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

[Cancel 2018.2]

Why would they have "no say"? That's absurd. In a popular vote system, everyone would still have a vote - the only difference would be that the votes would be equal.

Honestly, I'm torn on it - the electoral is a sort of weird, outdated system, but it's also American tradition. I don't really buy that it was the "vision" of the founders, or that the purposes we espouse about it now have anything to do w/ why it was instituted (which was allegedly just a concession to the slave states to bring them on board).

But you've got it backwards, imo. Those "states" would still have their votes in a popular election. You're the one who wants to make the votes of those in less populous states count for more.

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.

[Darth Omar]

I'm amazed this has come up again.

For the galacticly retarded, the EC is never going away because it will essentially mean only a half dozen states votes matter.

Anyone who is not for the EC are retards of the lowest order.

'Never' is a strong word but since getting rid of the EC would require a constitutional amendment---never is pretty close.

Getting two thirds of both the Senate and House to pass it would be tough. Especially in the Senate where it would require a lot of votes from 'dirt' states. Never happen. It's an academic debate.

The politics aren't academic though. There's a bigger cultural divide, than ever, between the Red States and Blue States, with voters in the Blue States lurching ever-leftward.

[PostmodernProphet]

trump wanted it eliminated also. He hated it before he loved it.

doesn't matter......it isn't going to change for you and it isn't going to change for him......

[PostmodernProphet]

& the reason is to twart the will of the ppl when they fail to vote correctly, that is in the interest of the elites, corporations & zillionares....

or you could balance the concerns of both urban and rural America and get elected.......like Republicans do......

[PostmodernProphet]

Yes, so shithole states populations have much more representation than the highly prized & higher populated ones.....

this is why we need an electoral college and simultaneously why the demmycrats can't win under it.......disdain for the overfly-able deplorables who don't live in the "highly-prized" demmycratvilles......

[PostmodernProphet]

Every state has representation. Everyone has Congresspeople & Senators.

Why should some dude in Kansas have his vote count more than someone in a more populous state? Why does dirt matter?

quite simply because the people who live on it believe it does.......

[Darth Omar]

or you could balance the concerns of both urban and rural America and get elected.......like Republicans do......

That's it.

They want it their way, dammit lol.

[ocean515]

Pretty much.

This is only an issue because the left is pissy they can't roll over the Red States with their leftist agenda. As I say every time the topic comes up, democrats only need to tailor their message so they can get votes in places besides CA and NYC.

But that means having to compromise.

To hell with that. If they want to do away with the electoral college there's a constitutional remedy. But humorously lol, it's not a one man one vote, process.

Failing that, they can all move to CA and *democratically* vote for succession in Cal Exit. Then the rest of us can watch CA turn into Venezuela North.

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.

[Micawber]

Underpopulated areas too much say? Without the bought and paid for voters in California, Hillary would have lost the popular vote by over 1 million.

The EC keeps the big population states like New York and California from deciding who the President of the United States is to be.

This is only an issue because the losers can't get their act together and move on.

California and all the other winner take all states suck on this issue, as its many Republican voters have zero say because of the winner take all system within the state. That said, the college sucks for the simple reason that it directs the attention to the wrong locus, the states qua states and not individual people of which they are composed. Your argument says it all. "states like New York and California" deciding. States should not be deciding anything anymore than a company should have human rights. It's a legal fiction, and the fiction can only be justified to the extent it reflects reality. That requires the elimination of winner take all and replacement of it with proportional representation of delegates to the popular vote within every state state. (as well as another issue we would have to fix- the district gerrymandering issue within the states as well)

Anything else is a scam, an agreed upon scam but a scam nonetheless.

[floridafan]

Oh yes, sweet pee, the Voters did not want Trump. I can just imagine your anger had the roles been reversed. I will agrees that your Russian comrades won this go around.

[Getin the ring]

Oh yes, sweet pee, the Voters did not want Trump. I can just imagine your anger had the roles been reversed. I will agrees that your Russian comrades won this go around.

^^^ except for that little 306 electoral vote thingy huh?

[floridafan]

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.

[Cancel 2020.1]

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.

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?

[Granule]

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

Hillary was the best man for the job.

-- The Left

[Darth Omar]

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.

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.