fish82;1824813 wrote:The EC isn't going anywhere...like ever.

Hence, the conversation is pretty moot.

Ditto the current method of congressional districting. The pubs currently own the field. The dems best hope is 2030.

fish82;1824783 wrote:I'd imagine they're into a recount. FWIW, the AP already called MI a few days ago.

I read an article there is no recount. Just that official state certification is in late November. The Donald is up around 13k which is not going to change. Some media outlets are just having trouble coloring Michigan red.

sleeper;1824805 wrote: There really isn't a good argument for the EC anymore. This isn't the 1800's.

Only spoken by those that don't understand why the EC compromise happened in the first place.

One thing that has been proven in the last couple pages, is that Sleeper doesn't understand the EC.

Making it a popular vote would NOT add importance to rural areas, it would completely negate them. LA, NY, Chicago, et al would become the only areas important in an election.

EVERYONE who understands politics and the EC at all understands this. Why do you think it is ONLY liberals who want to get rid of it?

jmog;1824843 wrote:One thing that has been proven in the last couple pages, is that Sleeper doesn't understand the EC.

Making it a popular vote would NOT add importance to rural areas, it would completely negate them. LA, NY, Chicago, et al would become the only areas important in an election.

EVERYONE who understands politics and the EC at all understands this. Why do you think it is ONLY liberals who want to get rid of it?

Terrible argument. No one persons vote is more important than another 1 persons vote. Doesn't matter where they live.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1824846 wrote:No one persons vote is more important than another 1 persons vote. Doesn't matter where they live.

Respectfully disagree.

No one persons vote is more important than another 1 persons vote. Doesn't matter where they live

That is exactly right....everybody's vote in the state of Nebraska is equal.....everybody's vote in the state of Florida is equal....as so on and so on.

HitsRus;1824851 wrote:That is exactly right....everybody's vote in the state of Nebraska is equal.....everybody's vote in the state of Florida is equal....as so on and so on.

Apparently some people just can't grasp the fact that we are a union of states who are governed by the Constitution.

^^^^The failure of our educational system in this regard is astounding.


To be honest, I find it more frightening than Donald Trump! (rolls eyes.)

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1824846 wrote:Terrible argument. No one persons vote is more important than another 1 persons vote. Doesn't matter where they live.

It is the exact argument used by the founding fathers. They wanted a POTUS that represented more than just one walk of life (aka metropolitan areas).

I say say they are smarter than you and I with regards to designing a government.

So either you are sour grapes or don't understand why the EC exists in the first place.

jmog;1824872 wrote: So either you are sour grapes or don't understand why the EC exists in the first place.

It's the exact same proportional representation that a person has in Congress. Two different branches, same proportional representation in each. Really shouldn't be difficult to grasp.

jmog;1824843 wrote:Why do you think it is ONLY liberals who want to get rid of it?

I mean, sleeper isn't exactly a liberal. His vote for Clinton, as has been stated frequently on here, was a begrudged one.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1824846 wrote:Terrible argument. No one persons vote is more important than another 1 persons vote. Doesn't matter where they live.

Correct, but the number of those votes in densely-populated areas is greater. As such, the densely populated areas will get the attention, because there are more of those votes to "win" in those areas. In the example I used before, the entire state of Wyoming only has about 600,000 voters across the state, and yet, LA County has over 10 million. Do you think the candidates are going to campaign in Wyoming at all, or are they going to focus on the location and needs of the people in LA County?

The EC doesn't allow a person to campaign in only the metropolitan areas. It forces them to address needs all over the country, including the regions that aren't as densely populated.

Each individual's interests should matter as much as their vote. With a popular vote, they wouldn't.

Face it.. 200 years ago an Electoral College was needed b/c a majority were either ignorant due to poor/no information relayed to them or they just couldn't read or write. In 2016 someone in rural Idaho has the same exposure as someone in NYC. Everyone who wants it has access to newspapers, internet, and television. When it was still a system where states truly ruled, I can see you point. But now when the federal government has so much say in our lives and more power over the states than ever before, your argument holds no weight. Everyone should be equal b/c everyone will be heavily represented by the federal government.

and LOL@ you that want to get smug and claim "you don't know how EC works".. you, apparently, don't see how our government has changed from its inception.

jmog;1824843 wrote:Why do you think it is ONLY liberals who want to get rid of it?

So, you're saying Trump is a liberal?

Since he did call the EC a disaster four years ago and all.

Heretic;1824895 wrote:So, you're saying Trump is a liberal?

Since he did call the EC a disaster four years ago and all.

Trump is left of HRC on several policy issues.

Heretic;1824895 wrote:So, you're saying Trump is a liberal?

Since he did call the EC a disaster four years ago and all.

Trump now sees the genius of the EC.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/donald-trump-electoral-college-genius-calling-disaster/story?id=43564890

majorspark;1824899 wrote:Trump now sees the genius of the EC.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/donald-trump-electoral-college-genius-calling-disaster/story?id=43564890

Hated it when Obama won, loves it now that he won. Then again, with as much as he's had to flip-flop over the years to be a "republican", no one should be surprised by that.

HitsRus;1824819 wrote:Spot on. From the very beginning when the nation was in its infancy, the country was very diverse, with differing regional and local interests. It is more true even today.

If you look at the map on how the country voted on the local levels 90 % of the land mass voted red....except for almost all the city/urban areas. Absolutely, if only popular vote mattered, the cities would ride roughshod over the rural areas.

The notion that liberal, urban group-think could could govern the other 90% of the area of the U.S. is truly frightening; and that it is effectively occurring already via vast federal overreach emanating from the obama regime is perhaps reason for the thrashing that took place last week.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1824878 wrote:Face it.. 200 years ago an Electoral College was needed b/c a majority were either ignorant due to poor/no information relayed to them or they just couldn't read or write.

I'd put the wisdom and acumen of the populace 200 hundred years ago up against today's anytime. Have you watched Watters' World lately?

QuakerOats;1824914 wrote:I'd put the wisdom and acumen of the populace 200 hundred years ago up against today's anytime. Have you watched Watters' World lately?

of course you would.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1824878 wrote:Face it.. 200 years ago an Electoral College was needed b/c a majority were either ignorant due to poor/no information relayed to them

I'd argue that there are more ignorant and uneducated voting now then ever before. The EC will not be going away because smaller States have no interest in doing so. Also, just because the Federal Government has too much power right now doesn't mean people want it that way, nor should it stay that way.

Sorry Heretic, on my phone and it's a fucking forum. But thanks for pointing that out.

iclfan2;1824930 wrote:I'd argue that their are more ignorant and uneducated voting now then ever before. The EC will not be going away because smaller State's have no interest in doing so. Also, just because the Federal Government has too much power right now doesn't mean people want it that way, nor should it stay that way.

I agree. I would also argue that the ignorant and uneducated today are easily reached by manipulators who deceive them especially through social media.

iclfan2;1824930 wrote:I'd argue that their are more ignorant and uneducated voting now then ever before. The EC will not be going away because smaller State's have no interest in doing so. Also, just because the Federal Government has too much power right now doesn't mean people want it that way, nor should it stay that way.

Uh, right now, I'm agreeing with this.

QuakerOats;1824914 wrote:I'd put the wisdom and acumen of the populace 200 hundred years ago up against today's anytime. Have you watched Watters' World lately?

Since you didn't exist 200 years ago, there's a good chance there was more wisdom back then. Or at least a bit less overt stupidity.