How Small of a Minority could Win the Electoral College?

[Drumcollie]

simple things amuse simple minds

links please?

 

[Drumcollie]

any links in your posts?

Links please!

 

[Drumcollie]

you want republican states to have a voice...be honest.

Links please.

 

[Drumcollie]

I did not know just how uninformed you are.

Linksa please!

 

[middleview]

The amoral determination to impose their agenda by any means is plainly apparent in every effort by those who want to subvert the constitution to convince others of their rectitude.

Look at it this way.

Suppose a country with 50 states, each with a measure of sovereignty and each with variegated people and interests and concerns, wanted to choose who would be the most powerful single individual in the country's government.

So the rules are set up so that the diverse peoples vote on who that individual will be.

Suppose two metropolitan areas in this geographically and demographically large and diverse country had enough votes to determine who that individual will be.

Should the people and interests of those two areas combined be able to override the rest of the country's various people with all their different interests and concerns?

The correct answer is "no."

Is it not fair that they have a greater say but not an overwhelming say? Is it not just that they have a greater say in one of two houses among three co-equal branches of the country's government and an equal say in the other of those two houses while having a large but not singular say in who represents the entire country in the other two branches?

The correct answers are "yes" and "yes."


How about if one feels the POTUS should be chosen in a way other than that mandated by the constitution one contact their representatives in government and urge them to amend that constitution rather than trying to undermine and subvert its words and intent by legal but surreptitious means?

How about the people supporting those means be honest about their obvious intent rather than disingenuously claiming their motives to be fairness and justice?

1. It is not subversion that you mind...because the suggestions are not counter to the constitution...it is the fact that the republicans have lost the popular vote in every election since 1992, except for 2004, but still managed to elect the president in 3 of those 7 elections.
2. The constitution has already been subverted in that the Electoral College is currently not what the founders designed.
3. The popular vote does not give one person more of a say than another solely based on residence. The Electoral College does. Each Elector in California was speaking for 159,000 voters....(number of clinton voters / electors). Each elector in Nebraska represented 92,000 voters. Each elector in Alaska was the voice of 54,462 voters.

The constitution gives each state broad latitude in how Electors are chosen. One state could have the governor or legislature pick them. Another could decide not to do "winner takes all". The current Popular Vote Compact would have states commit to allocating electors based on the national popular vote. There is nothing subversive, illegal, immoral about it.

 

[middleview]

Links please.

Every post of yours in this thread accuses New York and California of being the mob and somehow overriding the will of the "people"....of course you mean the will of the republican people.

 

[middleview]

Linksa please!

You thought being in favor of the popular vote makes someone a nationalist. That is pretty uninformed.

 

[middleview]

No. You want simpleton Mob rule. That's you.

And spare us your tea bagging obsession. Plenty of other sites to discuss your fetishes

So 95 million people voted for Hillary and 92 million voted for Trump.

Define "Mob". Is it the Hillary voters or the Trump voters?

 

[Drumcollie]

You thought being in favor of the popular vote makes someone a nationalist. That is pretty uninformed.

Links please.

 

[middleview]

It's a contest. In a contest there are winners, losers, and whiny little bitches who can't handle the laws of the country they live in.

So in your version of history nobody has changed any laws since the founding of the republic...because that would make them whiny bitches who can't handle the laws of the country.

 

[middleview]

Giving all states equal voice in the Senate was a concession to bring the Union together. Fact. I'm not sure what you are trying to say here other than to make yourself look dumb.

1. All states do not have equal voice in selecting the president.
2. All states do not have equal voice in the House of Representatives.
3. All states do have equal voice in the Senate.

 

[middleview]

The people who still can't get over an election that took place 2.5 years ago. Like you.

Why would I "get over" an election so out of balance with the popular vote? Because you say so? That makes me part of a mob? I see no difference between the two groups of voters and calling one group a mob is simply your way to use rhetoric to avoid reason.

 

[Nostra]

yep, why waste our time on elections. Right?

who said that?

 

[Spamature]

The amoral determination to impose their agenda by any means is plainly apparent in every effort by those who want to subvert the constitution to convince others of their rectitude.

Look at it this way.

Suppose a country with 50 states, each with a measure of sovereignty and each with variegated people and interests and concerns, wanted to choose who would be the most powerful single individual in the country's government.

So the rules are set up so that the diverse peoples vote on who that individual will be.

Suppose two metropolitan areas in this geographically and demographically large and diverse country had enough votes to determine who that individual will be.

Should the people and interests of those two areas combined be able to override the rest of the country's various people with all their different interests and concerns?

The correct answer is "no."

Is it not fair that they have a greater say but not an overwhelming say? Is it not just that they have a greater say in one of two houses among three co-equal branches of the country's government and an equal say in the other of those two houses while having a large but not singular say in who represents the entire country in the other two branches?

The correct answers are "yes" and "yes."


How about if one feels the POTUS should be chosen in a way other than that mandated by the constitution one contact their representatives in government and urge them to amend that constitution rather than trying to undermine and subvert its words and intent by legal but surreptitious means?

How about the people supporting those means be honest about their obvious intent rather than disingenuously claiming their motives to be fairness and justice?

In another post I showed where the same number of people in CA minimum of 30 fewer electoral votes than the combined number of people being represented by smaller states.

You act as if people should be punished for living around a large number of people. Even though that larger number of people are far more diverse in their interest than the people living in those smaller states.

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.

Yes fairness and justice is the motive.

 

[Mick]

1. All states do not have equal voice in selecting the president.
2. All states do not have equal voice in the House of Representatives.
3. All states do have equal voice in the Senate.

Precisely. Which is why the whole was a compromise to bring the union together with smaller states and larger states. You are slowly starting to get it, pea brain.

 

[ObamacareForever]

Precisely. Which is why the whole was a compromise to bring the union together with smaller states and larger states. You are slowly starting to get it, pea brain.

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.

 

[middleview]

Precisely. Which is why the whole was a compromise to bring the union together with smaller states and larger states. You are slowly starting to get it, pea brain.

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. That was a fop to the slave states who feared an abolitionist president.

 

[middleview]

Links please.

Your post:
National popular vote...So now you are a Nationalist. Got it!

 

[middleview]

who said that?

your post implied it by rooting for a president elected by the smallest possible number of voters.

 

[kaz]

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.

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