Democrat introducing bill to abolish Electoral College

originally posted by: jhn7537
a reply to: alphabetaone

Well, we have a republican President, house and senate, so I'm not sure how this is going to get passed before the next election... I mean, why would republicans vote for this, seeing as it helped their party so much this election?

Well that door swings both ways though. What if the Republican party does well in the next 4 years. Then the popular vote may swing toward the Republican candidate...were that to happen, of course they would want to see it implemented.

a reply to: ketsuko

I still think they might try to give this to Hillary via faithless electors and objections to the electoral college vote IF that Trump University verdict does not conclude in his favor and wraps up *on time*.

It starts on November 28. (I was wrong in my thread that it starts in mid-December.)

Fraud is too serious of a civil crime.

Of course, I think this is all by design. I think our globalist masters absolutely want our EC system abolished and have the plan to make it happen.

a reply to: alphabetaone


I saw this and had to laugh out loud......hasn't the DNC damaged their reputation enough already? I mean seriously.....between that buffoon Harry Reid and this......

originally posted by: Darkphoenix77
a reply to: alphabetaone


I saw this and had to laugh out loud......hasn't the DNC damaged their reputation enough already? I mean seriously.....between that buffoon Harry Reid and this......

Yea, honestly they have pretty well tarnished a good deal of their credibility with a lot of people who used to be staunch Democrats. In a way it's a sad time for them.

a reply to: alphabetaone

If republicans can get national voter ID passed like the rest of the developed world and push a majority of illegal immigrants back home republicans will rule over the US for generations.
Once weed is legalized everywhere what social issue do liberals even have to push? republicans are done fighting the gay issue.

a reply to: alphabetaone

Well, the two most recent times (this year and 2000) have benefited the republican party, so I understand how it can go both ways, but historically it only seems to affect one party vs the other.

originally posted by: jellyrev
a reply to: alphabetaone

If republicans can get national voter ID passed like the rest of the developed world and push a majority of illegal immigrants back home republicans will rule over the US for generations.
Once weed is legalized everywhere what social issue do liberals even have to push? republicans are done fighting the gay issue.

Firearms legislation for one and I have no wish to see any more of that introduced.....I like the 2nd Amendment the way it is....

Edit: Also I am sure at some point the abortion issue would rear it's ugly head again as well as this whole pushing political correctness to absurd levels down people's throats....

and good luck getting any federal aid if you are a small state, you won`t get anything and there`s nothing you could do about.

originally posted by: jellyrev
Why not totally overhaul our voting system to a more european voting system with a proportional voting system. First past the post is ancient and outdated.
This is how we know this is just politics. Complaining about the electoral college and not complaining about ballot access to 3rd parties and in general how the system spits out a 2 party only system.

In the UK, our system is not too dissimilar. We have 650 parliamentary seats, each representing an area. The party that takes each seat is the one who takes the popular vote in that area. There is no proportional representation and the people don't seem to want it. Voting in one block as a whole country would destroy Britain and centre power even further in London.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

So you're ok with a couple cities deciding an election?

a reply to: tothetenthpower

Yeah so I guess states like California, New York, and Texas should be able to dictate to the rest of the country on all things political.

When you have illegals voting in droves in California do you really want them to dictate to the rest of us. Especially when they refuse to abide by the law of the land. Illegals should not be voting period! How many votes in California do you suppose were cast illegally.

IMHO the electoral collage should stay as is!

a reply to: alphabetaone

Where was the outrage the other 4 times?

Well one of the other times was sixteen years ago when Gore lost but won the popular vote by 500k. There was some outrage about the election in 2012 though from an ironic source:

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.
11:45 PM - 6 Nov 2012 134,994 134,994 Retweets 93,082

other tweets from President-elect Trump:

“He [Obama] lost the popular vote by a lot and won the election. We should have a revolution in this country!” (Nov. 6)

“The phoney [sic] electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. The loser one!” (Nov. 6)

“More votes equals a loss…revolution!” (Nov. 7)

He knows the best knee-jerk reactions. Everyone says that.

originally posted by: jhn7537
a reply to: alphabetaone

Well, the two most recent times (this year and 2000) have benefited the republican party, so I understand how it can go both ways, but historically it only seems to affect one party vs the other.

Only if you ignore the 19th century. You might also recall that Hillary won the popular vote vs. Obama, who won the nomination in the Democratic primaries 8 years ago.

Andrew Jackson, Democrat
Rutherford Hayes, Republican
Benjamin Harrison, Republican
John Quincy Adams, Democratic-Republican

Be careful what you ask for. Also, you might note that Trump completely ignored California because he knew it was a write-off. The point is that if the election were geared to the popular vote the candidates would run different campaigns. Trump also spent half as much money as Clinton.

How about a hybrid system of each district's popular vote gives the winning candidate one electoral vote and the two extra electoral votes go to the winner of the state's popular vote. Basically do away with the winner takes all in each state. Win more districts and win the race.

a reply to: alphabetaone

And everyone will just campaign in California, New York And Chicago, or highly populated cities. The small states and cities wont have a say.

originally posted by: Tarzan the apeman.
a reply to: alphabetaone

And everyone will just campaign in California, New York And Chicago, or highly populated cities. The small states and cities wont have a say.

Yea, I think that's the general concensus....the country itself would be highly under-represented unless everyone moved to the big 4 (you forgot Texas).

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Tarzan the apeman.
a reply to: alphabetaone

And everyone will just campaign in California, New York And Chicago, or highly populated cities. The small states and cities wont have a say.

Yea, I think that's the general concensus....the country itself would be highly under-represented unless everyone moved to the big 4 (you forgot Texas).

Texas wouldn't have a real say either as on several issues they are not in agreement with people from NYC, Chicago and CA....they would be marginalized I think

originally posted by: FauxMulder
Wouldn't this require a constitutional convention not a bill? Of course the senator from California would want to go with the popular vote seeing as it has a huge (democratic) population.

A newly naturalized immigrant would know the answer to this question by virtue of having to read the US Constitution Atricle 5 has the answer. A bill would start the process to have Congress propose an amendment, which would then have to be ratified by the states (2/3). A convention is when the states start the process.

originally posted by: Darkphoenix77

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Tarzan the apeman.
a reply to: alphabetaone

And everyone will just campaign in California, New York And Chicago, or highly populated cities. The small states and cities wont have a say.

Yea, I think that's the general concensus....the country itself would be highly under-represented unless everyone moved to the big 4 (you forgot Texas).

Texas wouldn't have a real say either as on several issues they are not in agreement with people from NYC, Chicago and CA....they would be marginalized I think

Ya know what, you have a point there....as large as their voter base is, it would almost instantly become irrelevant.

a reply to: Tarzan the apeman.

and all the federal aid will go to the most populous states because that`s where the votes are.