Colorado Joins 11 States Agreeing to Shift to Popular Vote System

You asked which Part, correct. So clearly you have no idea as to what came out of your mouth.

You were given the part. Oh and also the part from Article II, Section 1, Clause 3, by which the Electoral College originally functioned.

Try not to confuse yourself. Oh and don't project what confuses you onto others.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/l...lege-is-racist

Left's new talking point: The Electoral College is racist

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who's a leading indicator of Democratic talking points, recently called the Electoral College "A shadow of slavery's power."....snip~


Of course, there is the one fact that rises above all others as to why the Leftness wants to get rid of the Electoral College.

Because they were the Loser. If the Demos had won the Presidency. They wouldn't even be talking about the Electoral college.

So they now do what Losers do.....Lose some more.

 

This only shows how ignorant our public school system has become. The idea of a popular vote to elect a President was discussed and rejected by the founding fathers for good reason, smaller states with fewer people would be made less relevant and being a separate state would be irrelevant. We should then change the name of our country to Demacratizan. Not the United States.

 

What conspiracy?

You do know we have the History of the Democrats and their leftists. How they act and what they say, correct?

You do know that the US Socialist and Communist Party are leftists, correct?

You do know that both stated they would infiltrate the Democrats to implement change and they were successful, Right?

You do know that both want to break down the Constitution, get around the Constitution, aka dismantle the Constitution, correct?

You do know that Democrats are sore losers and will do anything to force their way upon the people, Right?

You do know by history that the Democrats have never been about unifying the country and its people, correct?

You do know that the only way Democrats can win power is to divide the Country which they have done since their ass whipping from the Civil War, correct?

 

That would be to difficult for the Leftness to pronounce. Ya need to keep it simple for them.

Just call it.....the MOB.

 

I thought each state had 2 plus the number of Congressional Districts electors? The two align with the state's popular vote and the rest align with the voting in each Congressional District. I think this works. I didn't see any state that had a different number of electors.

 

I never said 62% of Republicans favored eliminating the EC.

 

Riiiiiight, and due to a fine education you know better than our congressmen with law degrees. And you know better than to bother spelling "Democratization" correctly. Riiiiiiight. At least your assertion of our "ignorant public school system" isn't entirely incorrect.

 

Nope we have never all voted in the same election.

A national popular vote................you do know about equal protection under the Constitution. We would all have to vote under the same system and set of rules to have a national popular vote that determines the Presidency. The federal government would have to run and oversee that system collecting the voting results and any irregularities in any state would affect the entire outcome. Like Florida twice in recent history.

 

OK then anyone on the losing side of an election wasted their vote..................that's nonsense. They only vote for their state electors, THERE IS NO NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE.

 

To the richest country in the world. Americans as a whole are better off than any in the world. They own multiple cars, television sets, major appliances and eat better. Even the poor live better than the middle class in some other countries.

 

All these Liberal leaders are crying to get rid of the Electoral College. Complaining they got about 2.5 million more votes and still lost. Said it isn't right and of course it's racist. With them, what isn't racist? Was our forefathers wrong, are Liberals just poor losers? Our forefathers knew the states are different sizes and that the population in them would be vastly different. They wanted to make sure that each state would have a say in who gets elected and that 3 or 4 b...ig populated states would not dominate all the elections. Fore instance, although the Democrats got under three million more votes, L.A County alone has more than 10 million people. California alone contains more people than 21 of the least less populated states. It's easy to see, if you go by popular vote, the Democrats would only have to carry California, NY and one or two more and be able to control every election. How fair would that be to the rest of the country? I don't think they would have ever been able to create a country made up of all the states if they knew their vote would never count and they would have to be at the mercy of a few big states. Lets see how the rest of the country voted by counties.

The Latest Numbers on the Election: Popular Vote, Counties Won
www.theepochtimes.com/n3/2193047-latest-numbers-on-the-election/
Dec 1, 2016 - While Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by at least 2.5 million votes, Trump won more than 2700 out of 3143 counties across the United ...
That's only 443 counties for Hillary. 2,700 for Trump. This shows a more accrete feeling of the rest of the nation.

 

If the Dems want to get around the electoral college, there will be a response.

 

Travel and communication was very problematical then, and they also took that into consideration. They had to. And yet in order to give states adequate say and adequate control within their borders, they limited federal control and granted states rights.

Today, there is virtually no problem with travel and communication. So those concerns are moot.

In 2013 democrats comprised 43.9% of registered voters in California. The rest were republicans and independents. So your "whatif" concern is concocted. "Whatif" the California vote were to be 50-50? Then the smallest state would stand some chance of being the one to break a tie. Your concocted "whatif" is fraudulent.

People need jobs; counties don't. People need healthcare; counties don't. People pay taxes; counties don't. People are people; counties aren't.

A popular vote will represent the people, democratically. States still have the right to govern counties and counties have rights also. States also vote on senators and representatives to represent them. So a national vote doesn't mean all states are treated the same. For example, we have a federal minimum wage of $7.25, but some states have seen fit to set a minimum wage of $12 in their largest cities and $9 in some of their counties. So the Fed doesn't dictate to counties. The reason the right is against this now after being in favor of the popular vote in 2011 is that it has worked for republicans in presidential elections. That's all.

 

Guess what? People live in counties and those people need the same things states need. The electoral college has worked well for America for over 200 years and because the Democrats lost two recently, they want to change it to their favor, much like wanting to change the voting age, allowing ex convicts to vote, not wanting voter I.D. Wanting to let in all these illegals and wanting to let them vote. It's all about power and the Democrats will do anything to get votes and win.Anyone can see what they want to do.

 

How do you determine whether the Electoral College has worked well for us? Seems to me it has just failed us miserably.

 

Only because your a Democrat. It gives the whole country a say in who represents us. Not just 3-4 big states. Do you think we would even have a united states if the rest of the country knew their votes would never count over those bigger states? You do realize losing power in Washington was one of the reasons for the Civil War don't you? It wasn't all about slaves.

 

And other things. So what's your point?

 

You want the tyranny of the minority so that 3 or 4 big states and the majority of Americans will be told how they will live.

 

That is not equitable either. The Senate has too much power to have 2 Senators each from small states like Wyoming, Dakotas, Idaho, Vermont and Rhode Island and such and only two from population centers like Texas, California and New York. Senate power should be more proportionate to population. The system needs to be revamped to be fair to all of the citizens. The President represents ALL Americans not just those who happened to vote for him or her.

 

So you want a completely different form of Government? What you are describing is a complete Democracy....not the Republic we have.

We are not a "country" per se....we are a Union made up of multiple "countries" that we call States that are governed a central Government. The system is very "fair". The States elect the President and allot their number of Electoral votes as they see fit. Each State have a certain number of REPRESENTATIVES that....ummm...represent their State, based on their population. And each State has 2 people acting a Senators to represent their interests within that central Government.

 

What protects our citizens from a mob rule scenario of a total democracy is the Bill of Rights. I fully support those individual rights. However at this point, the electoral college is totally unfair. It was set up for 13 original and distinct colonies in an effort to form a union. Since then, statehood has been granted to 37 other entities marked off mostly by arbitrarily placed rectangles. Definitely not the same regarding the EC or the Senate. Representation should be based on population.

 

All I have to say is our forefathers was much smarter than many are today. They saw the big problem with the popular vote and stayed away from it and it's done what they hoped it would do, give everyone a voice. Not just the big guys on the block. Look, your Party is trying everything in their power to win. Flood the country with illegals and then say you want them to vote. Want to drop the age to 16 and then fill their head with liberalism. Get ex convicts to vote, be against voter ID. Etc.,etc. Now you also want to change the way we vote to favor you. Just having millions of illegals in this country gives Democrats many Congressmen they wouldn't normally have because of the census. How many more advantages do you people want?

 

Even with the early beginning our forefathers saw the problem with the popular vote. Just the states of NY, Virginia and Pennsylvania could dominate all the other 10 states. They would elect the President, and have the majority in Congress and they would make the laws under a popular vote. The other 10 would just have to go along with what they do.

 

Each state elects 2 senators, so in that, all states are equally represented. States' counties/districts elect representatives, so in that, all counties are represented per population. Senators and Representatives are legislators. They write bills to become laws. The President doesn't write laws. He only approves them or doesn't and determines whether the bills become law or don't. Somewhere in there the population of the US as a whole should have a say, and that should be provided in the election of the president. It's actually the states that have control.

Furthermore, the argument that if we have a popular vote we'll have 2, 3, or 4 states choosing the president who will act for those states is not a valid argument because of the above facts.

Are executive orders the issue? Obama was elected to two terms by a majority and a president who didn't receive the popular vote has now repealed most of what Obama did with no input from anyone. He acts as a dictator. A minority of Americans approve of what he has done, and the rest of us? "Too bad" eh? Is this right? Such unchecked unilateral executive actions need to be subject to some sort of non-partisan congressional oversight or they are dictatorial. And if they were subject to oversight, the issue of a popular vote would be less important.