Hillary Clinton: Time to abolish the Electoral College

Not a single part of this post has any foundation in reality.

 

This is untrue.

This is also untrue.

While I agree that 1 state = 1 vote in the EC is a poor idea, any argument with regard to the election of the President that contains "the will of the people" is fallacious.
The will of the people has never elected the President; the people have no right to even vote on the matter.

 

Progressive changes have certainly been made in California. http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/225...iminal-justice-reform-debate-in-california-2/

 

Not at all. Presumably, if you connect the popular vote to the most States, by winning the most States, you should win the most votes. As it is right now, California for example has way more EV's than every other state in the country. But if California has one and only ONE vote, that means California's no longer more important than Kansas, etc.

 

That makes absolutely no sense. Popular vote refers to the total vote of eligible voters. CA has way more EV's than every other state because CA has way more people than every other state. As it stands, the EC devalues the votes of voters in CA and overvalues the votes in states like Kansas. Small states already have a huge advantage in the Senate which is passed on to the GOP. The House vote is gerrymandered to the point where the politicians, currently the GOP, chooses its voters as opposed to the voters choosing them.

 

illegal aliens cannot vote in federal elections, your post belongs in the conspiracy

 

what toddvw posted is true, period

 

Prove it.

 

If I won CA, Texas, Pennsylvania and New York, I'd already be more than halfway to 270. After that, I can split the map with you and still win. States with big EV's are crucial to victory IMO. Florida for example.

You only feel it devalues it because the Small States banded together(some of whom were Blue States). In reality, it takes such a banding together to negate the CA voice. If they didn't band together, Hillary's President. States like Ohio and Wisconsin became critical for Trump.

1 vote per 1 State wouldn't change the results of the past election, but it would make everyone's vote equal. Which is your complaint now. But right now, for example Seattle and Hawaii are two other States disenfranchised.

 

...under federal law.
This does not mean they do not vote in federal elections.

 

No, that's even worse than today. Subtracting two EC votes from each state would be a big improvement, but best (of course) would be to just eliminate the EC and count the actual votes.

 

Aside from the fact we already count the actual votes...
Why is this the best idea?
How many western democracies directly elect their head of government?

 

Truth! and these voters want to "Make America Great Again." Truly hilarious.

 

But why do they have more EV's than everyone else? The answer is simple: The Census. Now you know why Cali has no problem with illegal immigration.

 

Ludicrous assertion. Trump would like to see it go away as well. The only reason he's changed his tune is because he WON this one. Just look at his tweet..100 millions righties agreed with him, so you can take that Democrats BS and shove it where the sun don't shine.

 

If you won those states plus a couple others, you'd have won pretty close to 1/2 the population of the US.

If you take the smallest (population-wise) states, they wouldn't even add up to the population of CA. So how would give each of those small states 1 vote for a total of 20 to CA's 1 not nullify the majority of the population's voice in the matter? You'd be giving nearly 50% of the power to elect a president to states that constitute roughly 10% of the population. How long do you think the people would stand for that?

It doesn't even remotely make "everyone's vote equal". Quite the opposite it would greatly increase the inequality that exists between the over-represented small states and the underrepresented larger states.

 

as far as the popular vote, only the alex jones types think otherwise

 

read my last response to you

 

Cite the three elections across the relevant frame of time where the GOP candidate won the election, but the Dem candidate won the popular vote.
Hint: You cannot.

 

Said response, as useless as it was, is even more useless here.

 

Very few western democracies directly elect their head of government. Most are parliamentary, meaning that the legislature elects the President.

The EC is a good idea, because it gives some say to the states, but also the people. It's a compromise, which doesn't allow either the small states or the large states to get too much control. The Constitution was written to distribute power, so that no interest group had too much power. This includes the people.

 

Not necessarily. Your state does not need to hold an election to allocate its slate of electors.

 

I believe the number is Zero.

 

No deal, I stay with my one.

 

fyi you need to keep the storyline. democrats won the popular vote 7 out of the last 8, yet republicans won 3 of those.