Gaming the Electoral College

[mdwoods]

Should do away with the electoral college. Presidental elections should be decided by popular vote.

That would basically make the small states completely irrelevant, as opposed to mostly irrelevant as they are now.

One person one vote makes the most sense to me regardless of what state they're in. Not doing so gives some places more say it seems to me

In a close election, a nationwide recount and challenges precludes a popular vote. It's untenable.

So they have to count all the votes in each state correct? I don't see your point.

[mdwoods]

Should do away with the electoral college. Presidental elections should be decided by popular vote.

That would basically make the small states completely irrelevant, as opposed to mostly irrelevant as they are now.

One person one vote makes the most sense to me regardless of what state they're in. Not doing so gives some places more say it seems to me

The number of state reps already reflects the population of a state. If I am correct, illegals are even counted

What you are promoting is a parliamentary system like Canada’s. If you do away with the Electoral College…why even have a separate vote for President? The leader of the party which has the most seats in Congress becomes President

What I'm promoting is one person one vote. All votes should carry the same weight. Under the current system it's not so.

[mdwoods]

Should do away with the electoral college. Presidental elections should be decided by popular vote.

Fine. All you have to do is amend the US Constitution. Good luck with that.

It has been done before, I don't expect it will happen because I want to happen.

[clw54]

Should do away with the electoral college. Presidental elections should be decided by popular vote.

That would basically make the small states completely irrelevant, as opposed to mostly irrelevant as they are now.

One person one vote makes the most sense to me regardless of what state they're in. Not doing so gives some places more say it seems to me

In a close election, a nationwide recount and challenges precludes a popular vote. It's untenable.

So they have to count all the votes in each state correct? I don't see your point.

Okay.

[MacGyver]

Should do away with the electoral college. Presidental elections should be decided by popular vote.

That would basically make the small states completely irrelevant, as opposed to mostly irrelevant as they are now.

One person one vote makes the most sense to me regardless of what state they're in. Not doing so gives some places more say it seems to me

The number of state reps already reflects the population of a state. If I am correct, illegals are even counted

What you are promoting is a parliamentary system like Canada’s. If you do away with the Electoral College…why even have a separate vote for President? The leader of the party which has the most seats in Congress becomes President

What I'm promoting is one person one vote. All votes should carry the same weight. Under the current system it's not so.

You already have that. So many 1000s in population(illegals included) gains your state a rep. in Congress.

The more populated states have more votes in the House.

Or…do you want a plebiscite/referendum on every law Nationally? That would be true “democracy”. Mob rule…

[MacGyver]

How many state election rules/laws were changed by an “election official” and not state legislature 2020, as required by the Constitution?

that’s how you “rig” an election

[meos1]

GerryMandering. The cry of the left for decades.

[baccaruda]

Should do away with the electoral college. Presidental elections should be decided by popular vote.

That would basically make the small states completely irrelevant, as opposed to mostly irrelevant as they are now.

Yes, but a "state" is just an arbitrary, geographical line on the ground. A popular vote gives every human exactly one vote regardless of where their physical person resides.

It's like having a roomful of people putting something to a vote, but because only 2 people are sitting on the right side of the room vs the left where 20 people are sitting, we decide to make those 2 votes worth twice as much.

It's got nothing to do with Democracy vs Republic or any of that nonsense. People still vote for representatives, can't vote away basic rights, there's no "tyranny of the majority."

[baccaruda]

Should do away with the electoral college. Presidental elections should be decided by popular vote.

That would basically make the small states completely irrelevant, as opposed to mostly irrelevant as they are now.

One person one vote makes the most sense to me regardless of what state they're in. Not doing so gives some places more say it seems to me

The number of state reps already reflects the population of a state. If I am correct, illegals are even counted

What you are promoting is a parliamentary system like Canada’s. If you do away with the Electoral College…why even have a separate vote for President? The leader of the party which has the most seats in Congress becomes President

What I'm promoting is one person one vote. All votes should carry the same weight. Under the current system it's not so.

Don't worry, you're exactly right. There's no sensible reason to use a system that weighs one person's vote more than anothers. Not one valid reason. People who like to turn politics into gamesmanship, or see it as something that benefits their own team support it. Rational, objective people don't.

It's from a time where States had to be appeased because they viewed themselves as individual entites, not part of a whole. The electoral college has no place today. We don't have to appease Montana so they'll remain part of the Union.

[baccaruda]

Or…do you want a plebiscite/referendum on every law Nationally? That would be true “democracy”. Mob rule…

Where did he say that he wanted a referendum on each individual issue? He's talking about weighing votes for the President exactly the same for each citizen. It has absolutely ZERO to do with "mob rule."

[cullenbryant]

I think we should get to directly vote on more Federal issues than we do, while I still support some form of the electoral system for president, issues already posted.

[cullenbryant]

That would basically make the small states completely irrelevant, as opposed to mostly irrelevant as they are now.

One person one vote makes the most sense to me regardless of what state they're in. Not doing so gives some places more say it seems to me

The number of state reps already reflects the population of a state. If I am correct, illegals are even counted

What you are promoting is a parliamentary system like Canada’s. If you do away with the Electoral College…why even have a separate vote for President? The leader of the party which has the most seats in Congress becomes President

What I'm promoting is one person one vote. All votes should carry the same weight. Under the current system it's not so.

Don't worry, you're exactly right. There's no sensible reason to use a system that weighs one person's vote more than anothers. Not one valid reason. People who like to turn politics into gamesmanship, or see it as something that benefits their own team support it. Rational, objective people don't.

It's from a time where States had to be appeased because they viewed themselves as individual entites, not part of a whole. The electoral college has no place today. We don't have to appease Montana so they'll remain part of the Union.

One thing to consider about 'weighing one persons vote more than other' is that there are a lot of sensible reasons to do that. And it almost happens naturally. Getting away from government and looking at corporations, relationships, unions and many more private institutions just kind of ended up as representative forms of organizational. They were free to do it any other way but they chose representative forms, why?

Even in the wild animal kingdom each animal will have some leader or bull vote if you will.

But agree our representative system has its limits and exploits and we are definitely late stage. I support more one man one vote options than we currently have.

[baccaruda]

One person one vote makes the most sense to me regardless of what state they're in. Not doing so gives some places more say it seems to me

The number of state reps already reflects the population of a state. If I am correct, illegals are even counted

What you are promoting is a parliamentary system like Canada’s. If you do away with the Electoral College…why even have a separate vote for President? The leader of the party which has the most seats in Congress becomes President

What I'm promoting is one person one vote. All votes should carry the same weight. Under the current system it's not so.

Don't worry, you're exactly right. There's no sensible reason to use a system that weighs one person's vote more than anothers. Not one valid reason. People who like to turn politics into gamesmanship, or see it as something that benefits their own team support it. Rational, objective people don't.

It's from a time where States had to be appeased because they viewed themselves as individual entites, not part of a whole. The electoral college has no place today. We don't have to appease Montana so they'll remain part of the Union.

One thing to consider about 'weighing one persons vote more than other' is that there are a lot of sensible reasons to do that. And it almost happens naturally. Getting away from government and looking at corporations, relationships, unions and many more private institutions just kind of ended up as representative forms of organizational. They were free to do it any other way but they chose representative forms, why?

Even in the wild animal kingdom each animal will have some leader or bull vote if you will.

But agree our representative system has its limits and exploits and we are definitely late stage. I support more one man one vote options than we currently have.

Oh yeah, I'm not going into government corruption or even whether your vote means anything at all in a country where corporations or the rich can literally pay politicians to vote the way they want. But in a vaccuum, the EC makes no sense.

[WhyNot]

Should do away with the electoral college. Presidental elections should be decided by popular vote.

That would basically make the small states completely irrelevant, as opposed to mostly irrelevant as they are now.

Yes, but a "state" is just an arbitrary, geographical line on the ground. A popular vote gives every human exactly one vote regardless of where their physical person resides.

It's like having a roomful of people putting something to a vote, but because only 2 people are sitting on the right side of the room vs the left where 20 people are sitting, we decide to make those 2 votes worth twice as much.

It's got nothing to do with Democracy vs Republic or any of that nonsense. People still vote for representatives, can't vote away basic rights, there's no "tyranny of the majority."

So a “state” with say 50,000 acres mainly farmland containing 10 families as owners, farmers who by the way grow the food that all those vegetarians hunger for, would count as 10 family unit votes. Now the neighboring 50,000 acre “state”houses welfare units averaging 10 children each, contribute nothing to those poor hungry vegetarians but their votes count as oh say 1/3 acre units each or 150,000 family unit votes. Well I guess the votes of those farmers would mean nothing. Now say those 150,000 welfare unit family wanted to pass a bill to increase welfare monthly payments by say 100% those farmers, yes the ones paying the taxes that gives those welfare families money to buy vegetarian food, would have no say in the decisions. 10 family unit votes in a productive “state” vs 150,000 unit votes in a welfare “state”

[baccaruda]

Should do away with the electoral college. Presidental elections should be decided by popular vote.

That would basically make the small states completely irrelevant, as opposed to mostly irrelevant as they are now.

Yes, but a "state" is just an arbitrary, geographical line on the ground. A popular vote gives every human exactly one vote regardless of where their physical person resides.

It's like having a roomful of people putting something to a vote, but because only 2 people are sitting on the right side of the room vs the left where 20 people are sitting, we decide to make those 2 votes worth twice as much.

It's got nothing to do with Democracy vs Republic or any of that nonsense. People still vote for representatives, can't vote away basic rights, there's no "tyranny of the majority."

So a “state” with say 50,000 acres mainly farmland containing 10 families as owners, farmers who by the way grow the food that all those vegetarians hunger for, would count as 10 family unit votes. Now the neighboring 50,000 acre “state”houses welfare units averaging 10 children each, contribute nothing to those poor hungry vegetarians but their votes count as oh say 1/3 acre units each or 150,000 family unit votes. Well I guess the votes of those farmers would mean nothing. Now say those 150,000 welfare unit family wanted to pass a bill to increase welfare monthly payments by say 100% those farmers, yes the ones paying the taxes that gives those welfare families money to buy vegetarian food, would have no say in the decisions. 10 family unit votes in a productive “state” vs 150,000 unit votes in a welfare “state”

If I'm reading this right, you're saying that the number of votes you get should be based on your wealth or income? You're going down a whole different road here.

[ArtificialStupidity]

Should do away with the electoral college. Presidental elections should be decided by popular vote.

That would basically make the small states completely irrelevant, as opposed to mostly irrelevant as they are now.

Yes, but a "state" is just an arbitrary, geographical line on the ground. A popular vote gives every human exactly one vote regardless of where their physical person resides.

It's like having a roomful of people putting something to a vote, but because only 2 people are sitting on the right side of the room vs the left where 20 people are sitting, we decide to make those 2 votes worth twice as much.

It's got nothing to do with Democracy vs Republic or any of that nonsense. People still vote for representatives, can't vote away basic rights, there's no "tyranny of the majority."

So a “state” with say 50,000 acres mainly farmland containing 10 families as owners, farmers who by the way grow the food that all those vegetarians hunger for, would count as 10 family unit votes. Now the neighboring 50,000 acre “state”houses welfare units averaging 10 children each, contribute nothing to those poor hungry vegetarians but their votes count as oh say 1/3 acre units each or 150,000 family unit votes. Well I guess the votes of those farmers would mean nothing. Now say those 150,000 welfare unit family wanted to pass a bill to increase welfare monthly payments by say 100% those farmers, yes the ones paying the taxes that gives those welfare families money to buy vegetarian food, would have no say in the decisions. 10 family unit votes in a productive “state” vs 150,000 unit votes in a welfare “state”

Smart 'vegetarians" are running from the commercial farmers that are dousing their crops with Round-Up. To be honest, they should be in prison for poisoning the food supply and thus as felons...have no vote.

[WhyNot]

Should do away with the electoral college. Presidental elections should be decided by popular vote.

That would basically make the small states completely irrelevant, as opposed to mostly irrelevant as they are now.

Yes, but a "state" is just an arbitrary, geographical line on the ground. A popular vote gives every human exactly one vote regardless of where their physical person resides.

It's like having a roomful of people putting something to a vote, but because only 2 people are sitting on the right side of the room vs the left where 20 people are sitting, we decide to make those 2 votes worth twice as much.

It's got nothing to do with Democracy vs Republic or any of that nonsense. People still vote for representatives, can't vote away basic rights, there's no "tyranny of the majority."

So a “state” with say 50,000 acres mainly farmland containing 10 families as owners, farmers who by the way grow the food that all those vegetarians hunger for, would count as 10 family unit votes. Now the neighboring 50,000 acre “state”houses welfare units averaging 10 children each, contribute nothing to those poor hungry vegetarians but their votes count as oh say 1/3 acre units each or 150,000 family unit votes. Well I guess the votes of those farmers would mean nothing. Now say those 150,000 welfare unit family wanted to pass a bill to increase welfare monthly payments by say 100% those farmers, yes the ones paying the taxes that gives those welfare families money to buy vegetarian food, would have no say in the decisions. 10 family unit votes in a productive “state” vs 150,000 unit votes in a welfare “state”

If I'm reading this right, you're saying that the number of votes you get should be based on your wealth or income? You're going down a whole different road here.

No
I have no clue how but you got that completely wrong as in 100 % missed the boat.
Where is that flying over your head meme ??????

[WhyNot]

Should do away with the electoral college. Presidental elections should be decided by popular vote.

That would basically make the small states completely irrelevant, as opposed to mostly irrelevant as they are now.

Yes, but a "state" is just an arbitrary, geographical line on the ground. A popular vote gives every human exactly one vote regardless of where their physical person resides.

It's like having a roomful of people putting something to a vote, but because only 2 people are sitting on the right side of the room vs the left where 20 people are sitting, we decide to make those 2 votes worth twice as much.

It's got nothing to do with Democracy vs Republic or any of that nonsense. People still vote for representatives, can't vote away basic rights, there's no "tyranny of the majority."

So a “state” with say 50,000 acres mainly farmland containing 10 families as owners, farmers who by the way grow the food that all those vegetarians hunger for, would count as 10 family unit votes. Now the neighboring 50,000 acre “state”houses welfare units averaging 10 children each, contribute nothing to those poor hungry vegetarians but their votes count as oh say 1/3 acre units each or 150,000 family unit votes. Well I guess the votes of those farmers would mean nothing. Now say those 150,000 welfare unit family wanted to pass a bill to increase welfare monthly payments by say 100% those farmers, yes the ones paying the taxes that gives those welfare families money to buy vegetarian food, would have no say in the decisions. 10 family unit votes in a productive “state” vs 150,000 unit votes in a welfare “state”

Smart 'vegetarians" are running from the commercial farmers that are dousing their crops with Round-Up. To be honest, they should be in prison for poisoning the food supply and thus as felons...have no vote.

If those commercial farmers went away the cost of goods from the organic mom and pop farms would go up thousands of percent. And you know that.

[baccaruda]

That would basically make the small states completely irrelevant, as opposed to mostly irrelevant as they are now.

Yes, but a "state" is just an arbitrary, geographical line on the ground. A popular vote gives every human exactly one vote regardless of where their physical person resides.

It's like having a roomful of people putting something to a vote, but because only 2 people are sitting on the right side of the room vs the left where 20 people are sitting, we decide to make those 2 votes worth twice as much.

It's got nothing to do with Democracy vs Republic or any of that nonsense. People still vote for representatives, can't vote away basic rights, there's no "tyranny of the majority."

So a “state” with say 50,000 acres mainly farmland containing 10 families as owners, farmers who by the way grow the food that all those vegetarians hunger for, would count as 10 family unit votes. Now the neighboring 50,000 acre “state”houses welfare units averaging 10 children each, contribute nothing to those poor hungry vegetarians but their votes count as oh say 1/3 acre units each or 150,000 family unit votes. Well I guess the votes of those farmers would mean nothing. Now say those 150,000 welfare unit family wanted to pass a bill to increase welfare monthly payments by say 100% those farmers, yes the ones paying the taxes that gives those welfare families money to buy vegetarian food, would have no say in the decisions. 10 family unit votes in a productive “state” vs 150,000 unit votes in a welfare “state”

If I'm reading this right, you're saying that the number of votes you get should be based on your wealth or income? You're going down a whole different road here.

No
I have no clue how but you got that completely wrong as in 100 % missed the boat.
Where is that flying over your head meme ??????

I guess you need to rephrase then. Tell me again why 10 people should have more voting power than 50,000? Maybe I misread, but it sure looked like you said the 10 people were more productive than the 50,000. Farmland doesn't have voting rights. People do.

Hey, I don't necessarily disagree. I've said in the past that I think a person should have to be a net-taxpayer in order to vote. But just come right out and say that.

[ArtificialStupidity]

That would basically make the small states completely irrelevant, as opposed to mostly irrelevant as they are now.

Yes, but a "state" is just an arbitrary, geographical line on the ground. A popular vote gives every human exactly one vote regardless of where their physical person resides.

It's like having a roomful of people putting something to a vote, but because only 2 people are sitting on the right side of the room vs the left where 20 people are sitting, we decide to make those 2 votes worth twice as much.

It's got nothing to do with Democracy vs Republic or any of that nonsense. People still vote for representatives, can't vote away basic rights, there's no "tyranny of the majority."

So a “state” with say 50,000 acres mainly farmland containing 10 families as owners, farmers who by the way grow the food that all those vegetarians hunger for, would count as 10 family unit votes. Now the neighboring 50,000 acre “state”houses welfare units averaging 10 children each, contribute nothing to those poor hungry vegetarians but their votes count as oh say 1/3 acre units each or 150,000 family unit votes. Well I guess the votes of those farmers would mean nothing. Now say those 150,000 welfare unit family wanted to pass a bill to increase welfare monthly payments by say 100% those farmers, yes the ones paying the taxes that gives those welfare families money to buy vegetarian food, would have no say in the decisions. 10 family unit votes in a productive “state” vs 150,000 unit votes in a welfare “state”

Smart 'vegetarians" are running from the commercial farmers that are dousing their crops with Round-Up. To be honest, they should be in prison for poisoning the food supply and thus as felons...have no vote.

If those commercial farmers went away the cost of goods from the organic mom and pop farms would go up thousands of percent. And you know that.

Way less cancer and Medicare costs would drop by a third. I am good with that.