The Electoral College is ripe for reform

The EC actually disenfranchises more people with it than without.

 

That's rich considering you guys voted for Trump who sought to subvert 2020 election-- The reason why he has some forty plus charges and two indictments.

 

Total non sequitur. Charges and indictments from Democrats are desperation hail Mary's to keep Biden from having to defend his malfeasance

 

States are mentioned in the Tenth Amendment (which was passed at the same time the original Constitution was ratified).

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

One of the criticisms against the inclusion of the Tenth Amendment, at the time, was that it was so obvious, it was not needed. The important people at the time thought it was just stating a truism.

Under the original Constitution, states were in charge of appointing Senators (before the 17th Amendment in 1913), and the President of the country.

That you attempt to say states were not mentioned in the Constitution shows a profound lack of understanding about the structure that the Constitution set up and how it worked.

 

I wouldn't call 91 felony counts a 'hail mary'. I call it, 'Trump is a criminal'.

Either he is, or he isn't. Biden won't have anything to do with Trump's crimes, if he is convicted by a jury.

In short, your point is moot.

 

I think to be fair we need to at least pay attention to electoral votes/person in each state. Now we have states with tiny populations getting a hundred times the electoral votes per person as big states. Despite a population of a half million it gets three electoral votes while California, with a population of 60 times that only gets 50? ie every voter in Wyoming has 3 times the vote power as Californians or nearly the same for Texas. They should accept that the Senate is the great equalizer and not the presidency as well. The bottom half of the States by population have fewer voters than California yet have 4 times the number of EC members. It's enough for their interests that they have 25 times the number of senators per person.

 

The all or nothing system of the electoral college makes no sense, one wins a state by less than 1% and they get 100% of that state's electoral college points, rather than receiving any level of points to represent the proportional amount they won that state by. If you are in essentially any state that is not one of the few battleground states, then you are overlooked by the candidates, and if you do not vote with the majority of the people in your respective state, your vote is essentially negated to count as nothing. This is true whether you are a red voter in a blue state, or a blue voter in a red state, your vote is reduced to mean nothing in the electoral college system.

Typically, if a candidates gets 40% of a state to vote for them, that means they get no electoral college points from that state. Collectively, this means millions of people who are not properly represented. The electoral college was intended for a time when voting rights were limited to property owners. The under representation of the masses was not a primary concern at that time

 

That would be reasonable reform, but the problem is you have to get enough states (especially the more populated states) to agree to this at the same time, otherwise the entire thing is skewed. If 38 states agreed to do this, that would actually be enough to amend the electoral college entirely via state convention.

 

If you can’t win fairly, lock him up? YOU guys started this the day he got elected. Instantly started lying about him being a Russian spy. Then charged him with every crime imaginable. That’s called throwing **** at a wall until Something sticks and it can be used against EVERY politician assuming you have the might of the Fed govt behind you and enoigh cronies to destroy the country in the process.

Project much sir

 

Because those six states are in play. The rest are pretty much locked one way or the other. That is why they are called battle ground states.

 

Another thread dedicated to the proposition don't care about anything except political power.

 

Then you clearly don't understand our justice system.

Either he is, or he isn't. Biden won't have anything to do with Trump's crimes, if he is convicted by a jury.

In short, your point is moot.[/QUOTE] Ironically you call my point moot and then support my point he has to be convicted by a jury to be GUILT.

 

Yes, note that each elector represents a congressperson's district (well, some, though not all), so changing the electoral structure would really be difficult, as it would require adding more congresspersons (where those are so affected) and the fight over that will be fierce. As an interim step, I think we should ban 'winner-takes-all' because I'm against a candidate winning electors not earned.

 

That's funny, I have made the exact argument in other posts. Good to know you are taking the left's position on that particular point. In fact, isn't that line my line? You cut and pasted my line? I recall using those exact words, somewhere. However, my point is irrelevant to that point.

You wrote:

Charges and indictments from Democrats are desperation hail Mary's to keep Biden from having to defend his malfeasance

You called the indictment a 'hail mary' which beckons for qualification. Where none was offered, it is reasonable to assume you meant the entire number of charges, which, on it's face, does not equal a 'hail mary', nor is your statement accurate, because if it were, then I would presume that if we scrutinize the entire prosecutorial histories of Bragg, Willis, and Smith, there would only be democrats being prosecuted and I doubt sincerely that is true.

It's really just an insult, one I often hear from the guilty, which is, 'it is political'. It's not that it can't be true, but it's highly suspect that it is true. I would, however, be more likely to ascribe political motivation to a political body, such as congress, than I ever would to the DOJ. However,, under Trump, all bets are off. He can't help but be politically motivated in everything he does.

 

I tend to agree with this. It would really encourage gerrymandering though. I would like to see an anti-gerrymandering program being put to use everywhere. I would also like to see a couple of other changes. 1) No reporting on election results until every state has finished voting. 2) All primary elections on the same day.
by the time we see a primary, there is never more than one choice. It's like voting in Russia.

 

Agree

Right, because it would prevent the bandwagon effect.

Ditto, above.

In my view, a candidate claiming unearned electors is not democratic.

As for gerrymandering, that goes on anyway, and we need a independent/bipartisan empaneled board of some kind in every state to prevent it from happening. We have them in some states, but not all.

 

The Electoral College is ripe for reform

Dream all you like…Will. Not. Happen.

 

Ah, but the opposite is true. Opposition to EC reform, in a nutshell, is the right's clinging to power, because unless the system is undemocratic, as the EC tends to be, they have no hope of winning elections, or at least, the presidency, they will win governorships and state houses in red states.

 

You will never get an oak tree if you don't first plant the seed.

Think of me as a gardener.

 

Please find a merit worthy argument, instead of piling on dead horse arguments.

I could diffuse, debunk, each and every one of your tired tropes, but why bother, you'll just regurgitate it somewhere else, tomorrow, etc., ad nauseum.

 

Nice try, Jabberwocky as usual.

 

Silly to think you speak for the entire left. Nor, do you grasp my point

Huh?

nonsense - the point was made in reply to a specific post "It is reasonable . . ." is desperate spinnage.

LOL, and you seriously think DOJ is NOT a political body? Wanna buy a bridge:

 

Yes…your thread is just what is needed to get the US to change how it votes for presidents.

 

Yes insisting on following the constitution is an attempt to hang on to power rather than an attempt to keep from being drowned by it.

 

Since the SC gutted the voting rights act, Repubs have vastly surpassed dems in the gerrymandering pissing contest. But their advantage is fading because of new court cases. Your point, therefore, is not accurate.

No, when it comes to voter suppression, no party beats Republicans. Republicans favorite technique now is a little known trick called 'caging the vote'. They send out postcards to voters who didn't vote in the last two elections, and if the card is not returned, they are taken off the registration rolls. However, Republicans do two things that are devious:

1. They make the cards purposely look like junk mail, and

2. Historically speaking, poor neighborhoods discard them far more often than in affluent neighborhoods.

3. Vigilante voter challenges by anyone who can challenge blocks of votes just because they are 'suspicious', is seen as a form of voter supression. https://www.gregpalast.com/court-ap...hallengesdevastating-threat-to-2024-election/ This is a techinique mainly employed in red states.

But this isn't the only trick in the republican voter supression playbook

https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/block-the-vote-voter-suppression-in-2020
(film free to Amazon prime members)
https://www.amazon.com/Rigged-Suppression-Playbook-Jeffrey-Wright/dp/B07PXD6BQF

I favor allowing anyone who has been legally in the country for five years, has been employed for a majority of that time, paid taxes for a majority of that time, be allowed to vote. These are people are close to achieving citizenship, and are contributing to society and should have a voice.

1. Supporters of Noncitizen Voting:
   • Justice and Representation: They argue that prohibiting noncitizens from voting is unjust because it denies them representation despite their contributions to society.
   • Discriminatory Policies: Allowing noncitizens to vote discourages discriminatory public policy that targets them.
   • Citizenship Aspiration: Noncitizens voting doesn’t discourage them from seeking citizenship; instead, it may encourage them to engage more actively in civic life.
   • Societal Benefits: Allowing noncitizens to vote can lead to policies that benefit society as a whole2.

Criminals who have paid their debt to society, not convicted of serious violent crimes (if they have, they should never be let out), after a period of time (to be negotiated) after proving they are rehabilitated and won't fall prey to recidivism, commit more crimes, etc., should be allowed to vote. There should be perhaps other qualifications on this point, which I haven't fully articulated or thought of (since I'm not an expert on the subject), and anyone who doesn't qualify to vote, shouldn't be allowed to own firearms, either. Once a rehabbed citizen, one's rights should be restored.

Yeah, right:

[/QUOTE]