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

Lovebug said:
Had it gone her way, she would hold the same in high regards. I can't recall another politician being such a sore loser, except for Gore perhaps, but even he had more class and self respect to move on to something else.
Click to expand...
she's been on another TV tirade..
calling Trump and company "dangerous" as well as a few new blames/ i'd have to look it up
 
Thing1 said:
I don't think you know what "extremism" means. That implies that something is on the fringes.

When more people vote for something, it isn't extreme.
Click to expand...

Like the No Gay Marriage vote in California ... or any other state that put it to a vote of the people?
 
Last edited:
Bottom line is that if one is from a populous state and their candidate lost they likely are going to dislike the system. If one is from a lower populated state they'd be silly to ever want the EC system eliminated...whether their candidate won this election or not. Just my 2 cents. Put a couple bucks with that and you can buy yourself a pop.
 
leaningright said:
Bottom line is that if one is from a populous state and their candidate lost they likely are going to dislike the system. If one is from a lower populated state they'd be silly to ever want the EC system eliminated...whether their candidate won this election or not. Just my 2 cents. Put a couple bucks with that and you can buy yourself a pop.
Click to expand...

Hahahaha. Love the usage of pop.

And you're exactly right and the EC isn't going to be changed because the amaller states won't vote for it
 
leaningright said:
Bottom line is that if one is from a populous state and their candidate lost they likely are going to dislike the system. If one is from a lower populated state they'd be silly to ever want the EC system eliminated...whether their candidate won this election or not. Just my 2 cents. Put a couple bucks with that and you can buy yourself a pop.
Click to expand...
true. "it depends on who's ox is being gored"..but I think it's important to understand WHY the EC is made up like it is -and I look at Congress as the model..my 2 cents
 
leaningright said:
Bottom line is that if one is from a populous state and their candidate lost they likely are going to dislike the system. If one is from a lower populated state they'd be silly to ever want the EC system eliminated...whether their candidate won this election or not. Just my 2 cents. Put a couple bucks with that and you can buy yourself a pop.
Click to expand...

Nope, you are making assumptions on behalf of other people.

I have always believed in fairness, no matter what state I was living in. And I have lived in multiple states of vastly different sizes and population. I have never been afraid of fairness. I have never thought fairness was something to be abandoned cynically to obtain electoral advantage.

One American, one vote. I have never thought an Oklahoman's vote should count for more than a New Yorker's vote. But perhaps believing in fairness is a liberal value.

Regarding your fetish for the electoral college, it was set up to protect the slave economies of slave states. I am surprised to find you imagining it was designed with pure and altruistic goals to promote representative democracy.
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
Nope, you are making assumptions on behalf of other people.

I have always believed in fairness, not matter what state I was living in. And I have lived in multiple states of vastly different sizes and population. I have never been afraid of fairness, and I have never though fairness was something to be abandoned cynically to obtain electoral advantage.

One American, one vote. I have never thought an Oklahoman's vote should count for more than a New Yorker's vote. But perhaps believing in fairness is a liberal value.

Regarding your fetish for the electoral college, it was set up to protect the slave economies of slave states. I am surprised to find you imagining it was designed with pure and altruistic goals to promote representative democracy.
Click to expand...

A for effort but this is almost laughable. A small state isn't going to say "jeez, we're just not being fair to California and New York."

And you give it away by using the term fetish.
 
cawacko said:
A for effort but this is almost laughable. A small state isn't going to say "jeez, we're just not being fair to California and New York."

And you give it away by using the term fetish.
Click to expand...

Already drunk on Sunday morning? Did you imagine I wrote something that I did not?

I was clearly speaking for myself. Was that not crystal clear to you? I believe in fairness. I did not say you, leaning right, or anyone else is required to believe in fairness.

On another tangent, whether or not you believe in electoral fairness, small rural states are already given advantages. Even without the electoral college. I assume you are familiar with the United States senate, and how forty million people in about 12 rural states have 24 senators, while 40 million people in California only have two senators? How much advantage and bias do rural states need?
 
Cypress said:
Already drunk on Sunday morning? Did you imagine I wrote something that I did not?

I was clearly speaking for myself. Was that not crystal clear to you? I believe in fairness. I did not say you, leaning right, or anyone else is required to believe in fairness.

On another tangent, whether or not you believe in electoral fairness, small rural states are already given advantages. Even without the electoral college. I assume you are familiar with the United States senate, and how forty million people in about 12 rural states have 24 senators, while 40 million people in California only have two senators? How much advantage and bias do rural states need?
Click to expand...
conversely large stares are given an advantage in the House. It's because of federalism.
The EC is designed along the very same metrics of Congress
 
Cypress said:
Nope, you are making assumptions on behalf of other people.

I have always believed in fairness, no matter what state I was living in. And I have lived in multiple states of vastly different sizes and population. I have never been afraid of fairness. I have never thought fairness was something to be abandoned cynically to obtain electoral advantage.

One American, one vote. I have never thought an Oklahoman's vote should count for more than a New Yorker's vote. But perhaps believing in fairness is a liberal value.

Regarding your fetish for the electoral college, it was set up to protect the slave economies of slave states. I am surprised to find you imagining it was designed with pure and altruistic goals to promote representative democracy.
Click to expand...

Cool story bro. The smaller states are still not going to vote away the majesty that is the electoral college.
 
Cypress said:
Already drunk on Sunday morning? Did you imagine I wrote something that I did not?

I was clearly speaking for myself. Was that not crystal clear to you? I believe in fairness. I did not say you, leaning right, or anyone else is required to believe in fairness.

On another tangent, whether or not you believe in electoral fairness, small rural states are already given advantages. Even without the electoral college. I assume you are familiar with the United States senate, and how forty million people in about 12 rural states have 24 senators, while 40 million people in California only have two senators? How much advantage and bias do rural states need?
Click to expand...

When equal representation was first proposed, it was the New England states that supported it. Virginia and the south wanted proportional representation.
 
anatta said:
the bitch just won't let it go.

The electoral college is genius in that it keeps the huge states from overwhelming the smaller states.
It's set up just like Congress itself : 2 votes like the representatives in the Senate , and a corresponding number of vote as representatives in the house.
It's what the founders designed - a democratic Republic.

Clinton has now blamed the electoral college for her loss - I think that is reason #47 -although I am losing count
Click to expand...

I quit counting at excuse #1.

Anyone that understands how the electoral college works and the purpose behind it wouldn't say to get rid of it. However, if Hillary wants to see that done, the Constitution she claims to love and know so much about spells out how it can happen. Apparently she doesn't know that the manner in which all but 2 states determine how their electoral votes are decided isn't based on any federal law but on each State itself.
 
Micawber said:
It should be. All movement towards one man one vote is to be welcomed. As usual, Hillary is correct, intellectually and morally.
Click to expand...

As usual, you're a dumbass.

Hate to break it to you but that one man, one vote thing didn't work in her favor. More voted against her than for her. Why do you support someone getting less than a majority of the popular vote being President? Bill didn't get a majority either time. That's something he and Hillary have in common. More voting for someone else than for either of them.
 
anatta said:
Hillary Clinton made an argument for dissolving the Electoral College in an interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper on Wednesday night.

"I think it needs to be eliminated. I'd like to see us move beyond it, yes," Clinton said.

Clinton made the assertion while discussing her book, "What Happened," which recounts the turbulent 2016 US presidential election. Clinton lost the Electoral College to Donald Trump, who pulled in 306 votes to Clinton's 236 last November.

The Electoral College has 538 members who select the US president based on the popular vote in every state, as opposed to the national popular-vote tally, which is why a candidate who loses the popular vote can still win an election.

Clinton won the popular vote by nearly three million ballots, an achievement her supporters have frequently called up in protests during the first half-year of Trump's presidency. Clinton herself has touted it — most recently when she promoted the news website, Verrit, an outlet that calls itself "Media for the 65.8 million," a tagline that references Clinton's popular vote total.

The former Democratic candidate is not the first to suggest the Electoral College should be abolished. Al Gore, who won the popular vote in 2000, but still lost the election to George W. Bush, continued to support the current system, until Trump won in 2016.
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/hillary-clinton-says-electoral-college-035524117.html
Click to expand...

This is just more proof of the complete ignorance and disdain leftist morons in the Party of the Jackass have for the Constitution.

No one is paying attention to Hitlery, even her own party.
 
should-the-electoral-college-be-abolished-12-728.jpg
 
RuneTARD said:
Bullshit.
The Electoral College was set up at a time when over 90% of the populace was illiterate.

It is now obsolete and an insult to the common man, whose vote is truly meaningless.
Click to expand...

Another brain dead clueless leftist retard ignorant of the Constitution and brilliance of our founders to prevent the tyranny of the majority.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top