? Anyone remember that?
 
floridafan said:
The votes and opinions of the American public are far more important than an electoral college. Thats why it needs to be eliminated. Should the roles had been reversed, you would be demanding an end to the electoral college. Thats just how your kind operates.
Click to expand...

lol.....if the electoral college wasn't far more important you wouldn't NEED to eliminate it.......you realize you are actually the ones operating here, right?.....
 
Thing1 said:
Trial balloons - to see how the media & public would react if they actually did challenge an electoral vote win.

Trust me on this: if Trump won the popular & lost the electoral, you would have started 2 dozen threads by now about how archaic the EC is, and how it's time to get rid of it.
Click to expand...

"trust you"?

and there you go with your assumptions that we would act like you

why would anyone do that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top