The electoral college needs to go, its broken and only serves to disenfranchise voters

Nobody seemed to have a problem with the electoral college until Hillary Clinton lost.

Sorry, that's hardly reason enough to do away with it...

 

I'm sorry you are angry and a sore loser but...
NO!

 

The problem is that Democrats will cry foul if they lose, regardless of the rules. It doesn't matter. If you have a different opinion, they will vandalize your home and antagonize your family. Children can't be reasoned with. If you give in to this temper tantrum, there will be another. We know that from history.

 

In short, Democrats lost. Being sore losers, they want to change the rules until they can find a way to win. The problem is that Trump outsmarted you. Change the rules and he will outsmart you again. Think of it as an IQ test that Democrats lost to a billionaire they underestimated.

 

Hahaha...the people of New Mexico are perturbed only if they consider themselves as citizens of New Mexico, rather than the United States. And, since they are voting for a candidate for federal office, they should understand the principle of one person = one vote. Now, if they were voting for Governor, and the votes of one country counted as more than another...then they should be upset.

 

Oh really? What do you call the 'storming of the Bastille' on the SCIF by the 48 juvenile tantrum ranting Congressmen?

Speaking about temper tantrums....

 

I thought this thread was about the electoral college. Do you always hijack threads? So, you stormed in here like a juvenile ranting about Republicans wanting to share some homophobic chicken with their counterparts who were sequestered behind closed doors.

 

Many uneducated voters, including Hillary, accepted our well thought out constitutional ages-old EC until Trump won. Then we got a bunch of sore losers and Hillary brought sore loser to a new height. Those who complain about Trump's behavior need to also speak up about Hillary being a spoiled brat.

 

I have to laugh every time the left or Democrats bring up the Electoral college, oh how it isnt fair blah blah blah.

You only whine about it when your candidate loses.

Hillary proved in 2016 why the Electoral college is necessary, as she won the popular vote by some 3 million votes ( debatable numbers) but she still won

She won by taking the Democratic People's republic of California, New York, Illinois and other populous states
do you think that is fair?

She won 20 states compared to Trump's 30 states.
She won 487 counties compared to Trump winning 2,626 counties (associated press)

Bottom line in America, the candidate has to get 270 electoral votes to become President
you dont like it, either move or convince congress and the states with a 3/4 majority to amend it

By the way Hillary won the popular vote going up against Obama in the Democratic primaries 2008, yet Obama won the necessary votes

 

Just commenting on your last sentence to prove you're wrong. As we have recently seen, it's the childish antics of a frustrated GOP that throws temper tantrums.

"The one constant is that Democrats are always throwing temper tantrums."

 

In 6 of the last 7 presidential elections, the Democratic candidate had the popular majority. Yet, we had two Bush administrations and now a Trump!

Beyond that, we have Washington DC which has ZERO congressional representation and isn't even allowed to pass its own budget, even though there are two smaller states that have full representation.

Our system is heavily weighted toward Republicans even after ignoring gerrymandering and foreign influence.

 

So, that the Constitution as drafted and ratified wasn’t a perfect document for framework for governing and prohibiting government for encroaching on human rights when view from the sensitivities of current thinking? Should we throw out the Constitution?
I hear these arguments from time to time usually in the context of arguing that ‘one thing’ that should be changed for some one’s benefit. What is displayed is ignorance of the context of the times in which the Constitution was drafted, the understanding of the misgivings of some and the debates of those involved in drafting, an understanding by many they weren’t creating a perfect device for governance but one better than those that resulted in tyrannical governments or fail democracies of the past, and that given the variation of state interests, would result in a framework of governing that all the States would agree to in forming a union of the states. The problems they faced in drafting such a document were enormous and reflected in the recorded Convention debates. To understand those arguments, the compromises being made, and the logic behind the agreed text of Constitution, you have to go beyond it’s text and view it in the light of the Constitution debates, letters between the contributors, sources like the philosophers like Locke, Paine, Montesquieu, Hobbs that were well known and studied, and writings such as those found in Federalist Papers. Very few people quibbling over the Constitution and it’s inequities venture to study beyond the words in the final draft and rather than seek understanding of the meaning and interpretations of the authors, create their own interpretations. Then too, many often ignore that built into the document was the means and processes for Amending it’s provisions because they understood they were fallible and did not presume they could draft perfection or understand the needs and the will the People in future generations deciding how they would be governed. And, in fact, many provisions found less than perfect by the People have been remedied since the first draft, including those eligible to vote.
BTW, those decrying the failure of Founding Fathers to end slavery, do not understand two things. First, doing so (and this was argued vehemently at the Convention) would have resulted in a failure of the Union considering the economy and prosperity of many southern states was dependent on slavery and most of those state had laws making divestiture of slaves destructively putative, something these states would have strongly prohibited, and second, when a compromise was reached, there was an agreement that the slavery issue would be revisited within 8 or 9 years (I forget which). And while slavery wasn’t ended in that timeframe, Jefferson did successfully get a bill passed in his Admin in 1806 prohibiting the importation of slaves. After, of course, we fought a war over the issue and then amended the Constitution.
Those here arguing against the electoral college, are in fact arguing for a Democracy, something the early Founding Fathers found detrimental to the rights and causes of any minority (not necessarily racial). The electoral college arises from early discussions on how to avoid the dangers of democratic governing over the concept of a republic. Anyone wanting to understand the argument might consider reading the Federalist Papers, understanding what Madison mean by the dangers of ‘factions’, protecting from the tyranny of the majority (think the French Revolution), and why it was felt the early Government should follow a Republic Model... Federalist Paper #10 lays the discussion out.
The Dems argue for eliminating the electoral college in hopes that they can win presidential elections by simple majority and basically advocating for a popular democracy form of government... something the FF warned against, understood would ultimately fail by internal faction conflict, and something that would potentially lead to a tyrannical Government.

 

I have problems understanding the problems we have States each by the way the nation is formed each semi-sovereign with Federal umbrella and the only offices affected is the President and Vice President you still have votes for all other offices from Dog Catcher to Senate and all office in between within the State and your vote it 100% respected. It is for president. STATES decide how to hand them out and most choose all or nothing. STATES note could divide them up some other way.

 

False, eveyone did until republicans saw it was the only way for them to retain power:

 

Well, if the Electoral College is such a bad thing, surely it'll be easy to get it changed.

Good luck with that...

 

I've noticed that what works for dems is fine- makes no difference hows it works for others. But if it's been fine for a hundred years and then is not so fine for them, it's broken and must never happen again.
Hard to have any kind of sound government when a sizeable part of the population is steadily eroding in maturity, judgement and character.

 

Will you still feel the same if Texas turns blue in 2020 and the chance of the GOP ever winning a presidential election again dies? The swing left is what people want, that way we have a rightwing and leftwing party. If Texas goes blue, that means WI/MI/PA are also going to be blue, and even without those 3 states we still win with texas.

 

I am sure the DEMS will win if Hillary becomes the Savior Candidate. I hope she runs with a platform pushing gun confiscation ala Australian Model, the New Green Soup, universal healthcare funded by the wealthy, and a strong centralist Government. Go Hillary.

 

But- aren't you going to include free beer for all? That would help get the drinking vote.

 

The clown in Ontario won with that, Buck A Bear. Literally the ONLY campaign agenda he talked about. They are having voters remorse really bad now.

 

Ah... you’ve been watching the news, eh?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/former-cia-officer-says-potential-111203863.html

 

Didn’t her stumbling around before the 2016 election and her excuses rant tour make anyone wonder who was drinking?

 

Trump literally said that people who don't for him or don't support his policies are being disloyal. He said that any naturalized citizens who don't vote for him should lose their citizenship because they obviously have no loyalty to the United States. One such statement about American jews being traitors and having duel loyalties, taking orders from Israel (Because Israel hates Trump because of all the Neo-Nazi support he gets). He basically said that any American Jew who doesn't vote for him is an Israeli spy and should be arrested

In other words, Trump is saying that HE IS the state, and that anyone who doesn't support him is a traitor or a spy, or both. .

 

Well that had nothing to do with my quote you have quoted! At least lead in with a subtle change before blazing in with off the wall off topic unrelated replies ¯\_(º¸º)_/¯

​

 

I guess off topic and derailing has been lifted from the PF bylaws! Suck too, I missed it by <--> much, bad luck I suppose or maybe it's a alignment issue