BREAKING: Democrats Introduce Bill To Eliminate Electoral College

a reply to: amazing

So California and NY get elections. Everyone else gets to cheer them on without agency

a reply to: chr0naut

Ummm, no it doesn't.

They each start with 2, then they are each given additional electors commensurate with their House of Representative numbers. So the state with 35 million has way more electors than the state with 500,000. What it does do is give a more proportional weight over a direct electoral weight.

If any one of those 35 million feel their vote is less important than one of those 500,000, nothing prevents them from becoming the 500,001st person in that state with a more important vote. Of course, most of them will then tell you that their vote is worthless among the 500,000.

Some people simply won't be happy unless they get their way, and that's what this is all about.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: amazing

So California and NY get elections. Everyone else gets to cheer them on without agency

Yep ... right up until those two states get it wrong, and then it would be unfair and we'd need a new electoral system to make sure "the people" have their voice again.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: darkbake

Ummm, you don't gerrymander the Senate.

Im Canadian and even I know that. I was going to say something but I'm just tired of having to educate these leftists about the same things over and over again.

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: Guyfriday

It will only die if you let it.

I'm pretty sure most people know what political CPR is, but how many how the guts to administer it? It's just sad that we live in a day and age where people will push for something without knowing the full ramifications of what they are asking for, and others that are fully aware of what they are pushing for.

We are closing in on a point of no return on these issues, in the next few election cycles we are either going to rebuild America or it is just going to rot out like an unlived house. What we are seeing take place is exactly the same thing that is suspected happened when the Greeks first created Democracy.

a reply to: darkbake

If there is plenty of gerrymandering in the House, then I guess the current Democrat majority is illegitimate ... right? That seems to be what you are implying. Let's not pretend that Republicans are the only ones who gerrymander, after all, the ancestry of the term comes from a Democratic-Republican and that party has one descendant in this nation today -- the modern Democrats (the Whig Party was the other branch, and it went extinct).

I'm 100% for abolishing the EC. Power to the people and all that good stuff. If we're all for a smaller government, shouldn't we want the government to not be involved in how the country votes? One man one vote, equal representation, etc. etc.

Let every vote count the same. Whichever side gets the majority of the votes, wins. Any other way makes zero sense to me.

To head off the inevitable, ridiculous reply at the pass: Yes, a majority used to be in favor of slavery. But voting for a politician can not be compared to voting to violate human rights. Don't sully your argument by comparing the two.

Same with saying, "go talk to (insert middle eastern country) and see how they like majority voting". The US isn't Syria, Afghanistan, etc. See my previous point, voting for politicians is not the same as voting to violate human rights.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: queenofswords
Man! I hope the next voting-age group smartens up regarding our Constitution and Government. There is a very basic reason we have an Electoral College and they need to understand it fully.

Here's the thing, if the 'next voting-age group' wants to abolish the Electoral College they can, they just need to follow one of the two processes for amending the Constitution.

The Original Poster is fretting over nothing, he could have posted a thread title stating 'Dems want trans unicorns to crap in kids lunchboxes' and it'd have as much chance of passing as these would.

Not quite the same. No representatives actually put forward a bill make it legal for trans unicorns to crap in kids lunchboxes.
Obviously the two bills have zero chance of passing, but it does however show just how unhinged the intent is. These are not crazies on street corners calling for this - they are elected representatives weilding significant power.

a reply to: narrator

Every vote does count the same under the existing election rules.

a reply to: narrator

The US isn't California or NY either, but if you went that route, we'd all effectively be governed by those people.

That's why we have the EC -- because the Founders already knew in those times that each state had its own distinct culture and way of life, and what worked for one was not necessarily going to work for another. To a certain extent, the EC protects that. It lets people who live in flyover be those people while it allows people who live on the coasts to be those people.

If I wanted to live like someone in Cali or New York, I'd live there, but I don't, and I certainly don't want to live under their idea of governance which is why the EC exists to attempt to ensure that our president is more representative of the nation as a whole than just the big urban cores where most people are lumped. As nice as that thought is, it isn't fully representative of every way of life in this country.

Have you been paying attention to the yellow vests in France? That's what happens when you have too much tyranny of the majority. The minority eventually has no other recourse. Those weren't hot-headed radicals. They were solid, blue collar providers who had no voice left other than what we all saw. The EC system helps to prevent that.

In a sense, you might say that Donald Trump is an ongoing yellow vest protest by a group of people who felt like no one listened to them. Now no one can ignore it. It's right there in your faces Tweeting.

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: LSU2018

No mirrors, just projections.

Correct. Psychological projections.

If this happens our country is really doomed

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

The Electoral College has always been a thorn in the side of those who rely on election rigging and voter fraud. These people see parts of the Constitution as unacceptably inconvenient when pushing their 'by any means necessary' philosophy so this bill /amendment is a natural consequence of all that.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

"A dictatorship of the majority"

LOL.

Yes... it's called being a Democracy.

Which we most certainly are not... in fact the founding fathers stated many times that becoming a Democracy was what they feared the most.

History is fun!

Yet a state with about 500,000 people has the same power as a state with 35 million. And if you analyze the whole Electoral College system, the votes of only 270 actual people decide the President in a country of 320 million.

While those numbers might have worked for a new confederacy, it is totally out of whack for a modern nation with such a vast population.

The current system also gave you a choice between two really bad candidates for the Presidency at the last election.

Perhaps it IS time for revision?

Did you complain when 9 judges decided on gay marriage legality for 320 million? Of course not because it went your way so you didn't have to cry.

A state with 500,000 gives about 4 electoral votes. CA gives 55. Any other excuses?

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: narrator

Every vote does count the same under the existing election rules.

If that were truly the case, Clinton would be president, as she got about 3,000,000 more votes than Trump.

But, as we all know, she isn't (praise be to all higher powers). That means votes actually don't count the same, in the truest sense.

a reply to: narrator

You think a handful of large cities should have complete control over rural America then? You are for single party control?

I'd think the only reason to be opposed to the EC would be because a person thinks it would help them force their views on everyone, because they think it means their party would always win. Right?

I live in Alaska and what works for the huge, bloated messes like NYC or Los Angeles would fail miserably here and the only thing that gives us any say at all is the EC and having two Senators. Usually people who are opposed to the EC are also bothered by us having an equal number of Senators.

I think you need to take a look at the real reasons for the EC in today's America. Single party rule always leads to less freedom and more government control. The world has seen the results of that more than once and it ain't pretty.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: amazing

So California and NY get elections. Everyone else gets to cheer them on without agency

Yes, because that way they'll always get what they want. Is it childish? Yes. Is it unintelligent? Yes. Is it today's democrats posing as adults? Yes.

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: narrator

Every vote does count the same under the existing election rules.

My vote has never counted towards a Presidential election.

Right here you have why I don’t like Democrats. They take the greatest document in the history of mankind and crap on it because it is inconvenient to them. I would much rather be left alone and leave others alone, but if we do nothing we will lose our freedoms, sovereignty and sanity.

a reply to: narrator

Perhaps you just dont understand the system.
Each votes counts but each vote is not a direct vote.
The election system for mayor is different than president.

Are you against the representation system in the house of representatives?
The electrical college is no different.
California has vastly more reps than Rhode Island.
Just as California has vastly more electoral college votes.