It is intended to make it harder for one, or a few, big states to have outsized influence if they DID vote overwhelmingly for one person. The Founding Fathers feared regionalism very much, with good reason as we all know. It could still happen, and is sort of beginning to happen if you look at things closely.
270-268 scenario
- Thread starter pseudonym
- Start date
- Status
I mean that in the actual vote that elects the president, they are not counted. But I think you already knew that. Same goes for the 4 million Trump voters in California.
And their opinion is not reflected in how Mississippi will vote in the EC which is the actual election as we know.
With California’s policy on immigration and voting, there is no limit to what voting numbers they can manufacture. with the voting irregularities of Detroit, Philadelphia, California....abolishing the electoral college does Not sound promising. you aren’t dealing with good faith actors here.
They had their say in choosing how Mississippi would vote in the EC. They lost. If you don't like how it turned out, then make a better case next time.
If this is another lame attempt to justify doing away with the EC you need to go find a crowd that will listen .
Your post is just baseless conjecture based on fearmonger claims.
The same voting processes that exist now could exist with direct voting. Each stage could still run elections into their states too, since down ballot races would continue to exist.
... and if you are claiming there is election fraud now, then should yesterday‘s results be trusted?
“Just trust us” it’s illegal to show voter ID in California “but just trust us”. after they rig the presidential elections then they pack the Supreme Court, one party rule. sounds great.
Some wanted direct voting.
Some wanted Congress to elect the president because common people would be too dumb and uninformed.
The compromise was the electoral college.
If telling the truth is another lame attempt, ok. But I never said we need to do away with the EC.
And electoral votes for each state were awarded based on total congressional representation, not direct proportion of population. The big state/little state compromise was very much a part of it.
The Dem side of the house voted overwhelmingly against having to prove citizenship to vote. How much more obvious could their intentions be ?
Or I could make a case for changing the system. That's still allowed, right? I've never said do away with the EC. I just think there are a number of better ways to do it. Some preserving the EC. My candidates have won some and lost some over the 30 plus years I've been voting. That's part of it. No problem with that. But the way we elect a president in 2024 is antiquated and it does need adjusting. So does the way we elect almost every office in this country. We give seats to one side or the other in a winner take all which by nature results in a representative body that is not really representative of voters. It results in a false sense of where the population is. I say this for both red and blue voters. I think this is one of the key reasons for peoples' gripes about an unresponsive government. About half the time the government is going to be unresponsive to about half the people. And they will never do anything about it because it may result in more than just red and blue winning elections.
Yes, it’s a really bad argument, it assumes they have pristine intentions and follow the letter of the law. you are dealing with a gangster mentality that only cares about seizing power. That’s the sad truth.
you could make the same silly argument for the first and second amendment, they are old outdated, hate Speech, gun violence etc etc.
must expand the Supreme Court as now there are thirteen districts etc etc
bottom line Founding Fathers put up too many roadblocks to stop tyrannical rule
It still helps the little states have a slightly more influence than they would otherwise because their votes go as a block. That was the original compromise, and the dynamics for it are still very much there.
Explain where the 2 most populous states would get the 47 additional Senators they’d need to be able to do this.
And now we got this.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/spe...ed-wind-trump-prosecutions/story?id=115571646
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/spe...ed-wind-trump-prosecutions/story?id=115571646
Sigh. There is a limit to how many they can “manufacture”. Whether you bring an ID to the polls or not, you have to have one (or a birth certificate / SS card) in order to register to vote. Nobody just lets you grab a ballot like you’re pulling a paper towel off the roll, and then turn it in. And if anyone was allowing that, it would be just as exploitable by either political party. If its as easy to vote in CA as you say with no accountability, the Republicans are missing a great opportunity to ensure they never lose a presidential election ever again.
I'll say it again. You want NPV instead of the EC? Okay, before we even have that discussion we need Voter ID in all states, paper ballots in all states and same day results in all states. Don't complain that your vote doesn't count as much if you aren't willing to take the first step and make sure your elections are above reproach. We aren't working on the honor system.
Once you go down the rabbit hole of how different states handle election laws, you begin to see the genius of the EC.
Once you go down the rabbit hole of how different states handle election laws, you begin to see the genius of the EC.
You’ve been on here crowing about Florida and how great of a job they did with ballots, but also saying “gotta have Voter ID”.
So, which is it?
60% of Florida voted by mail-in ballot. The only requirement for that is the last 4 digits of your SSN, sent along with your info to your county registration office to get your mail-in ballot.
So, is Florida good or bad? Voter ID requirement at the polls good or bad?
- Status
Get unlimited access today.