[ddrhazy]

Originally Posted by Commander666

If President Trump was to lose the popular vote in 2020, by 10 mil, it would mean 30% of the illegals voted. Again.

Fake news from a fake president.

[RMESMH]

Originally Posted by emm74

Those critics are wrong, it would concentrate power in the hands of the voters, regardless of where they live. Just as it should be. Empty land shouldn't have more say that actual voting citizens.

People who are against the Electoral College should have been against it, on principle, from the moment they learned what it is. For those who claim that they were against it before the 2000 Election, I wonder how many could pass a lie detector test to further validate that. For those born after 1982, I think filtering out the bias against...if the person is a Democrat....might be impossible.

[ddrhazy]

Originally Posted by Danbo1957

Alright, drop the red. There would be at least 37 states voting to expel California or New York if the Electoral College was eliminated (37 states needed to pass an amendment to the Constitution). Eliminate the Electoral College and you eliminate the 50 United States as equals.

As if states should be equal. What logic is there that North Dakota with it's paltry 760k population has the same amount of power in the senate as California with it's 40 million population?

[ddrhazy]

Originally Posted by Mt.Mahn

Interesting subject

Do you think the Democrats would be bringing up the possible change to the Electoral College system if they won they election in 2016? Nah, don't think so. This is an absolute end run to get back into power.

The Electoral College was specifically put into place because the Founding Fathers were afraid of a direct democracy. Let's not forget that the Electoral College was created so the South (slave country at the time) could have an equal share of the votes.
Another reason is that rural and city citizens each have their vote counted equally. The majority of voters are concentrated on the east and west coast and are "blue" in nature. If you want to see an interesting picture - google a map of the 2016 voting election and see how many parts of the country voted "red/Republican".

Finally, Alexis de Tocqueville dubbed the saying “the tyranny of the majority” and this applies if the Electoral College is modified or removed. Scary stuff....

Slave holders afraid of direct democracy? You don't say...

[lvmensch]

Originally Posted by RMESMH

People who are against the Electoral College should have been against it, on principle, from the moment they learned what it is. For those who claim that they were against it before the 2000 Election, I wonder how many could pass a lie detector test to further validate that. For those born after 1982, I think filtering out the bias against...if the person is a Democrat....might be impossible.

As I have repeatedly pointed out the real problem is the Senate not the Electoral College. That is what will eventually bring the thing to a head. why on earth should a Wyoming or Rhode Island voter have 30 times as much control on the Senate decision as a Californian.

Will eventually require fixing. May be in two years, 50 years, or a 100 years. But eventually some issue will highlight the issue and something will have to give.

think about it as a theoretical problem. What percentage of the population should be able to block the majority of the population?

[EA]

I say we burn it all down.
Congress is full of corrupt slugs.
The entire government is sheer garbage.

[MacInTx]

Originally Posted by lvmensch

As I have repeatedly pointed out the real problem is the Senate not the Electoral College. That is what will eventually bring the thing to a head. why on earth should a Wyoming or Rhode Island voter have 30 times as much control on the Senate decision as a Californian.

Will eventually require fixing. May be in two years, 50 years, or a 100 years. But eventually some issue will highlight the issue and something will have to give.

think about it as a theoretical problem. What percentage of the population should be able to block the majority of the population?

Why?


Because the United States is a group of States, not a democracy. Why the Senate? Precisely because the founders did not want the smaller states to be subject to the whims of the larger states.


Balance - the Constitution is all about balance.

[mvn88]

No

[LVAllen]

Originally Posted by lvmensch

As I have repeatedly pointed out the real problem is the Senate not the Electoral College. That is what will eventually bring the thing to a head. why on earth should a Wyoming or Rhode Island voter have 30 times as much control on the Senate decision as a Californian.

Will eventually require fixing. May be in two years, 50 years, or a 100 years. But eventually some issue will highlight the issue and something will have to give.

think about it as a theoretical problem. What percentage of the population should be able to block the majority of the population?

They shouldn't. I agree. So let's repeal the 17th Amendment and let the States pick their representatives to the Congress in whatever manner they deem fit.

The Senate was never intended to serve as a directly apportioned representative of the people. That's what the House is for.

[Commander666]

Originally Posted by lvmensch

As I have repeatedly pointed out the real problem is the Senate not the Electoral College. That is what will eventually bring the thing to a head. why on earth should a Wyoming or Rhode Island voter have 30 times as much control on the Senate decision as a Californian.

Will eventually require fixing. May be in two years, 50 years, or a 100 years. But eventually some issue will highlight the issue and something will have to give.

think about it as a theoretical problem. What percentage of the population should be able to block the majority of the population?

Gee, I don't know. Maybe because of states like Nevada and New Mexico we would have lost WWII. Why is it people that think they're superior, can't comprehend the UNITED. States.