On-Topic Clinton Will Win Popular Vote - Time to Scrap Electoral College

[Benvolio]

The Constitution was written for a nation which does not exist anymore.

We do not intend to accept or join in your destruction of that great country.

 

[palemale]

Read the Constitution. It defines what you are "entitled to". Technically you are not entitled to a say in who will br president. You vote for electors. By "entitled" you mean it would be nice.

The point of this thread is to argue that the Constitution needs to be changed to scrap the electoral college and have direct, popular vote. The Constitution enshrines the right to own slaves, but the 13th Amendment changed that. The Constitution did not provide for the direct election of Senators, the state legislatures appointed them. That changed with the 17th Amendment and, after 1913, we started directly electing senators. It's now time to directly elect the president, and I have yet to hear a single, rational argument why that shouldn't happen.

A majority of Americans support direct election of the president by popular vote. Trump is at a distinct disadvantage because he lost the popular vote by more than 2 million votes, and thus lacks the legitimacy and mandate that a president who won the popular vote starts his presidency with.

 

[gsdx]

We do not intend to accept or join in your destruction of that great country.

And just how am I trying to destroy the United States? In case you haven't noticed, we're trying to save it from The Trump. He is going to destroy the United States, but he's going to destroy a lot more countries as well.

Heck, even Canada has a new and modern Constitution which reflects 'today'.

 

[Benvolio]

And just how am I trying to destroy the United States? In case you haven't noticed, we're trying to save it from The Trump. He is going to destroy the United States, but he's going to destroy a lot more countries as well.

Heck, even Canada has a new and modern Constitution which reflects 'today'.

I simply do not concede the destruction of the great country for which the Constitution was written--and which you claim does not exist. Direct election would finish it off.

 

[Benvolio]

The point of this thread is to argue that the Constitution needs to be changed to scrap the electoral college and have direct, popular vote. The Constitution enshrines the right to own slaves, but the 13th Amendment changed that. The Constitution did not provide for the direct election of Senators, the state legislatures appointed them. That changed with the 17th Amendment and, after 1913, we started directly electing senators. It's now time to directly elect the president, and I have yet to hear a single, rational argument why that shouldn't happen.

A majority of Americans support direct election of the president by popular vote. Trump is at a distinct disadvantage because he lost the popular vote by more than 2 million votes, and thus lacks the legitimacy and mandate that a president who won the popular vote starts his presidency with.

In practice, direct election would give the democrats a lock on the presidency. That, of course, is the reason you democrats want the change. There is no rational reason why the smaller states should surrender the small advantage the electoral college gives them--and they will not and you cannot take it from them.
A better change would be the adoption of the parliamentary system.

 

[Benvolio]

Direct popular vote as well the electoral college they way it is currently set up, allow the big states to control the election. They way to fix is for each state to award its electoral votes in proportion to the popular vote in that state. You would still have to get 270 to win but no candidate could win an entire state. Each candidate would earn the electoral vote of each state according to how the people of that state voted. The 270 total then must come from the people across the country, not just a few states. It would truly be fair and every individuals vote would count toward your states electoral vote total unless you voted for a nobody. If this concept were in place in 2000 the Florida fiasco would not have happened because only 1 electoral vote would have been contested instead of the whole state.

I want to be clear here. This concept is on a state-by-state basis not a national basis. In Missouri Trump would have won 7 electoral votes and Clinton 3.

Also, this is to discuss what might be a possible way to improve the electoral system. I am fully aware this is not going to happen so do not disparage the idea by telling me it won't happen. I know it won't happen. The point is, I think it would be a good way to correct the imperfections in the electoral college system and make for a fair election that represents the people of the country. But no one wants that, do they?

Doing it on a state by state basis is not practical. The parties which control bigger states will not want to give up that advantage to their party. The other states will not want to concede greater power to the large.

 

[palemale]

In practice, direct election would give the democrats a lock on the presidency. That, of course, is the reason you democrats want the change. There is no rational reason why the smaller states should surrender the small advantage the electoral college gives them--and they will not and you cannot take it from them.
A better change would be the adoption of the parliamentary system.

Vermont, Hawaii and Rhode Island all gave Hillary Clinton a larger margin of victory than Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania gave Trump. How exactly does the electoral college give these small states any advantage? The answer is that it does not, it nullified their advantage in voting overwhelmingly for the candidate that won the popular vote.

Nonsense that the direct election would give democrats a lock on the presidency. Because of Hillary's electoral malpractice, Trump came pretty close to winning the popular vote despite being a wholly unqualified, vile, mendacious and racist piece of shit.

 

[rareboy]

^ Excellent points. Unless it favours all small states equally...it is just doesn't work.

And the comments about Trump are spot on as well.

 

[Benvolio]

Vermont, Hawaii and Rhode Island all gave Hillary Clinton a larger margin of victory than Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania gave Trump. How exactly does the electoral college give these small states any advantage? The answer is that it does not, it nullified their advantage in voting overwhelmingly for the candidate that won the popular vote.

Nonsense that the direct election would give democrats a lock on the presidency. Because of Hillary's electoral malpractice, Trump came pretty close to winning the popular vote despite being a wholly unqualified, vile, mendacious and racist piece of shit.

If VT, HI and RI had voted Republican they would have had a bigger voice. Isn't that what you are complainig about? Voting with the majority they are lost in the numbers, but dissenting they have more voice.
Hillary was herself a poor candidate, but came close, but lost apparently because of the college. The fact that recent Republican president have not gotten the popular vote is a function of immigrant preference for the evil democrat agend. Republicans could only overcome that advantage by competing with democrats in pandering; high taxes on evil greedy white Americans, everything free for immigrant poor, legal or mandated discrimination against existing Americans; minorities prefered to the maximum extent possible; socialism, not free enterprise.

 

[palemale]

If VT, HI and RI had voted Republican they would have had a bigger voice. Isn't that what you are complainig about? Voting with the majority they are lost in the numbers, but dissenting they have more voice.
Hillary was herself a poor candidate, but came close, but lost apparently because of the college. The fact that recent Republican president have not gotten the popular vote is a function of immigrant preference for the evil democrat agend. Republicans could only overcome that advantage by competing with democrats in pandering; high taxes on evil greedy white Americans, everything free for immigrant poor, legal or mandated discrimination against existing Americans; minorities prefered to the maximum extent possible; socialism, not free enterprise.

I am complaining that the voters chose Clinton, but the electoral college will choose Trump, who lost by over 2.3 million votes. I mentioned VT, HI and RI to show the fallacy of your argument that the electoral college protects small states. I would point out that these three states have very few immigrants, and VT and RI are overwhelmingly white. I guess small white states with mostly American born voters deserve to have their rights protected only if they vote for Republicans in your view of the world.

 

[kallipolis]

I am complaining that the voters chose Clinton, but the electoral college will choose Trump, who lost by over 2.3 million votes. I mentioned VT, HI and RI to show the fallacy of your argument that the electoral college protects small states. I would point out that these three states have very few immigrants, and VT and RI are overwhelmingly white. I guess small white states with mostly American born voters deserve to have their rights protected only if they vote for Republicans in your view of the world.

Raw, rational, and educational....thank you, for keeping the topic straightforward..and easy for me to understand.

 

[Benvolio]

I am complaining that the voters chose Clinton, but the electoral college will choose Trump, who lost by over 2.3 million votes. I mentioned VT, HI and RI to show the fallacy of your argument that the electoral college protects small states. I would point out that these three states have very few immigrants, and VT and RI are overwhelmingly white. I guess small white states with mostly American born voters deserve to have their rights protected only if they vote for Republicans in your view of the world.

I am not sure what rights you are talking about. The college gives small states a bigger voice than they would have in a popular majority. The voters of NH get more attention and voice than those of VT, because they swing, while VT is only blue. VT is taken for granted. In a popular majority, democrats would always win. Both Vt and Nh would be insignificant

 

[palemale]

I am not sure what rights you are talking about. The college gives small states a bigger voice than they would have in a popular majority. The voters of NH get more attention and voice than those of VT, because they swing, while VT is only blue. VT is taken for granted. In a popular majority, democrats would always win. Both Vt and Nh would be insignificant

The right to have an equal voice in choosing the president. Right now, we in this country do not have an equal right to choose who our president will be, and that's how it will continue to be if we do not scrap the electoral college. You think that right is unimportant, a view shared by most Republicans. Republicans want as few people to vote as possible because they, like you, recognize in a free and fair election they cannot win. Steve Bannon, Trump's white nationalist strategist, apparently wishes to revert to the days of giving the franchise only to property owners.

 

[Alnitak]

Steve Bannon, Trump's white nationalist strategist, apparently wishes to revert to the days of giving the franchise only to property owners.

And that was the opinion of John Adams.

The Founding Fathers had contempt for the common man and his ability to make political judgments, and that is a fact by their own written admission.

 

[kallipolis]

The right to have an equal voice in choosing the president. Right now, we in this country do not have an equal right to choose who our president will be, and that's how it will continue to be if we do not scrap the electoral college. You think that right is unimportant, a view shared by most Republicans. Republicans want as few people to vote as possible because they, like you, recognize in a free and fair election they cannot win. Steve Bannon, Trump's white nationalist strategist, apparently wishes to revert to the days of giving the franchise only to property owners.

Well noted.............

 

[Benvolio]

And that was the opinion of John Adams.

The Founding Fathers had contempt for the common man and his ability to make political judgments, and that is a fact by their own written admission.

More than that was the obvious fear that the unsuccessful and indolent will vote confiscatory taxes to be paid by others. That is a major part of the democrat, marxist class and racial warfare agenda. It is part of why democrats want more poor people.

 

[Benvolio]

The right to have an equal voice in choosing the president. Right now, we in this country do not have an equal right to choose who our president will be, and that's how it will continue to be if we do not scrap the electoral college. You think that right is unimportant, a view shared by most Republicans. Republicans want as few people to vote as possible because they, like you, recognize in a free and fair election they cannot win. Steve Bannon, Trump's white nationalist strategist, apparently wishes to revert to the days of giving the franchise only to property owners.

In a free and fair election Republicans will win EXCEPT for the immigrant vote. It is the hispanic and asian vote which gives democrats the edge, and why abortion and immigration are priorities for democrats.

 

[Alnitak]

More than that was the obvious fear that the unsuccessful and indolent will vote confiscatory taxes to be paid by others. That is a major part of the democrat, marxist class and racial warfare agenda. It is part of why democrats want more poor people.

So now universal suffrage is a Marxist scheme !!! Lolz

 

[Benvolio]

So now universal suffrage is a Marxist scheme !!! Lolz

The vote can be used to bring totalitarian regimes to power,Hitler for instance. Allowing people to vote taxes on others which they themselves wil not have to pay is a prescription for socialism/communism.

 

[gsdx]

In a free and fair election Republicans will win EXCEPT for the immigrant vote. It is the hispanic and asian vote which gives democrats the edge, and why abortion and immigration are priorities for democrats.

Immigrants came over on the Mayflower, and they've never stopped coming. By your reckoning, the Republicans should never have won any elections throughout your history.

Kinda blows your 'immigrants' theory out of the water, doesn't it?