the fervour by which americans will defend archaic institutions like the constitution and the electoral college is mind boggling to me ... it was written in the 1700's for crying out loud ... the rationale for it's continued existence on here is pure cut and paste, indoctrinated thinking ... no other "democracy" in the free world uses anything like this because it's about as anti-democratic a system as it gets ... it's created a two-party system which created partisanship ... no one can rationalize the benefits of partisanship ...
the ONLY way the electoral colleges make sense if each state was uniform in its position and values ... that means like 75%+ would support a candidate ... that is clearly not the case in the US ... this system has elected george w bush and donald trump in the past 2 decades ... which means any clown with money can be president of the US ... is that a system people actually support on here!??
how would you change it? what standards for getting on the ballot would you like to see? i mean when 1000 or so people write-in a dead gorilla for president we aren't exactly all starting from the same position on voting.
I do believe democracy only works when the electorate is reasonably informed ... obviously that is not the case in most places but objectively, even less so in the US ... and it's not because americans are dumber - just rather more partisan ... partisanship leads to indoctrination ... it's why america still has the highest concentration of people who don't believe in global warming ...
as far as how I would change it - I would first outlaw citizens united ... i would blow up every measure that supports the two-party system ... i would mandate each state fund an independent media outlet and I would pass a transparency act ... where only in extreme measures would gov't activity be classified ... and if there was a way of blowing up both the democratic and republican parties ... i'd do that too ...
but the key is the elimination of a two-party system and raising the level of informed voter and reducing the influence of corporations and lobbyists ...
The tragic irony here is that the misguided founders instituted the electoral college so that something like this wouldn't happen.
Absolutely true.
I don't know where to stand on the issue. With a popular vote everyone has a vote that is weighted exactly the same. Idealistically this is best. In practice, that means that the elections become a match-up of urban vs rural as half the population lives in a few 10's of the thousands of counties. City folk already think their way of life is universal and I wouldn't want that to get any worse, but I'm the first to bash the backwards, neandethal hillbillies for their political and social opinions. This leaves me undecided.
I'm with Gambs here, for the reasons he listed. Also,direct democracy scares the shit out of me because, well, look around at who votes. I'm not happy with the results this time around, but it isn't the electoral college that created President Trump. Blame the non-voters, blame the two major parties, blame backlash against establishment politics with no good options.
I'm neither a defender of the electoral college nor am I calling for its abolishment. I just don't blame the electoral college for the results of this election. Clinton's team knew full well how to game the system and did so during the primaries. The candidate just couldn't pull in the votes in the right places for the general.
you my friend nailed it...trust me im not happy with what was left for options to vote and it wasn't a vote for Trump, it was a vote against the establishment and Hillary that i knew would matter the most rather than a 3rd party...i've taken tons of backlash and i accept that i just hope that this changes things moving forward and the government listens to the people
how do you feel that everyone Trump has hired and seems to be looking at for his cabinet is an insider and in the establishment? 6 days later do you feel duped yet?
as for the Electoral college, as i mentioned before, maybe it's time to tweak it so not all votes from a state go to one candidate. if a candidate wins by 1 vote in a large state like PA should they really get all 22 electoral college votes?
I don't think anyone expected Trump to chose non-career politicians for his cabinet. Maybe 1 or 2 like Ben Carson for something, but I think everyone expected the majority to be career politicians we've heard of.
"I'm not going to change my mind just because I won. But I would rather see it where you went with simple votes. you know, you get 100 million votes and somebody else gets 90 million votes and you win. There's a reason for doing this because it brings all the states into play"
- Donald Trump
Nice. President-elect Trump also said But, in trying to calm fears that his Supreme Court would toss last year’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage, Trump argued, “it’s done,” adding “these cases have gone to the Supreme Court, they’ve been decided. And I’m fine with that,” adding that his views on the subject are “irrelevant.” http://deadline.com/2016/11/donald-trump-same-sex-marriage-okay-roe-v-wade-james-comey-1201853781/
Yet he said he would appoint judges that would over turn roe vs wade. Another hypocritical point
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
"I'm not going to change my mind just because I won. But I would rather see it where you went with simple votes. you know, you get 100 million votes and somebody else gets 90 million votes and you win. There's a reason for doing this because it brings all the states into play"
- Donald Trump
Nice. President-elect Trump also said But, in trying to calm fears that his Supreme Court would toss last year’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage, Trump argued, “it’s done,” adding “these cases have gone to the Supreme Court, they’ve been decided. And I’m fine with that,” adding that his views on the subject are “irrelevant.” http://deadline.com/2016/11/donald-trump-same-sex-marriage-okay-roe-v-wade-james-comey-1201853781/
Yet he said he would appoint judges that would over turn roe vs wade. Another hypocritical point
I don't know the whole roe vs wade business enough to speak on. Perhaps he was talking about the concept of overturning it appealed to him or maybe he is finding out there are things a President can and can not do. Is that a reach?
"I'm not going to change my mind just because I won. But I would rather see it where you went with simple votes. you know, you get 100 million votes and somebody else gets 90 million votes and you win. There's a reason for doing this because it brings all the states into play"
- Donald Trump
Nice. President-elect Trump also said But, in trying to calm fears that his Supreme Court would toss last year’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage, Trump argued, “it’s done,” adding “these cases have gone to the Supreme Court, they’ve been decided. And I’m fine with that,” adding that his views on the subject are “irrelevant.” http://deadline.com/2016/11/donald-trump-same-sex-marriage-okay-roe-v-wade-james-comey-1201853781/
Yet he said he would appoint judges that would over turn roe vs wade. Another hypocritical point
I don't know the whole roe vs wade business enough to speak on. Perhaps he was talking about the concept of overturning it appealed to him or maybe he is finding out there are things a President can and can not do. Is that a reach?
It means that if roe vs wade was over turned, trump wants the states to handle it. Which means a woman would have to hope the state she lives in is pro abortion or she will have to go to another state to have one.
Post edited by Degeneratefk on
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
If the election were based on total popular vote I would have campaigned in N.Y. Florida and California and won even bigger and more easily Donald J Trump
If the election were based on total popular vote I would have campaigned in N.Y. Florida and California and won even bigger and more easily Donald J Trump
And everyone who voted for him will believe it because he said it. Why does he even comment? Be happy with your electoral win and ignore the rest, but he just can't do it. Why? Pride. He's like Kevin Spacey in Seven. Even though everyone knows he's deranged they go along with his plan anyway. I for one don't want to know what's in the box when we get to the end of this.
If the election were based on total popular vote I would have campaigned in N.Y. Florida and California and won even bigger and more easily Donald J Trump
And everyone who voted for him will believe it because he said it. Why does he even comment? Be happy with your electoral win and ignore the rest, but he just can't do it. Why? Pride. He's like Kevin Spacey in Seven. Even though everyone knows he's deranged they go along with his plan anyway. I for one don't want to know what's in the box when we get to the end of this.
Not because he said it, but because it's common sense. Republican turnout in CA and NY is one of the lowest in the country and Democratic is among the highest because they are blue states. Same is true for red states too, but they are not as large or populated as the blue states. The margin for popular vote was so small it is not unreasonable to think Trump had a better chance of winning if it was based on popular vote. If republican turnout was just 4 or 5% higher in CA, which is still far below national average, Trump would win the popular vote.
If the election were based on total popular vote I would have campaigned in N.Y. Florida and California and won even bigger and more easily Donald J Trump
And everyone who voted for him will believe it because he said it. Why does he even comment? Be happy with your electoral win and ignore the rest, but he just can't do it. Why? Pride. He's like Kevin Spacey in Seven. Even though everyone knows he's deranged they go along with his plan anyway. I for one don't want to know what's in the box when we get to the end of this.
Not because he said it, but because it's common sense. Republican turnout in CA and NY is one of the lowest in the country and Democratic is among the highest because they are blue states. Same is true for red states too, but they are not as large or populated as the blue states. The margin for popular vote was so small it is not unreasonable to think Trump had a better chance of winning if it was based on popular vote. If republican turnout was just 4 or 5% higher in CA, which is still far below national average, Trump would win the popular vote.
"Be happy with the electoral win"----said every president since the damn electoral college was created
as far as your post mace you are correct if it was based on popular vote most states would never see a candidate and the same states would be the center point of every election
If the election were based on total popular vote I would have campaigned in N.Y. Florida and California and won even bigger and more easily Donald J Trump
And everyone who voted for him will believe it because he said it. Why does he even comment? Be happy with your electoral win and ignore the rest, but he just can't do it. Why? Pride. He's like Kevin Spacey in Seven. Even though everyone knows he's deranged they go along with his plan anyway. I for one don't want to know what's in the box when we get to the end of this.
Not because he said it, but because it's common sense. Republican turnout in CA and NY is one of the lowest in the country and Democratic is among the highest because they are blue states. Same is true for red states too, but they are not as large or populated as the blue states. The margin for popular vote was so small it is not unreasonable to think Trump had a better chance of winning if it was based on popular vote. If republican turnout was just 4 or 5% higher in CA, which is still far below national average, Trump would win the popular vote.
"Be happy with the electoral win"----said every president since the damn electoral college was created
as far as your post mace you are correct if it was based on popular vote most states would never see a candidate and the same states would be the center point of every election
Does it really matter though if a candidate goes to every state? 150 years ago it mattered....we didn't have instant media like we do now.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018) The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
If the election were based on total popular vote I would have campaigned in N.Y. Florida and California and won even bigger and more easily Donald J Trump
And everyone who voted for him will believe it because he said it. Why does he even comment? Be happy with your electoral win and ignore the rest, but he just can't do it. Why? Pride. He's like Kevin Spacey in Seven. Even though everyone knows he's deranged they go along with his plan anyway. I for one don't want to know what's in the box when we get to the end of this.
Not because he said it, but because it's common sense. Republican turnout in CA and NY is one of the lowest in the country and Democratic is among the highest because they are blue states. Same is true for red states too, but they are not as large or populated as the blue states. The margin for popular vote was so small it is not unreasonable to think Trump had a better chance of winning if it was based on popular vote. If republican turnout was just 4 or 5% higher in CA, which is still far below national average, Trump would win the popular vote.
And maybe Clinton's would have been higher in red states where Dem votes don't matter.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018) The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
If the election were based on total popular vote I would have campaigned in N.Y. Florida and California and won even bigger and more easily Donald J Trump
And everyone who voted for him will believe it because he said it. Why does he even comment? Be happy with your electoral win and ignore the rest, but he just can't do it. Why? Pride. He's like Kevin Spacey in Seven. Even though everyone knows he's deranged they go along with his plan anyway. I for one don't want to know what's in the box when we get to the end of this.
Not because he said it, but because it's common sense. Republican turnout in CA and NY is one of the lowest in the country and Democratic is among the highest because they are blue states. Same is true for red states too, but they are not as large or populated as the blue states. The margin for popular vote was so small it is not unreasonable to think Trump had a better chance of winning if it was based on popular vote. If republican turnout was just 4 or 5% higher in CA, which is still far below national average, Trump would win the popular vote.
And maybe Clinton's would have been higher in red states where Dem votes don't matter.
And I mentioned that too. But when you consider that the dem's have 4 of the 5 largest states (excluding swing states) and the republican voter turnout is much lower in states like CA and NY, it has a much larger impact on the popular vote than low democratic turnout in a state like Utah. Out of states with electoral votes of 20 or more Red gets Texas. Blue gets, CA, NY, IL (and sometimes PA is thrown in there, but not this year). That's why in most elections it is predicted the republican needs more of the swing states to win. If Trump didn't get Florida, we'd still be waiting on Michigan to hear who won since CA, NY and IL is more than a third of what they need right there. Add 1 of the blue leaning states and they're halfway there. Point being low republican turnout in blue states hurts more than low dem turnout in red states based off the numbers of those states if you focus purely on popular vote.
If the election were based on total popular vote I would have campaigned in N.Y. Florida and California and won even bigger and more easily Donald J Trump
And everyone who voted for him will believe it because he said it. Why does he even comment? Be happy with your electoral win and ignore the rest, but he just can't do it. Why? Pride. He's like Kevin Spacey in Seven. Even though everyone knows he's deranged they go along with his plan anyway. I for one don't want to know what's in the box when we get to the end of this.
Not because he said it, but because it's common sense. Republican turnout in CA and NY is one of the lowest in the country and Democratic is among the highest because they are blue states. Same is true for red states too, but they are not as large or populated as the blue states. The margin for popular vote was so small it is not unreasonable to think Trump had a better chance of winning if it was based on popular vote. If republican turnout was just 4 or 5% higher in CA, which is still far below national average, Trump would win the popular vote.
If the election were based on total popular vote I would have campaigned in N.Y. Florida and California and won even bigger and more easily Donald J Trump
And everyone who voted for him will believe it because he said it. Why does he even comment? Be happy with your electoral win and ignore the rest, but he just can't do it. Why? Pride. He's like Kevin Spacey in Seven. Even though everyone knows he's deranged they go along with his plan anyway. I for one don't want to know what's in the box when we get to the end of this.
Not because he said it, but because it's common sense. Republican turnout in CA and NY is one of the lowest in the country and Democratic is among the highest because they are blue states. Same is true for red states too, but they are not as large or populated as the blue states. The margin for popular vote was so small it is not unreasonable to think Trump had a better chance of winning if it was based on popular vote. If republican turnout was just 4 or 5% higher in CA, which is still far below national average, Trump would win the popular vote.
Shhh. You talking common sense and logic speak
Funny coming from you. Most of what you post is just trying to rile up or make fun of everything.
Mace did make a good point, however, we can talk all day about what if, but that doesn't change anything for either side. He didn't win popular and won't win it yet just has to act like he could have. Clinton could have won the electoral vote as well but who cares anymore.
I wonder what boxers opinion of super delegates are? Wonder if she has an opinion on increasing a states super delegates in exchange for moving primary dates? Maybe I'll email her.
I wonder what boxers opinion of super delegates are? Wonder if she has an opinion on increasing a states super delegates in exchange for moving primary dates? Maybe I'll email her.
I'd also be interested in knowing how long she's opposed the electoral college. More than a week? I think she made a little noise in 2000, but had a decade and a half to do something about it, but apparently couldn't be bothered. Maybe she's looking for a hail-Mary legacy in her waning days.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
i would speculate clinton would have won easily if it was based on popular vote ... a good chunk of the people that voted for 3rd parties in safe states would have likely voted clinton ...
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
i think it might be a bigger deal if it allowed for a winner with a much wider margin of the vote. it is so close, i don't see how anyone can really cry foul.
I agree. She won the popular vote but it wasn't like she won by 10%. The popular vote was basically a tie and people are acting like she got this mandate by winning the popular vote by .1% of the nation.
Exactly. And when about 50% of eligible voters vote, it's a bit more of a specious argument. The Electoral College works. We are a REPRESENTATIVE Democracy.
We are supposed to be a Constitutional Republic. Democracy is mob rule. You are right on the Representative and therefore the electoral college exists.
All talk here and everywhere else leading up to the election was 270...270...270. Period.
Not one person was on here, or on the internet hoping for a popular vote result and had the shoe been on the other foot liberals would be screaming about using electoral college.
Look at what getting participation trophies does to a young person. They can't handle defeat.
I am getting so incredibly sick of this type of comment. this has nothing to do with "losing". it's about the direction of the country.
Hugh Freaking Dillon is currently out of the office, returning sometime in the fall
Yet so many refuse to see it as the cancer that it is and instead ask for more as if more water in the boat will prevent it from sinking.
well, since the description of AMT is "Politics, current events", it should be expected many if not most discussoin will have something to do with government. if you don't expect it to be about current events and how our representatives react to those events, then maybe unplug.
Bunker Time!
Hugh Freaking Dillon is currently out of the office, returning sometime in the fall
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
Comments
as far as how I would change it - I would first outlaw citizens united ... i would blow up every measure that supports the two-party system ... i would mandate each state fund an independent media outlet and I would pass a transparency act ... where only in extreme measures would gov't activity be classified ... and if there was a way of blowing up both the democratic and republican parties ... i'd do that too ...
but the key is the elimination of a two-party system and raising the level of informed voter and reducing the influence of corporations and lobbyists ...
we will find a way, we will find our place
Perhaps he was talking about the concept of overturning it appealed to him or maybe he is finding out there are things a President can and can not do. Is that a reach?
we will find a way, we will find our place
Donald J Trump
as far as your post mace you are correct if it was based on popular vote most states would never see a candidate and the same states would be the center point of every election
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
Out of states with electoral votes of 20 or more Red gets Texas. Blue gets, CA, NY, IL (and sometimes PA is thrown in there, but not this year).
That's why in most elections it is predicted the republican needs more of the swing states to win. If Trump didn't get Florida, we'd still be waiting on Michigan to hear who won since CA, NY and IL is more than a third of what they need right there. Add 1 of the blue leaning states and they're halfway there.
Point being low republican turnout in blue states hurts more than low dem turnout in red states based off the numbers of those states if you focus purely on popular vote.
Mace did make a good point, however, we can talk all day about what if, but that doesn't change anything for either side. He didn't win popular and won't win it yet just has to act like he could have. Clinton could have won the electoral vote as well but who cares anymore.
He doesn't know when to stop. That is a problem.
its never going to end
Maybe I'll email her.
People, yourself included, will always have grievances with the government and we have the right to air those grievances publicly.
Yet so many refuse to see it as the cancer that it is and instead ask for more as if more water in the boat will prevent it from sinking.
Bunker Time!
I mean, who is my enemy?