Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Democrats want to eliminate the Electoral College

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

    This is untrue. A number of other states play a role in a Presidential election. For example, Nevada, Arizona, and Colorado are all "purple" states. Colorado tends to vote Democrat, Arizona Republican, and Nevada is a toss up. But, they can, and have gone the other way. Michigan, Virginia, and Iowa are three more.

    If you eliminated "winner take all" it would become far more of a free for all.
    There is 50 states. Not 6, 7 or 13. Many states have strong preferences for one of two parties. Vote for the other party is meaningless since you loose anyway.
    There are no Nazis in Ukraine. © Idiots

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Emtos View Post

      There is 50 states. Not 6, 7 or 13. Many states have strong preferences for one of two parties. Vote for the other party is meaningless since you loose anyway.
      That is only true (voting for the other party) because of "winner take all." If the electoral college votes were apportioned by state to each party instead, then voting for one or the other party makes a huge difference. It also means that the Democrats never win another Presidential election for at least 50 years.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

        That is only true (voting for the other party) because of "winner take all." If the electoral college votes were apportioned by state to each party instead, then voting for one or the other party makes a huge difference. It also means that the Democrats never win another Presidential election for at least 50 years.
        Why ? Democrats won all the popular votes since 1992 except for 2004. Without electoral college Rrepublicans will not be able to win presidential elections.
        There are no Nazis in Ukraine. © Idiots

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Emtos View Post

          Why ? Democrats won all the popular votes since 1992 except for 2004. Without electoral college Rrepublicans will not be able to win presidential elections.
          Because of population distribution by state. For example, California has 55 electoral college votes. The state reliably has a Democrat majority. In winner take all, the Democrats get 55 votes. In apportioned by vote the breakdown would be closer to 60 - 40. That is, the Democrats get about 33 electoral votes, the Republicans about 22. That is disastrous for the Democrats.

          All you have to do is look at this map. That sea of red means the Democrats lose electoral votes in states they hold majorities in, while the Republicans gain votes because winner take all is by state and most Republican leaning states overwhelm their Democrat opposition.



          This is why the Democrats want a straight popular vote. They have the numbers in dense urban areas but stand no chance outside these. They know it. That gives their numbers clout against the low population areas the Republicans control. The Republicans would want to eliminate winner take all as it dilutes the Democrat voting strength in urban areas because large parts of those states they are in have significant Republican minorities outside the big cities.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

            Because of population distribution by state. For example, California has 55 electoral college votes. The state reliably has a Democrat majority. In winner take all, the Democrats get 55 votes. In apportioned by vote the breakdown would be closer to 60 - 40. That is, the Democrats get about 33 electoral votes, the Republicans about 22. That is disastrous for the Democrats.

            All you have to do is look at this map. That sea of red means the Democrats lose electoral votes in states they hold majorities in, while the Republicans gain votes because winner take all is by state and most Republican leaning states overwhelm their Democrat opposition.

            This is why the Democrats want a straight popular vote. They have the numbers in dense urban areas but stand no chance outside these. They know it. That gives their numbers clout against the low population areas the Republicans control. The Republicans would want to eliminate winner take all as it dilutes the Democrat voting strength in urban areas because large parts of those states they are in have significant Republican minorities outside the big cities.
            It perfectly works the other way around. Florida has 29 electoral college votes. Democrats loss by 1% of popular vote. So it will mean 14 votes for Democrats and 15 for Republicans. North Carolina had a difference of 3% but all 15 votes went to Trump.
            The popular votes say it all. Hillary won 3 millions more than Trump. The system works against the Democrats since they lose the advantage of numbers. If the system of "winner takes it all" is removed, Democrtas will also win from it. Electoral college is basically another form of gerrymandering.
            There are no Nazis in Ukraine. © Idiots

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Emtos View Post

              Why ? Democrats won all the popular votes since 1992 except for 2004. Without electoral college Rrepublicans will not be able to win presidential elections.



              Republicans run for president based on the current law, not one that doesnít exist.
              You canít assume that a massive change in the way presidents are elected would have no effect on that actual vote.

              The dems did not win the popular vote in 1992.
              They won with less than a majority of the popular vote because Ross Perot did pretty well for a 3rd party candidate.

              Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

              Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Emtos View Post

                It perfectly works the other way around. Florida has 29 electoral college votes. Democrats loss by 1% of popular vote. So it will mean 14 votes for Democrats and 15 for Republicans. North Carolina had a difference of 3% but all 15 votes went to Trump.
                The popular votes say it all. Hillary won 3 millions more than Trump. The system works against the Democrats since they lose the advantage of numbers. If the system of "winner takes it all" is removed, Democrtas will also win from it. Electoral college is basically another form of gerrymandering.


                Oh dear god.
                The system works as intended.
                The system predates both political parties and recognizes the individual sovereignty of the states.


                Hillary lost the election.
                The fact that you believe the EC is a form of gerrymandering tells me you donít understand its purpose.
                Hint: See State sovereignty.
                Last edited by Cambronnne; 13 Jan 19, 16:17.
                Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
                  Republicans run for president based on the current law, not one that doesnít exist.
                  You canít assume that a massive change in the way presidents are elected would have no effect on that actual vote.

                  The dems did not win the popular vote in 1992.
                  They won with less than a majority of the popular vote because Ross Perot did pretty well for a 3rd party candidate.
                  I see no reason why the vote will undergo important changes if the law will be changed. The changes will impact both sides.

                  In 1992 Clinton get more popular votes than both opponents.
                  There are no Nazis in Ukraine. © Idiots

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

                    Oh dear god.
                    The system works as intended.
                    The system predates predates both political parties and recognizes the individual sovereignty of the states.


                    Hillary lost the election.
                    The fact that you believe the EC is a form of gerrymandering tells me you donít understand its purpose.
                    Hint: See State sovereignty.
                    Why state sovereignty should matter for the election of the federal president ?
                    There are no Nazis in Ukraine. © Idiots

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Emtos View Post

                      There is no hatred. I understand that the concept of demographics and science is probably far above the intelelctual capacity of Right-wing fanboys like you, but it doesn't make them false. At one point the whites will be a minority, want you this or not.

                      The Left worked perfectly for Soviet Union. It's when the Gulags were closed and purges stopped, then the things went wrong.
                      Wow. The level of ignorance in that statement definitely set a new record.

                      hey-check-it-out-butthead-this-guys-a-dumbass.jpg ​​​​​​​
                      A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Emtos View Post

                        Why state sovereignty should matter for the election of the federal president ?


                        Because the States are sovereign over their own territory.
                        There are 50 individual states.
                        Not 50 parts to the federal government.

                        The system is designed to protect the smaller states from being made irrelevant.
                        It protects their sovereignty.
                        Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                        Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Emtos View Post

                          I see no reason why the vote will undergo important changes if the law will be changed. The changes will impact both sides.

                          In 1992 Clinton get more popular votes than both opponents.

                          Clinton won with a plurality. Not a majority.

                          Yes, the changes will impact both sides.
                          But it will change the way people vote.
                          Trump won because he ran his campaign in a way that was consistent with the existing law. Hillary didnít.

                          It won;t happen though because such a change requires that 2/3s of the States be willing to make themselves subservient to California and New York. Few States are going to support a Constitutional amendment that tends to weaken their influence.

                          Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                          Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post



                            Because the States are sovereign over their own territory.
                            There are 50 individual states.
                            Not 50 parts to the federal government.

                            The system is designed to protect the smaller states from being made irrelevant.
                            It protects their sovereignty.
                            The states cannot be sovereign. If there is a federal government, it automatically means a loss of sovereignty.

                            The system doesn't protect states. Only the states in balance are important, others are not.
                            There are no Nazis in Ukraine. © Idiots

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post


                              Clinton won with a plurality. Not a majority.

                              Yes, the changes will impact both sides.
                              But it will change the way people vote.
                              Trump won because he ran his campaign in a way that was consistent with the existing law. Hillary didnít.

                              It won;t happen though because such a change requires that 2/3s of the States be willing to make themselves subservient to California and New York. Few States are going to support a Constitutional amendment that tends to weaken their influence.
                              How can it change the way people vote ? As long as there is two parties, people will vote for one of them. But it can allow to have more parties, which is a danger both for Republicans and Democrats.

                              2/3 of the states are already subservient. The outcome of the election is decided in a dozen of states. The outcome for the others is known in advance.
                              There are no Nazis in Ukraine. © Idiots

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Pirateship1982 View Post

                                Wow. The level of ignorance in that statement definitely set a new record.
                                I already knew that you make completely ignorant posts. I don't see why you want to confirm it.
                                There are no Nazis in Ukraine. © Idiots

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X