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

[Rune]

I make the same argument you do. Candidates campaign differently and people may even vote differently when it is an EC.

Yeah, so?
At least the will of the people would be honored instead of dishonored.

[Superfreak]

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.

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.

[Getin the ring]

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

[Cancel 2020.1]

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).

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.

[Superfreak]

Yeah, so?
At least the will of the people would be honored instead of dishonored.

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'?

[Phantasmal]

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.

[Phantasmal]

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'?

Hillary didn't win a majority of the popular vote? Did I read you correctly, is that what you meant, really?0

[Superfreak]

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.

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]

Hillary didn't win a majority of the popular vote? Did I read you correctly, is that what you meant, really?0

That is precisely what I meant and it is 100% accurate. She had the most votes. She did not win a majority.

[Cancel 2020.1]

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.

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.

[Phantasmal]

That is precisely what I meant and it is 100% accurate. She had the most votes. She did not win a majority.

Okay, not following your logic, but if it makes you happy...

[Superfreak]

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.

We do have a system that gets us as close to 'equality' as we can get. You seem to think the popular vote would give equality? Nope. It would give all power to the urban centers in the country. Rural voters, voters in smaller states would all be silenced.

[PostmodernProphet]

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.

since the number of electoral votes of each state is 2 (all states) plus additional votes based on population (and people) we already have a system in place that permits all states and people equality in picking the president.......isn't great how they already figured that out in the 1780s and you didn't suggest it until now?.........

[Superfreak]

Okay, not following your logic, but if it makes you happy...

Do the math. It isn't hard. 137,525,484 votes were cast for President. Hillary won 65,853,652. That equates to roughly 48.02% of the vote. That is not a majority.

[PostmodernProphet]

no one is taking CA away.

agreed....but lib'ruls still pretend that we have......