APP - The Electoral College is ripe for reform

[Litmus]

The electoral college served a purpose long ago, when it took a month for a letter to get from the east coast to the west coast. There's no shortage of readily accessible information. Information from around the world is literally is in the palm of our hands, sometimes in real time. No candidate is going to be a surprise tyrant for the country.

I want every vote to count equally, not have a system where a vote in Wyoming counts double that of a vote in California.

Popular vote worlds in every election, at every level of government,from coast to coast. There's no reason it shouldn't work in Presidential elections.

no.

we need the electoral college.

states are legal jurisdictions not just groups of individuals.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

There are tons of elections held in the United States and in each of those elections majority wins.

What's peculiar and rather odd as you seem to be ignorant of that simple fact

you, again, are being an idiot as Damocles said. you seem to be intentionally ignoring how the USA works.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Yeah, the bit about 'inalienable rights'. funny thing though, without a government with guns to protect your rights, 'inalienable rights' doesn't mean much.

Are you familiar with the 2nd Amendment?

 

[IBDaMann]

The electoral college was primarily put into place to avoid the masses being duped by a tyrant

Nope. The US was never a democracy and was always a representational republic. The States were to elect the President, not the masses, so that could not have been the reason. The popular vote was never a thing.

While each vote counts the same within the state,

Nope. In electing the President, outside of any and all States, each electoral vote is equal to any other.

Yes, CA gets more electoral votes than Wyoming,

That should tell you something. The electoral college is not the Senate, i.e. each State getting two votes. The electoral college is not the popular vote.

Apply a little critical reasoning. Can you figure out why the framers deliberately created the electoral college without chanting your previous errors?

That isn't how voting should work.

It would seem that you don't know how voting works. Each electoral vote is equal to every other.

 

[ZenMode]

Nope. The US was never a democracy and was always a representational republic. The States were to elect the President, not the masses, so that could not have been the reason. The popular vote was never a thing.


Nope. In electing the President, outside of any and all States, each electoral vote is equal to any other.


That should tell you something. The electoral college is not the Senate, i.e. each State getting two votes. The electoral college is not the popular vote.

Apply a little critical reasoning. Can you figure out why the framers deliberately created the electoral college without chanting your previous errors?


It would seem that you don't know how voting works. Each electoral vote is equal to every other.

I love how you continually delete the things I write that are inconvenient to your argument, like the fact that an Electoral vote in Wyoming counts double that in CA. I'm sure that's fine with you, being that you are pro-Trump, pro-conservative and scared of Democrats, but does that seem democratic or fair to you? Why should one person's vote count more than mine?

The primary reason for not allowing people to directly elect a president was because the founding fathers were concerned about them being able to make an informed decision, especially those in rural areas because, again, information was not readily available. That is not an issue any more. The electors have no more access to info on candidates than the average.

Each vote should count equally.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I love how you continually delete the things I write that are inconvenient to your argument, like the fact that an Electoral vote in Wyoming counts double that in CA. I'm sure that's fine with you, being that you are pro-Trump, pro-conservative and scared of Democrats, but does that seem democratic or fair to you? Why should one person's vote count more than mine?

The primary reason for not allowing people to directly elect a president was because the founding fathers were concerned about them being able to make an informed decision, especially those in rural areas because, again, information was not readily available. That is not an issue any more. The electors have no more access to info on candidates than the average.

Each vote should count equally.

there is nothing in your post that is in any way accurate.

 

[IBDaMann]

I love how you continually delete the things I write that are inconvenient to your argument,

Check your post. I haven't deleted anything from your post. I don't even have the ability to delete anything from your post. You must be new at this.

like the fact that an Electoral vote in Wyoming counts double that in CA.

There is no such thing as an electoral vote in either Wyoming or in California, and therefore your statement is completely meaningless. I attribute this complete gibberish to you not having any clue what you're talking about, which is typical.

I'm sure that's fine with you, being that you are pro-Trump, pro-conservative and scared of Democrats,

I'm fine with you gibbering, and I'm fine with your gibberish not being included in responses, i.e. saving bandwidth.

but does that seem democratic or fair to you?

Your gibberish problem stems from your deeply rooted misconception that the US is somehow a democracy instead of correctly realizing that the US is a representative republic.

Why should one person's vote count more than mine?

You don't vote for the President. You provide your recommendation/preference to your State's legislature. How do you not know this?

US Constitution - Article. II. Section. 1.
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The primary reason for not allowing people to directly elect a president was because the founding fathers were concerned about them being able to make an informed decision,

Nope. You are chanting your error and broadcasting your complete ignorance on the matter.

Each vote should count equally.

Your chanting continues. Yes, each electoral vote should count equally, and each one does.

 

[ZenMode]

Check your post. I haven't deleted anything from your post. I don't even have the ability to delete anything from your post. You must be new at this.


There is no such thing as an electoral vote in either Wyoming or in California, and therefore your statement is completely meaningless. I attribute this complete gibberish to you not having any clue what you're talking about, which is typical.


I'm fine with you gibbering, and I'm fine with your gibberish not being included in responses, i.e. saving bandwidth.


Your gibberish problem stems from your deeply rooted misconception that the US is somehow a democracy instead of correctly realizing that the US is a representative republic.


You don't vote for the President. You provide your recommendation/preference to your State's legislature. How do you not know this?

US Constitution - Article. II. Section. 1.
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.


Nope. You are chanting your error and broadcasting your complete ignorance on the matter.



Your chanting continues. Yes, each electoral vote should count equally, and each one does.

I'm going to try one more time.....

Because of the ratio of electoral votes to population, a vote cast by a voter in Wyoming counts (more than) double that of a vote in CA. Wyoming's electoral votes count is much higher when compared to its population.

That is not how it should be.

"US Constitution - Article. II. Section. 1.

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector"

The fact that there is a logical process for determining how many EVs a state has, has no impact on WHY the EV process was put into place. The EV was put into place, at least partially, because there was concern about the electorate being informed, especially in rural areas. That was due to the lack of available information at the time.

 

[Damocles]

I'm going to try one more time.....

Because of the ratio of electoral votes to population, a vote cast by a voter in Wyoming counts (more than) double that of a vote in CA. Wyoming's electoral votes count is much higher when compared to its population.

That is not how it should be.

"US Constitution - Article. II. Section. 1.

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector"

The fact that there is a logical process for determining how many EVs a state has, has no impact on WHY the EV process was put into place. The EV was put into place, at least partially, because there was concern about the electorate being informed, especially in rural areas. That was due to the lack of available information at the time.

Nonsense. Just as they get to vote for their representation in Congress and the Senate they get to vote for their electors. Their vote counts the same as any other vote in each of the 51 elections for electors we hold. In this way the region is represented in exactly the same way they are in the Congress.

Fundamentally misunderstanding the Electoral College makes you an expert in nonsense, it does not make you a "deep thinker" or "wise". Applying statistical nonsense is an attempt to distract, and to superimpose your misunderstanding on others as you seek to remove the protection of rights that such checks and balances provides in our Constitutional Republic.

 

[ZenMode]

Nonsense. Just as they get to vote for their representation in Congress and the Senate they get to vote for their electors. Their vote counts the same as any other vote in each of the 51 elections for electors we hold. In this way the region is represented in exactly the same way they are in the Congress.

Hypothetically speaking, lets say that Founding Fathers were drunk when they decided how many EVs each state would get. Let's say that they decided to work in reverse alphabetical order, the first state (Wyoming) gets 100 EVs and they worked down from there, with the last states (which CA would be among) getting the least EVs.

IF that were the case, and Wyoming was given huge influence (100 EVs) when compared to their population, do you see how a vote in WY would count significantly more than a vote in CA?

Fundamentally misunderstanding the Electoral College makes you an expert in nonsense, it does not make you a "deep thinker" or "wise". Applying statistical nonsense is an attempt to distract, and to superimpose your misunderstanding on others as you seek to remove the protection of rights that such checks and balances provides in our Constitutional Republic.

The numbers are the numbers. Relatively speaking, CA has a low EV count compared to it's population and WY has a high EV count compared to its population.

 

[IBDaMann]

I'm going to try one more time..... Because of the ratio of electoral votes to population, a vote cast by a voter in Wyoming counts (more than) double that of a vote in CA.
Nope. I'm going to try one more time. No voter in Wyoming is voting directly for the President. Whyoming voters are merely expressing their preference to the Wyoming legislature who can ignore all Wyoming voters if they wish.

You aren't going to be able to grasp the situation until you wrap your head around this point.

There is no democratic/popular vote for the President.

 

[ZenMode]

Sigh... back to playing word games, avoiding conversations and playing dumb, just as you do other topics.

Well, I tried.....

 

[ZenMode]

Sigh... back to playing word games, avoiding conversations and playing dumb, just as you do other topics.

Well, I tried.....

[USER=8245]@IBDaMann[/USER]

 

[IBDaMann]

Sigh... back to playing word games, avoiding conversations and playing dumb, just as you do other topics. Well, I tried.....

This is your way of tipping your king in time to avoid learning anything. Thinking is too much work for you.

Everything you said was false and was based on the mistaken notion that the US somehow uses a botched implementation of a popular vote for determining the President. It is not a popular vote. The States elect the President. That does not translate into a popular vote.

Let me know when you want to play again.

 

[ZenMode]

This is your way of tipping your king in time to avoid learning anything. Thinking is too much work for you.

Everything you said was false and was based on the mistaken notion that the US somehow uses a botched implementation of a popular vote for determining the President. It is not a popular vote. The States elect the President. That does not translate into a popular vote.

Let me know when you want to play again.

This is my way of not wasting my time. I'm not goimg to ask the same question 20x only to have you tap dance around answering, indefinitely, as you are known to do.

 

[IBDaMann]

This is my way of not wasting my time. I'm not goimg to ask the same question 20x

False. You often ask the same stupid question that has been corrected for you; twenty times is nowhere near too many for you.

only to have you tap dance around answering, indefinitely, as you are known to do.

All of my answers are straightforward and direct. You simply don't appreciate the fact that they clearly reveal your sheer ignorance on the matter. You blame me for the ignorance you insist on retaining, despite my best efforts to teach you.

 

[Publius]

tyranny of the majority means dumb idiots like you being convinced free speech is bad.

Vacuous drivel.

Clearly, the task of framing a proper rebuttal on point and on topic is beyond you.

Off to ignore land for you.

Congratulations, you've earned it!

 

[Publius]

Interesting how back then Democrats wanted slaves counted for electoral apportionment, and today Democrats want illegal aliens in the US counted for electoral apportionment...

Let's get a couple of things straight: First off, you do realize that today's democrats are not the descendants of antebellum Democrats (and the same goes for Republicans), right? Talk about a false comparison. Now then, you're comparing a system that dehumanized slaves by counting them as three-fifths of a person to modern Democrats ensuring that every resident in this country is counted as a full human being, as required by the Constitution? (Or are you saying you're not that into the constitution? You tell me). Back then, the point was to boost the political power of those who didn't even recognize slaves as people with rights, and today, you're upset that Democrats actually want everyone living here—citizen or not—counted for basic representation? That’s rich. Maybe crack open a history book and catch up with the last two centuries of progress.

 

[Litmus]

Vacuous drivel.

Clearly, the task of framing a proper rebuttal on point and on topic is beyond you.

Off to ignore land for you.

Congratulations, you've earned it!

the states are supposed to be equal in power by the fact of their existence, not how many people they contain within them.

they are an area, ruled by the people within that area.

 

[Litmus]

Let's get a couple of things straight: First off, you do realize that today's democrats are not the descendants of antebellum Democrats (and the same goes for Republicans), right? Talk about a false comparison. Now then, you're comparing a system that dehumanized slaves by counting them as three-fifths of a person to modern Democrats ensuring that every resident in this country is counted as a full human being, as required by the Constitution? (Or are you saying you're not that into the constitution? You tell me). Back then, the point was to boost the political power of those who didn't even recognize slaves as people with rights, and today, you're upset that Democrats actually want everyone living here—citizen or not—counted for basic representation? That’s rich. Maybe crack open a history book and catch up with the last two centuries of progress.

only citizens should be voting.

"residents" doesn't cut it, weasel-worder.