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

End winner take all in the electoral college and let the true voice of the people be heard.

Spamature

President
The EC is part of the Constitution. But the Constitution does not say that anyone who wins a state should get all of its EC votes. All of the liberals in Mississippi and the conservatives in California should not have their voices shut out by a system that makes their votes meaningless when all of the EC votes go to only one candidate.

A few voters in swing states should not decide the elections for the entire country. Nor should we have the election decided on razor thin margins in a Florida or Pennsylvania. The only fair way to do things is to divide the EC votes based upon the the percentage of votes each candidate gets in that state.

That way everyone's voice is equal and all votes are counted.
 
Last edited:
The EC is part of the Constitution. But the Constitution does not say that anyone who wins a state should get all of its EC votes. All of the liberals in Mississippi and the conservatives in California should not have their voices shut out by a system that makes their votes meaningless when all of the EC votes go to only one candidate.

A few voters in swing states should not decide the elections for the entire country. Nor should we have the election decided on razor thin margins in a Florida or Pennsylvania. The only fair way to do things is to divide the EC votes based upon the the percentage of votes each candidate get in that state.

That way everyone's voice is equal and all votes are counted.

This desperate call to trash our constitution comes up every time you Dem losers get real about just how shitty your chances are in 2020.

LOL
 

Spamature

President
This desperate call to trash our constitution comes up every time you Dem losers get real about just how shitty your chances are in 2020.

LOL
How does it "trash" the Constitution ?

If anything winner takes all trashes the Constitution by not allowing a voter's vote to count in electing our President ?

What if the most votes for one party in a state decided all of the seats in that state's legislature ? Should gigantic liberal areas in California or NY decide who represents your local district in the state ?
 
How does it "trash" the Constitution ?

If anything winner takes all trashes the Constitution by not allowing a voter's vote to count in electing our President ?

What if the most votes for one party in a state decided all of the seats in that state's legislature ? Should gigantic liberal areas in California or NY decide who represents your local district in the state ?
You really need to read the constitution sometime. Article II, Section 1 covers the electoral college. You want to trash that, because your dipshit candidates suck ass and can't win an election.

Here's an idea. Why don't you nominate someone who isn't crazy, a communist, a virulent racist, or a Nazi; and maybe you can actually win an election. I know you wouldn't be whining about this if Hillary had won.
 

Spamature

President
You really need to read the constitution sometime. Article II, Section 1 covers the electoral college. You want to trash that, because your dipshit candidates suck ass and can't win an election.

Here's an idea. Why don't you nominate someone who isn't crazy, a communist, a virulent racist, or a Nazi; and maybe you can actually win an election. I know you wouldn't be whining about this if Hillary had won.
I have read it. Now please explain how you think it applies to my post.

I understand the idea of fair elections scare you teabaggers but that does nothing to back up your angry rants. Now why don't you calm down and try to explain what you are ranting about. Or is trolling the forum with inane photos and calling others racist all you can do, marv ?
 
I have read it. Now please explain how you think it applies to my post.

I understand the idea of fair elections scare you teabaggers but that does nothing to back up your angry rants. Now why don't you calm down and try to explain what you are ranting about. Or is trolling the forum with inane photos and calling others racist all you can do, marv ?
Our elections are fair, hence the constitutional citation. Since you prefer mob rule, I suggest you move to somewhere like Somalia or Nigeria. Good luck!
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
This desperate call to trash our constitution comes up every time you Dem losers get real about just how shitty your chances are in 2020.

LOL
You don't seem to know what you are talking about. The Electoral College is left up to the states as to how they apportion electors. They don't even have to vote for the candidate who got the most votes in their states (faithless electors).

The EC as it is today is not how it was designed by the founding fathers.
 

Spamature

President
Our elections are fair, hence the constitutional citation. Since you prefer mob rule, I suggest you move to somewhere like Somalia or Nigeria. Good luck!
Marv my son, you are babbling without saying anything. How is this either against the Constitution or impacts the fairness of out elections in any negative way ?

Come on Marv, you can do it. Think and then post. Otherwise you start to make people think you nothing but a fool with nothing to add to any discussion.

You don't want people to see you that way, do you Marv ?
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
The EC is part of the Constitution. But the Constitution does not say that anyone who wins a state should get all of its EC votes. All of the liberals in Mississippi and the conservatives in California should not have their voices shut out by a system that makes their votes meaningless when all of the EC votes go to only one candidate.

A few voters in swing states should not decide the elections for the entire country. Nor should we have the election decided on razor thin margins in a Florida or Pennsylvania. The only fair way to do things is to divide the EC votes based upon the the percentage of votes each candidate gets in that state.

That way everyone's voice is equal and all votes are counted.
We still do not get equal voices. The number of electors is not based on the number of voters, nor is it based on the number of votes cast. It is based on both voters and non-voters. The pretense of somehow "hearing the voice" of a state when most of them are not even voting is laughable. If only 50% of the population votes, then the state should only get to award 50% of their electors. Then do it proportionately...that isn't perfect, but it doesn't reward a state that discourages turnout.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Marv my son, you are babbling without saying anything. How is this either against the Constitution or impacts the fairness of out elections in any negative way ?

Come on Marv, you can do it. Think and then post. Otherwise you start to make people think you nothing but a fool with nothing to add to any discussion.

You don't want people to see you that way, do you Marv ?

Too late.
 

Spamature

President
We still do not get equal voices. The number of electors is not based on the number of voters, nor is it based on the number of votes cast. It is based on both voters and non-voters. The pretense of somehow "hearing the voice" of a state when most of them are not even voting is laughable. If only 50% of the population votes, then the state should only get to award 50% of their electors. Then do it proportionately...that isn't perfect, but it doesn't reward a state that discourages turnout.
Well, people have the right not to give a sh*t and forfeit their choice to the people who do vote. You just have to trust their wisdom on that.
 

excalibur

Council Member
The EC is part of the Constitution. But the Constitution does not say that anyone who wins a state should get all of its EC votes. All of the liberals in Mississippi and the conservatives in California should not have their voices shut out by a system that makes their votes meaningless when all of the EC votes go to only one candidate.

A few voters in swing states should not decide the elections for the entire country. Nor should we have the election decided on razor thin margins in a Florida or Pennsylvania. The only fair way to do things is to divide the EC votes based upon the the percentage of votes each candidate gets in that state.

That way everyone's voice is equal and all votes are counted.

NO.

The People will not sit by and allow NYC and CA to choose the POTUS every 4-years. That would be the end of our Republic.
 

Spamature

President
NO.

The People will not sit by and allow NYC and CA to choose the POTUS every 4-years. That would be the end of our Republic.
Apparently you aren't understanding me, and that isn't what I said, but never the less, we do allow places like the Florida panhandle, and the hill country of NC, and Pennsylvania to decide who will be POTUS every 4 yrs.

Tell me why you do not think the conservatives and Republicans and Trumpies in California and Massachusetts should have their voices silenced ?
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Well, people have the right not to give a sh*t and forfeit their choice to the people who do vote. You just have to trust their wisdom on that.
No, I don't. Remember that the number of electors is based on the population of the state...including children, felons, non-citizens...and at one time, slaves.

If two people show up they get to speak for the entire state...no wisdom in that. If the party in control can suppress turnout, their own voters get to vote for everyone.
 

excalibur

Council Member
Apparently you aren't understanding me, and that isn't what I said, but never the less, we do allow places like the Florida panhandle, and the hill country of NC, and Pennsylvania to decide who will be POTUS every 4 yrs.

Tell me why you do not think the conservatives and Republicans and Trumpies in California and Massachusetts should have their voices silenced ?


Oh, I understand you. And your ilk too.
 

Spamature

President
No, I don't. Remember that the number of electors is based on the population of the state...including ...and at one time, slaves.

If two people show up they get to speak for the entire state...no wisdom in that. If the party in control can suppress turnout, their own voters get to vote for everyone.
Hey, children, felons, non-citizens exist and they deserve representation, even if the law does not give them a voice in deciding that representation.

The fair thing in that case is to count prisoners among the population where they lived before being incarcerated.
 
Last edited:
Top