Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you scrap the electoral college -- that is the end of the United States. That's the bottom line here folks. The United States are a federation of STATES. If 2/3 of the states no longer have much of a say in things -- then there's no reason for the U.S. to continue to exist as it does now. Let's split it up.
If you scrap the electoral college -- that is the end of the United States. That's the bottom line here folks. The United States are a federation of STATES. If 2/3 of the states no longer have much of a say in things -- then there's no reason for the U.S. to continue to exist as it does now. Let's split it up.
DEAL. IMO that's going to happen anyway but when the economic engines of the country have no say, when the largest cities in the country have no say but a tiny town in Ohio controls the whole country, it may as well split up anyway. Right now what is happening is rural areas are voting for representatives that get them urban money they don't earn themselves. Whether it's farm subsidies, tariff subsidies, coal subsidies, demanding utilities buy coal power, whatever they can think of. The minority should not control the majority. Should 5% of the control 95%? No.
If you scrap the electoral college -- that is the end of the United States. That's the bottom line here folks. The United States are a federation of STATES. If 2/3 of the states no longer have much of a say in things -- then there's no reason for the U.S. to continue to exist as it does now. Let's split it up.
True. The Democrats don't care. They will extract whatever wealth and power they can as the ship sinks. Let's hope a more free society rises from the ashes.
If the Democrats had better candidates, they wouldn't have to worry about the Electoral College. President Obama won twice with this system. Get some better candidates running and you can beat Trump using the system in place. All the ones running, so far, are so left from center, that it probably scares a lot of potential voters. Trump is ripe for a defeat, if a more moderate can gain favor as a Democrat, you may have a winner. Until then remember, it's not the system, it's you.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,596,838 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Creekcat
If the Democrats had better candidates, they wouldn't have to worry about the Electoral College. President Obama won twice with this system. Get some better candidates running and you can beat Trump using the system in place. All the ones running, so far, are so left from center, that it probably scares a lot of potential voters. Trump is ripe for a defeat, if a more moderate can gain favor as a Democrat, you may have a winner. Until then remember, it's not the system, it's you.
Think about it. New Jersey hasn't been a swing state since the 1990s presidentially. Tennessee hasn't been a swing state since 2000-when Al Gore failed to win his own home state.
If the EC is gone, the popular vote rules, but TN Democrats and NJ Republicans would actually go out and vote because their vote would be meaningful, won't it?
No because then you would end up with dozens and dozens of candidates who would completely split the vote, allowing the Pres to be elected with a very minimal amount of votes thus only representing a fraction of the voting populace, on top of this Republicans would be severely outnumbered as liberal voters largely live in densely populated areas, which would allow major liberal cities to dominate the election, same reason I don't bother to vote as a conservative in Illinois, conservatives living downstate are severely outnumbered by the densely populated liberal city of Chicago, although if you look at a map only the eastern tip of Illinois is solid blue. Everyone complaining that Pres Trump doesn't represent every single person on the planet would definitely be crying themselves to sleep every night under this model, just something to think about for all those who oppose Pres Trump and want to get rid of the electoral college, changing the rules doesn't always make it easier to win.
"Without the electoral college, there would be no effective brake on the number of “viable” presidential candidates. Abolish it, and it would not be difficult to imagine a scenario where, in a field of a dozen micro-candidates, the “winner” only needs 10 percent of the vote, and represents less than 5 percent of the electorate. And presidents elected with smaller and smaller pluralities will only aggravate the sense that an elected president is governing without a real electoral mandate."
"In 2016, the Electoral College worked precisely as intended. It prevented Hillary Clinton’s 6-million-vote victory in California and New York from cancelling her 3-million-vote loss in the 48 other states."
"The second knock on the Electoral College is that voters in most states feel their votes don’t matter, that the entire contest is waged in a handful of swing or “battleground” states."
"Yet, if we did away with the Electoral College in favor of the national popular vote, the election would still be decided in a handful of states — populous states such as California and New York. Even though both of those states are deep blue, the GOP candidate would still fish in their waters, because swinging 1 or 2 percent into the red column would be worth more than swinging 1 to 2 percent in a smaller state. Voters in small states, such as Connecticut, would be permanently and completely disenfranchised."
"The third rather trendy critique of the Electoral College is that it favors poor rural red states over prosperous populous urban blue states, suggesting, perhaps unintentionally, that poor peoples’ votes should be worth less than wealthier peoples’ votes. More importantly, this critique recasts current trends into timeless immutable facts. That most small rural states are Republican today reflects politics today. Democrats might do well to develop a rural agenda."
According to the continuing chorus of critics, the divergence of the popular vote and the Electoral College vote in 2016 proves conclusively that the Electoral College is an anti-democratic anachronism. The greater truth is that the critics don’t like the anti-Democratic result of the election. While President Trump is a unique, once-in-a-century national leader, his victory as a Republican is wholly consistent with the overwhelming national GOP consensus. Republicans control the Senate, the House, 33 governorships and the vast majority of state legislatures nationwide.
Democrats should forget about changing the rules and start worrying about their performance.
If the Democrats had better candidates, they wouldn't have to worry about the Electoral College. President Obama won twice with this system. Get some better candidates running and you can beat Trump using the system in place. All the ones running, so far, are so left from center, that it probably scares a lot of potential voters. Trump is ripe for a defeat, if a more moderate can gain favor as a Democrat, you may have a winner. Until then remember, it's not the system, it's you.
If Republican policies were more popular, they'd win the popular vote.
The Democrats are attempting an illegal end run around the Constitution in order to install guaranteed one party rule. The are also promoting illegal aliens to enter the country in huge numbers to vote Democrat and install one party rule. Their goal is to usurp power through illegal means. It is very clear. Why would anyone want a party that relies on illegal actions to have any power in the U.S.? Plus they want the law abiding disarmed which is also, wait for it......ILLEGAL.
What they’re doing is afforded by law.
Just cause you don’t like it doesn’t make it ILLEGAL.
Presidential Electors Clause, Article 2, section 1, clause 2, which gives each state the power to determine the manner in which its electors are selected.
Compact Clause, Article I, section 10, clause 3, under which it creates an enforceable compact.
Those states can join the group of states like Wisconsin, Michigan and North Carolina where Democrats won and the GOP is going for a power grab because they can't accept the outcome of an election.
Wisconsin judge blocks Republicans’ lame-duck power grab
Quote:
A Wisconsin judge on Thursday blocked several lightning-fast actions in December by the state’s Republican-controlled legislature to limit the power of its incoming governor, Democrat Tony Evers, and preserve policies implemented by his predecessor, Scott Walker.
Quote:
The GOP has tried similar power-stripping efforts after losing statewide elections in North Carolina and Michigan. Outgoing Michigan governor Rick Snyder vetoed some but not all of the bills passed in December. And in 2016, North Carolina’s outgoing Republican governor, Pat McCrory, defeated by Democrat Roy Cooper, signed a number of lame-duck measures, some of which have been successfully challenged in court.
The attempt to chip away at the electoral college continues...
The truth is Democrats have ceased to concern themselves with the majority over flyover country and this is their attempt to hack the system in their favor.
The purpose of the electoral college is to protect us from what James Madison called the “tyranny of the majority.” Each state gets to cast electoral votes equal to the combined number of its U.S. representatives (determined by population) and its senators (two regardless of population). The goal was to make sure even the smallest states have a say in electing the president and prevent those with large, big-city populations from dictating to the less populous rural ones.
No wonder Democrats don’t like it. Today, they have become the party of big-city elites, while their support is declining in less populous states of Middle America. Just look at a county-by-county map of the 2016 election — you can actually drive from coast to coast without driving through a single county that voted for Hillary Clinton. Clinton lost in 2016 because millions of once-reliable Democratic working-class voters in the American heartland switched their allegiance to Trump.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
