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.

middleview

President
Supporting Member
But unless you change the Constitution,the bill of right portion to boot, which ain't gonna happen, this is the best we can do. And it is unfair to Virginians to give away their decision making power when other states aren't giving away their own in return.
Check out the Popular Vote Compact. Who decided to give away the votes of 66 million voters to a guy who only got 62 million votes?

 

Mick

Mayor
Why do you think that is the most important point? Why is an elector in Wyoming the selection of just 50,000 voters while an elector in California is worth 153,846 votes?
Between California and Wyoming there were 8,809,761 votes cast for Hillary Clinton and there were 4,658,229 for Donald Trump.....less than double. Yet, Hillary Clinton got 61 electoral votes out of all that and Donald Trump got only 3. Seems to me Trump got ripped off according to YOUR logic. Dumb post. It's akin to whining why a 1-0 World Series win is equal to a 10-0 win. Each state is considered its own election for President.
 

Spamature

President
Check out the Popular Vote Compact. Who decided to give away the votes of 66 million voters to a guy who only got 62 million votes?

Great ! As long as every state sticks to the compact and future state govts don't back out after committing.

But there might be a constitutional argument against winner takes all. If so then it can be abolished for all of the states at once and ended once and for all.
 

Spamature

President
Between California and Wyoming there were 8,809,761 votes cast for Hillary Clinton and there were 4,658,229 for Donald Trump.....less than double. Yet, Hillary Clinton got 61 electoral votes out of all that and Donald Trump got only 3. Seems to me Trump got ripped off according to YOUR logic. Dumb post. It's akin to whining why a 1-0 World Series win is equal to a 10-0 win. Each state is considered its own election for President.
But how many did he get when you add up all of the lowest population states won by Trump until you get to population number equal to the population of California ? I think we have gone over that and it was about 23 more EC votes awarded to Trump under that scenario.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Great ! As long as every state sticks to the compact and future state govts don't back out after committing.

But there might be a constitutional argument against winner takes all. If so then it can be abolished for all of the states at once and ended once and for all.
1. What is the constitutional argument against WTA? Not based on what the constitution says about states rights to select any means they choose. They could legally flip a coin.
2. There is an argument related to equal protection that should be applied to throw the electoral collage in the trash.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Between California and Wyoming there were 8,809,761 votes cast for Hillary Clinton and there were 4,658,229 for Donald Trump.....less than double. Yet, Hillary Clinton got 61 electoral votes out of all that and Donald Trump got only 3. Seems to me Trump got ripped off according to YOUR logic. Dumb post. It's akin to whining why a 1-0 World Series win is equal to a 10-0 win. Each state is considered its own election for President.
Hillary got 55 for that 9 million votes and Trump got 3 for 174,000. Just to be accurate.

But I think you are starting to understand. The 5 million votes cast for Trump in California didn't count at all. How many would have voted if their votes would have counted?

Trump got 304 electors for 63 million votes and Hillary got 227 for 66 million.
So each of the Hillary electors were picked by 291,000 voters, while Trump's electors were each worth 207,000. Are you starting to understand?
 

Mick

Mayor
But how many did he get when you add up all of the lowest population states won by Trump until you get to population number equal to the population of California ? I think we have gone over that and it was about 23 more EC votes awarded to Trump under that scenario.
If you added up the 20 least populous states (or whatever it is) and added up their vote totals then Trump probably moves ahead of Hillary Clinton in total votes if added to the California votes. That said, why should 1 highly populated state get to dictate to the 20 who reject it? The founders were very straightforward in rejecting that notion. They wanted a President with broad appeal.....like in this map:

1581711851752.png

Any questions?
 

Spamature

President
1. What is the constitutional argument against WTA? Not based on what the constitution says about states rights to select any means they choose. They could legally flip a coin.
2. There is an argument related to equal protection that should be applied to throw the electoral collage in the trash.
1. It disenfranchises voters by disregarding their votes in the ultimate awarding of electors. If it is proportional for each state under the Constitution, but not within the states themselves. That could be argued as against the intent of the framers.

2. It applies here too.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
If you added up the 20 least populous states (or whatever it is) and added up their vote totals then Trump probably moves ahead of Hillary Clinton in total votes if added to the California votes. That said, why should 1 highly populated state get to dictate to the 20 who reject it? The founders were very straightforward in rejecting that notion. They wanted a President with broad appeal.....like in this map:

View attachment 48450

Any questions?
So let's go back to what the founders designed....cuz this isn't it. You seem to think it should be based on acreage, not voters. Broad appeal is not about the space between houses. The fact is your map shows who the majority were for in those counties, but ignores the fact that there were people in blue counties who were for Trump and people in red counties who were for Hillary. The difference in Pennsylvania was about 50,000 voters...but you seem to think "broad appeal" only counts when it is about people who think as you do.
 

Mick

Mayor
Hillary got 55 for that 9 million votes and Trump got 3 for 174,000. Just to be accurate.

But I think you are starting to understand. The 5 million votes cast for Trump in California didn't count at all. How many would have voted if their votes would have counted?

Trump got 304 electors for 63 million votes and Hillary got 227 for 66 million.
So each of the Hillary electors were picked by 291,000 voters, while Trump's electors were each worth 207,000. Are you starting to understand?

Oh, so you really didn't mean to compare California to Wyoming now? LOL. Electors are the result of INDIVIDUAL elections, not nationally. We don't award California's voters the electoral votes that come from Mississippi. That's what you are pushing for. If states want to divy up their electoral votes there is nothing to stop them from doing so. Petition you leaders in Colorado to do so since you are so outraged that Trump voters in your state were shut out in the last election.

A 10-0 win is equal to a 1-0 win in the World Series. You can scream and cry all you want about that but the World Series is set up to deliver the champion to who can win the most GAMES, not score the most total runs. Same with the EC. It's setup to deliver victory to who can claim the most states, not who can run up a vote total in poverty-stricken blue population centers.

Understand now?
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
1. It disenfranchises voters by disregarding their votes in the ultimate awarding of electors. If it is proportional for each state under the Constitution, but not within the states themselves. That could be argued as against the intent of the framers.

2. It applies here too.
The current EC is not what the framers designed. Unless you want to go back to what it looked like in 1790, you should drop that argument.

My vote counts for less than the vote in Wyoming. How is that equal protection?
 

Mick

Mayor
Yeah, because lefties aren't like you until you need to pretend they are to soothe your own egos.
True. We aren't lefties. We don't seek to kill the most vulnerable among us, support communism, pander to the lazy, riot, commit crime, refuse to work. You get the point.

Thanks for pointing that out to us again.
 

Mick

Mayor
My vote counts for less than the vote in Wyoming. How is that equal protection?
The number of votes for Clinton and Trump were almost identical if one includes the votes of both Colorado and Wyoming together. HC got 9 electors and Trump 3. Stop making yourself look dumb. I do admit you do a good job, though.

After all, you are the guy who tried to back Vindman despite his boss, Morrison, ripping on him and your the guy that said Volker was sent into Ukraine to get Biden's scalp so we shouldn't be too surprised. You're not particularly bright.

:D
 

Mick

Mayor
So let's go back to what the founders designed....cuz this isn't it. You seem to think it should be based on acreage, not voters. Broad appeal is not about the space between houses. The fact is your map shows who the majority were for in those counties, but ignores the fact that there were people in blue counties who were for Trump and people in red counties who were for Hillary. The difference in Pennsylvania was about 50,000 voters...but you seem to think "broad appeal" only counts when it is about people who think as you do.

I never said anything about acreage. I said STATES. Congress is setup the same way. States are all given equal say in the Senate and population determines the say in the House. The EC and the makeup in Congress are identical in that regard. It's a compromise between giving the states rights while giving population centers MORE of a say. Populated states can win control of Congress if they can get a few of the least populated states on board with them. They can't when the rest of America rejects them. It's a good compromise.
 
Top