A modest adjustement for the electoral college

originally posted by: ksiezyc
a reply to: imjack

I'll clarify what specific liberal I point to. The more extreme variant primarily(though not limited to) college students and some of their professors.

Yeah I gotcha,

In my opinion, it's the Democrats who conveniently call themselves 'liberal' to 'appear as good people'. And bashing liberals 'in general' is the main issue. You're so completely unalone in this, me correcting you is a rounding error anyway.

But it's just still fascinating to me Republicans prefer the light of the word "Democrat" when contrasted to "Liberal". There are an insane amount of reasons that's wrong.

a reply to: reldra

Oh no they do. I deal with the left a lot every single day and I have heard "literally Hitler" spoken. It was funny because they didn't realize the hypocrisy of that statement(no I'm not saying Hillary is literally Hitler nor do I defend her from it). Your words say otherwise. Deciding to take things so seriously despite the joke warning.

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: reldra

The electoral college system seems to have been working mostly fine so far.

I think it's even more imperative to keep it as is with so many illegal immigrants able to vote in this country.

Having a direct majority vote while allowing people who shouldn't even be here to have a voice in our leaders and laws is madness. And a good way to set your Govt. up for a trojan horse coup.

Considering the difference in the election was a little under 3 million votes with over 10 million illegals here. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together should be able to see the issue there.

10 million 'illegals' did not vote. I fail to see your logic that the electoral college is imperative due to 'illegals'.

I did not say to get rid. I stated people have said it should be revisited, however, Trump did say to get rid of it.

originally posted by: pteridine

An improvement would be to eliminate the actual electoral voters and just use the electoral vote numbers.

Agreed

a reply to: Voiceofthemajority

That would mean you agree with how they're derived?

Or just the happened results of this last election?

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: datasdream

No one is howling. People are pointing out, as Trump did in the past, that the electoral college system should be revisited as the system used.
Trump actually said to get rid of it.

Source? Any?

All these folks wanting to change the Constitution . Whats up with that? Lyin Corrupt Hillary lost ? Be my bet...

originally posted by: ksiezyc
a reply to: reldra

Liberals, but good point they might not actually really be Democrats, just overall liberals. I'll amend my post to reflect that.

I prefer the name - Progressive.

There's two main types of people, Progressives and Conservatives.
Extroverts and Introverts.
Pretty simple.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: pteridine

Once again, Trump commented without thinking. I don't want California and New York to dictate the election.

An improvement would be to eliminate the actual electoral voters and just use the electoral vote numbers.

And yes, Trump speaks without thinking almost daily.

Sounds familiar...

I propose an even better change.

"No taxation without representation" is what this country is founded upon. How about reverse it. "No representation without taxation."

Put simply, if you don't actually pay taxes, you don't get a vote.

It'd be simple for the IRS to keep track of who actually pays a net tax every year and send that info to the local voter registration office.

Fair is fair. If you're a taker, you don't get a say in how you're governed.

Why has the electoral college been fine and working until the ''elite candidate'' lost?

If Clinton had of won and Trump was jumping up and down saying the electoral college should be scrapped, you'd be going banana's that he should shut up and accept it.

Every time Clinton supporters or Democrats open their mouths they just do them selves and their reputations an injustice.

Tell me, the popular vote appears easily corrupt-able yet the electoral college is not.

How many dead people vote for Democrats?
How many bus loads of people did Democrats take to polling booths?
How much voter fraud was happening in favor of Democrats?

I know why Clinton supporters want the popular vote to matter, that can easily fix that!

a reply to: datasdream

If that is true and smaller states had higher electoral it would have been ridiculous. She wouldn't of even had 100 points.

a reply to: reldra

do you think democracy is new or the founders had no idea of democracy? they knew exactly why a democracy is a failure waiting to happen, because a majority merely becomes a mob of idiots who can't decide things for themselves without a leader to focus on.
humans are designed to be lazy by nature, to live as easily as possible and they care to much for what's within their own lives to even think of what's best for strangers or even themselves most times.

that's what it means by "the meek shall inherit the earth" because the people are never as innocent as they think, you the people are the enablers of tyrants, murder and oppression; hypocrites with empty words and false convictions, man is the beast and he is the one who falls with his own hands.

a reply to: reldra

But 10 million illegals could vote.
The majority of Clinton's 2.8 million vote lead is because of California, where the majority of illegal immigrants are. Also where illegal aliens are encouraged (or at least told there won't be repercussions if they do) to vote. California even has illegals getting appointed to city commisions.

It's not unreasonable to think 3 million illegals voted in California.

Trump says lots of stupid things.

I think the one change that could be made is that California loses a chunk of their electoral votes (going from 55 to say 10) until they can prove they are not harbouring illegal immigrants and allowing them to vote. Plus, all sanctuary cities lose their vote counts towards state totals.

originally posted by: reldra
the electoral college members could avert a disaster if they feel strongly enough about it.

Funny how you call it "averting a disaster" while it's clearly obvious that if the roles were reversed, you'd be calling it a direct shot at democracy or anything alike.

I like how when it fits your narrative, a single person can overrule the will of millions, and that is a good thing because it is "averting a disaster".

Hypocrisy was never something the left lacked and you guys in this forum (and pretty much everywhere else in the world ATM) are a prime example.

I agree.

What is the point of having a "person" cast a vote that has been designated to a particular candidate?

Just use the electoral votes as dictated by the states' laws. If 100% go to the winning candidate, give 100%. If the state's law says by percentage, then by percentage. For example, if a state has 10 electoral votes and the candidates got 45%, 50%, and 5% of the popular vote, then the electoral votes would be 4.5, 5, and .5 respectively.


a reply to: pteridine

originally posted by: ksiezyc
a reply to: datasdream

I think we should do away with elections. Since everyone that isn't a liberal(focusing on conservative parties here) is "literally Hitler" and will be protested upon their victory why even have them? They are clearly a cause of national dissent. In order to unite give way to the tyranny of the majority and keep Democrat's in power in every branch for the rest of American history.


It's a joke, that would be terrible.

Edited "Democrats" to "liberals"

It's funny you mention that, because I distinctly remember Hillary being referred to as Hitlery.

Anyways, to the OP. There's nothing wrong with the EC. It's a great system.

originally posted by: cynicalheathen
Fair is fair. If you're a taker, you don't get a say in how you're governed.

Do we extend this definition of taker to anyone who takes money from the coffers? Or is it ok to be a net drain on the finances if you hold certain government contracts?

An improvement would be to eliminate the actual electoral voters and just use the electoral vote numbers.

Capital idea. But adjusting some of the big state numbers down a bit would be good as well. It's a bit lopsided.

That is an idea, but it leaves out the part of the system that actually works, the electoral college members could avert a disaster if they feel strongly enough about it.

Um...just who the hell are THEY to subvert the will of the people? No thanks. Most are basically the same lobbyist shills anyhow. Screw that!