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

Thing1 said:
I keep hearing that smaller states "won't be represented" if we get rid of the electoral.

Democrats won by 3 million nationally in the last election, and yet Republicans now control every branch of government. Can someone explain to me how the majority of voting Americans are represented right now? Are we actually cool w/ putting smaller states above the interests of MOST voters?
Click to expand...

1) We are not putting smaller states above the interests of 'most voters'.
2) If you take away CA, that eliminates the Dem advantage.
3) There is no way to know how the Stein/Johnson voters would have gone, so pretending that Dems 'winning' the popular vote (despite not getting a MAJORITY) means anything is absurd.

4) You also don't know how the popular vote would have gone had that been the system in place. How many Reps in CA or NY don't vote because they know it won't matter? Same for Dems in TX? etc...

5) Do you think the candidates would have campaigned the same regardless of it being popular vote or electoral college? No, they would have campaigned differently.

6) It isn't simply smaller states that would get ignored. It would be all rural areas. No way would a candidate give a shit about campaigning in smaller towns (even if they reside in larger states).
 
Superfreak said:
What the fuck are you rambling about now? Again, the system is set up to make sure that there isn't a tyranny of the majority. That every vote counts. If you eliminate the electoral college, you set it up to where the candidates will only campaign in heavily populated areas. Promise them the world in order to get voted in. Under the electoral college, it is a winner take all by state. (again, Nebraska and Maine the exceptions). Yet you ramble that '90% are too stupid'... which is just more nonsense from you. You again are refusing to explain how you think the 3/5th's rule (not 2/3 as you incorrectly stated) is a racist component of the electoral college.

You are too ignorant to even understand the 3/5th rule.
Click to expand...
I think the system should be set up like Nebraska and Maine, eliminating the winner take all. There should also
be a reassessment of the number of votes per state.
 
Superfreak said:
1) We are not putting smaller states above the interests of 'most voters'.
2) If you take away CA, that eliminates the Dem advantage.
3) There is no way to know how the Stein/Johnson voters would have gone, so pretending that Dems 'winning' the popular vote (despite not getting a MAJORITY) means anything is absurd.

4) You also don't know how the popular vote would have gone had that been the system in place. How many Reps in CA or NY don't vote because they know it won't matter? Same for Dems in TX? etc...

5) Do you think the candidates would have campaigned the same regardless of it being popular vote or electoral college? No, they would have campaigned differently.

6) It isn't simply smaller states that would get ignored. It would be all rural areas. No way would a candidate give a shit about campaigning in smaller towns (even if they reside in larger states).
Click to expand...

I make the same argument you do. Candidates campaign differently and people may even vote differently when it is an EC.
 
Superfreak said:
What the fuck are you rambling about now? Again, the system is set up to make sure that there isn't a tyranny of the majority. That every vote counts. If you eliminate the electoral college, you set it up to where the candidates will only campaign in heavily populated areas. Promise them the world in order to get voted in. Under the electoral college, it is a winner take all by state. (again, Nebraska and Maine the exceptions). Yet you ramble that '90% are too stupid'... which is just more nonsense from you. You again are refusing to explain how you think the 3/5th's rule (not 2/3 as you incorrectly stated) is a racist component of the electoral college.

You are too ignorant to even understand the 3/5th rule.
Click to expand...

As you are too ignorant to understand that the real reason for the Electoral College is to keep the illiterate masses from electing a president.
 
Covfefe said:
I think the system should be set up like Nebraska and Maine, eliminating the winner take all. There should also
be a reassessment of the number of votes per state.
Click to expand...

Which is simply the same system as we have today, done at the district level rather than the state level. The more you break it out, the more you allow for the tyranny of the majority.

What we need is term limits in Congress. No more career politicians.
 
yes. it's counter-intuitive, but the EC actually forces candidates to campaign more in less populated areas.
That is a good thing
 
Rune said:
As you are too ignorant to understand that the real reason for the Electoral College is to keep the illiterate masses from electing a president.
Click to expand...

Again... you continue to refuse to explain your position. I understand exactly what the electoral college was designed to do. You clearly do not. You are clearly confused regarding the 3/5ths. You clearly do not comprehend why it is the founders feared the masses simply voting on a popular vote basis.
 
you could do a proportion of the electoral vote=number of votes per state ie you get 60% of the popular vote in said state you get 60% of the electoral allotment of that state.

But you can't do straight popular vote of the entire country, that's Russian like talk
 
Superfreak said:
1) We are not putting smaller states above the interests of 'most voters'.
2) If you take away CA, that eliminates the Dem advantage.
3) There is no way to know how the Stein/Johnson voters would have gone, so pretending that Dems 'winning' the popular vote (despite not getting a MAJORITY) means anything is absurd.

4) You also don't know how the popular vote would have gone had that been the system in place. How many Reps in CA or NY don't vote because they know it won't matter? Same for Dems in TX? etc...

5) Do you think the candidates would have campaigned the same regardless of it being popular vote or electoral college? No, they would have campaigned differently.

6) It isn't simply smaller states that would get ignored. It would be all rural areas. No way would a candidate give a shit about campaigning in smaller towns (even if they reside in larger states).
Click to expand...

So what? Rural areas all over the country get ignored right now, because they're in "safe" states. Rural areas in NY & TX, for example.

Why does that matter? Again, I'm torn on the issue, but I don't understand this great need to have every single "area" represented, and why that is a higher priority than actual #'s of people.

And can we retire "if not for CA" permanently? That's possibly the lamest point ever made, and it keeps getting repeated as though it has merit.
 
Although, SF, the office of the President is already limited in terms, so we need to find a way that all States and people have equality in picking the President.
 
Superfreak said:
Tell us Rune... what was the 'will of the people'? Hillary did not win a majority of the popular vote. So what was the 'will of the people'?
Click to expand...
Hillary didn't win a majority of the popular vote? Did I read you correctly, is that what you meant, really?0
 
Thing1 said:
So what? Rural areas all over the country get ignored right now, because they're in "safe" states. Rural areas in NY & TX, for example.

Why does that matter? Again, I'm torn on the issue, but I don't understand this great need to have every single "area" represented, and why that is a higher priority than actual #'s of people.

And can we retire "if not for CA" permanently? That's possibly the lamest point ever made, and it keeps getting repeated as though it has merit.
Click to expand...

For the most part it isn't. Every district has roughly the same number of voters. Each gets one vote. Yes, the system for the two Senate seats each state gives gives a higher representation on a per vote basis to smaller states. But that is precisely so they do not get ignored completely.

also... she won CA by 4 million votes. So yeah, that was the difference. It is just as 'lame' as screaming 'Hillary got more votes'... as if that had ANY merit under the system we have in place.
 
Superfreak said:
For the most part it isn't. Every district has roughly the same number of voters. Each gets one vote. Yes, the system for the two Senate seats each state gives gives a higher representation on a per vote basis to smaller states. But that is precisely so they do not get ignored completely.

also... she won CA by 4 million votes. So yeah, that was the difference. It is just as 'lame' as screaming 'Hillary got more votes'... as if that had ANY merit under the system we have in place.
Click to expand...

It's a frigging lame point. It's like saying, "well, if you take away TX..."

I've actually heard righties say "if you take away NY, CA and the coasts..." People are people. "If you take away CA" is an incredibly lame point, because they're Americans, they vote, and barring a major earthquake, no one is taking CA away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top