New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

How Small of a Minority could Win the Electoral College?

middleview

President
Supporting Member
So change the Constitution. Or do it the leftist way and get the courts to declare the Constitution Unconstitutional.

Our being one tyranny of the majority country instead of 50 Republics is a step back and not forward to me. But you have the right to disagree. So follow the Constitutional process and introduce a bill to further eliminate individual rights in this country
Once again we have an example of extremist right winger rhetoric that when examined for the purpose of finding a relationship with reality...we find bullshit.

What individual right is lost if the Electoral College goes away?
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
So change the Constitution. Or do it the leftist way and get the courts to declare the Constitution Unconstitutional.

Our being one tyranny of the majority country instead of 50 Republics is a step back and not forward to me. But you have the right to disagree. So follow the Constitutional process and introduce a bill to further eliminate individual rights in this country
So instead we have a tyranny of the minority....yeah, I see the advantage....:rolleyes:
 
It maybe a question that only interests me, but I calculated the least amount of popular votes a candidate would have been required to win in 2016 to win the election. If you take out the 50%+1 of the population of the states with the highest electoral vote/popular vote ratio(using 2016). Then in the losing coalition add 50%-1 from the states that won the electoral college then add 100% of the votes that were not in the winning electoral coalition. By my calculations a candidate could hypothetically win the electoral college with a popular vote of 29,840,000 to 106,828,000. That's just how dumb the electoral college is.
That's only if it cloudy without rain. If it rains, all bets are off.
 

Emily

NSDAP Kanzler
You act as if people should be punished for living around a large number of people.
Not at all. I contend that, if we're going to allow voting to determine who will be our Chief Executive, all regional interests in our large and diverse country should have a say. Because on demographic reality, a popular vote system would not allow that. Regardless, your proposal wasn't for changing the system -- which would be a valid opinion worthy of consideration -- but for dishonestly undermining it.

Even though that larger number of people are far more diverse in their interest than the people living in those smaller states.
Even though there's diversity in the concerns of the many people living in metropolitan regions, their perceived interests aren't those of the people in the heartland. The quantity of distinctions isn't relevant.

You believe we should not seek any remedy other than on you can reject in the very same manner by being stronger in your voting power while at the same time being less numerous in your population.
That's precisely not what I've said. I believe that if there's a consensus that a remedy is necessary it should be implemented through the constitutional amendment process. I made that quite clear. You've made clear that you care naught for the constitution if it bars achievement of your objectives and are willing to use fraudulent manipulations and machinations toward your aim.

Yes fairness and justice is the motive.
The sole motive of everyone trying to circumvent the constitution via compacts and other machinations is to assure that only Democrats will hold the presidency for the foreseeable future. Anyone claiming another motive is being dishonest.
 

Spamature

President
Not at all. I contend that, if we're going to allow voting to determine who will be our Chief Executive, all regional interests in our large and diverse country should have a say. Because on demographic reality, a popular vote system would not allow that. Regardless, your proposal wasn't for changing the system -- which would be a valid opinion worthy of consideration -- but for dishonestly undermining it.
They do have a say. But some areas have an out sized say in that election.


Even though there's diversity in the concerns of the many people living in metropolitan regions, their perceived interests aren't those of the people in the heartland. The quantity of distinctions isn't relevant.
Diversity is relevant. A state like Ca has forest in the north, the nation's farming and technology centers in the middle and the largest single state metropolitan area in the nation in the south. In the last 50 yrs it has had more Republican governs that Democratic. It has provide the nation with two Republican presidents (four if you want to count the Bush's as having lived here) and the last Californian to be appointed the the SCOTUS was appointed by a Republican.

That's precisely not what I've said. I believe that if there's a consensus that a remedy is necessary it should be implemented through the constitutional amendment process. I made that quite clear. You've made clear that you care naught for the constitution if it bars achievement of your objectives and are willing to use fraudulent manipulations and machinations toward your aim.
It takes not a number of people but 2/3rds of the states to do what you say. That give smaller states the very same out sized voice they have in the electoral college.


The sole motive of everyone trying to circumvent the constitution via compacts and other machinations is to assure that only Democrats will hold the presidency for the foreseeable future. Anyone claiming another motive is being dishonest.
And the motivation for being against the plan is that minority rule is also propagated by keeping minority rule in place and to mute the voices of the majority.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
So change the Constitution. Or do it the leftist way and get the courts to declare the Constitution Unconstitutional.

Our being one tyranny of the majority country instead of 50 Republics is a step back and not forward to me. But you have the right to disagree. So follow the Constitutional process and introduce a bill to further eliminate individual rights in this country
Do you have an example of leftists getting the courts to declare the constitution unconstitutional? I seem to have missed that.
 
So change the Constitution. Or do it the leftist way and get the courts to declare the Constitution Unconstitutional.

Our being one tyranny of the majority country instead of 50 Republics is a step back and not forward to me. But you have the right to disagree. So follow the Constitutional process and introduce a bill to further eliminate individual rights in this country
A tyranny of the minority is not any better.
 

EatTheRich

President
https://www.npr.org/2016/11/02/500112248/how-to-win-the-presidency-with-27-percent-of-the-popular-vote

It's funny how you calculated the votes...Came up with same number as NPR.



It is funny that you rounded to the nearest ten thousand in 2012 and that you expect us to believe you were smart enough to make that calculation. You are liberal for God's sake. There is no way in hell you did the numbers and came up with 29, 840, 000 just 7,550 off NPR's number.

Hey nobody is buying that crap that California and New York should determine elections
This is another sore loser post that says you in Wyoming do not count.

Here is a solution to your problem.

1. Start a new party...So you are not the party of slavery, segregation, and the KKK.

2. You could get better candidates...Your clown bus sucks.
There were 136669276 votes cast in the 2016 presidential election. 14181595 of those were from California and another 7721453 were from New York. So if EVERYONE from California and New York had voted the same way (which they didn’t) 46331591 more people ... or more than twice the combined population of both states voting again ... would have had to have voted for the same candidate to secure a popular vote majority.
 

EatTheRich

President
But the state is who votes, and the more populous states have a much bigger vote than the smaller ones. So if you live in a red state and you think blue should win, you should be going to a blue state.
But the more populous states do not have a share of the electoral vote that is proportional to their population share.
 

EatTheRich

President
So change the Constitution. Or do it the leftist way and get the courts to declare the Constitution Unconstitutional.

Our being one tyranny of the majority country instead of 50 Republics is a step back and not forward to me. But you have the right to disagree. So follow the Constitutional process and introduce a bill to further eliminate individual rights in this country
Counting every individual’s votes equally means individuals’ rights are safeguarded compared with the statist position that lets privileged states override the interests of the majority of individuals.
 

EatTheRich

President
Not at all. I contend that, if we're going to allow voting to determine who will be our Chief Executive, all regional interests in our large and diverse country should have a say. Because on demographic reality, a popular vote system would not allow that. Regardless, your proposal wasn't for changing the system -- which would be a valid opinion worthy of consideration -- but for dishonestly undermining it.


Even though there's diversity in the concerns of the many people living in metropolitan regions, their perceived interests aren't those of the people in the heartland. The quantity of distinctions isn't relevant.


That's precisely not what I've said. I believe that if there's a consensus that a remedy is necessary it should be implemented through the constitutional amendment process. I made that quite clear. You've made clear that you care naught for the constitution if it bars achievement of your objectives and are willing to use fraudulent manipulations and machinations toward your aim.


The sole motive of everyone trying to circumvent the constitution via compacts and other machinations is to assure that only Democrats will hold the presidency for the foreseeable future. Anyone claiming another motive is being dishonest.
There is not much real divergence in regional interests. The poor people of one state have more common interests with the poor people of any other state than with the rich people of their state. What the Electoral College protects, by giving a disproportionate share of the voteto the least developed states, is the interest of the rich.
 

Mick

The Right is always right
And instead of presidential candidates spending all their time in population centers, they spend all their time in Ohio and Florida. Like that is somehow better. It's dumb and antiquated.

Not entirely true. They go to places like New Hampshire and Iowa, too. If it was a straight popular vote you would never see a candidate campaigning outside of a few major cities. New Hampshire and Iowa would never see campaigning.
 

EatTheRich

President
They do, it's why we have the census
No, they don’t. They get a number of electoral votes equal to the size of their Congressional delegation. So if state A has 37 times as many people as state B, and state B only has sufficient population to qualify for 1 House seat, state A will get 39 electoral votes to state B’s 3, or 13 times as many electoral votes ... for 37 times as many voters.

The Electoral vote system means not all votes have equal weight.
 

Mick

The Right is always right
So instead we have a tyranny of the minority....yeah, I see the advantage....:rolleyes:
Except in 2012, 2008, 2004, 1996, 1992, 1988, 1984, 1980.....so on and so forth. That is an incredible "tyranny" the minority has there. Do you think before you post or are you just set on just making yourself look dumb?
 

Mick

The Right is always right
The representative democracy is implemented in the proportional House and the equal representation of the Senate.

Has nothing at all to do with the obsolete monstrosity called the Electoral College.

Absolutely it does. The number of electoral votes is reflected by the total number of U.S. representatives and senators a state has. The two are directly intertwined.....and ONCE AGAIN was a compromise between large states and small states to give large states more say but once again to assure small states have A say. Educate yourself, pea brain:

https://verdict.justia.com/2016/12/05/electoral-college-works-fine-just

Better yet, take a good look at this map:




This is called "broad appeal". Any questions?
 
Top