The Electoral College is ripe for reform

Yeah. They can't win on platform, programs or performance. They need to rig the vote.

 

or use our money to buy the votes

 

that's because to democrats, the government is the source of all wealth, power, cute babies, good wine and all that is good. TO us on the right, government is a necessary evil but industry and the private sector is the source of value.

 

it would sure cut down on government and the number of those suckling from the public teats

 

Yeah, the voters' own money.

 

more like the money of net tax producers being used to buy the votes of net tax consumers. the progressive income tax was designed to do that

 

Blue States are never going to award their ECV to the Republican. They'll join the compact in the hopes that if the Democrats win, that Red States will award their votes to the Democrat, even if the Republican won the state, but if the Republican wins, the popular vote, but by withdrawing from the compact the Democrat would win the ECV, they'd promptly dissolve the pact, and return to the ECV.

As someone else pointed out, it's just another gimmick from the Left to try to win an election they would otherwise lose.

 

No. The EC is just fine as it is. Democrats want permanent majority control over the country, that’s why they whine when the EC doesn’t go their way. Notice how they never complain when it goes their way? HRC knew that she had to win certain states and chose to ignore Michigan. That’s on her. They know how this works.

 

This. The whole point of the EC was to prevent more populated states from dominating elections.

 

Yeah, that was my point.

 

That is the basic difference between conservatives and liberals. Now we need to get republican politicians to understand that. All of them are liberals.

 

OK.

 

They are all just a basket of deplorables, so says Hillary Clinton. Gun totin', bible thumpin' red necks so says Obama (paraphrased).

 

Other than the framers, founders and forefathers consciously believed that to be the best way, and so constitutionally made it that way.

 

It WAS the best way. There is no reason to assume it still is. Obviously it's constitutionally made that way. I'm saying that nobody can provide a good reason why we shouldn't change it.

 

All three done with constitutional amendments, and two of the three good. The amendment for direct election election of senators belongs in the heap with prohibition.

You shout anachronism but do you have any rational what make it so?

 

Can anybody provide a good rationale (not reason or belief) why we should change it? Things are properly changed because there is strong rationale to change. Things shouldn't be changed just because there is no reason not to.

 

What disingenuous nonsense.
Without the electoral college, each person's vote is equal and no state can decide anything since it is the total number of people who vote that decides, unlike the current arcane system where candidates can ignore safe states and lock in electoral votes and so called battleground states become the focus of attention.
Make candidates appeal to everyone for their votes and count up the votes to determine the winner.

 

Indeed. Look at trump.

 

The founders said the constitution should be completely rewritten (I think one said every 7 years) to keep it a modern document.

We either need to move the states to be their own little countries that can almost completely make their own laws with zero limitations or we need to get rid of the EC.

As long as federal regulations or laws impact the Average American then all votes for president should be equal.

 

I agree

It’s pathetic



But I would hardly call the group with the most votes losers but I think we have different definitions of the word.

 

rationale?

It's 2024, not 1600.
The serfs aren't going to overthrow the crown.

Well, except for MAGADUMIANS, they tried
AND
eliminating the EC would have rendered their little insurrection meaningless.

 

That's a lot of words to say "we want Cali and NY deciding for EVERYONE"
I see right though the BS, go try it on someone that will fall for it.

 

They would be losers if they lost according to the rules. The definition he is using is based on those rules.

Other than basing it on the rules, how are you defining the term loser or winner for any contest? How can your definition possibly be different?

Do you watch the World Series and insist that the team with the most cumulative runs wins as opposed to the team that won the most games?

 

Well, that's what this thread is about. Just wanted to make sure there was no reason why we shouldn't.

A good reason for many of us is that it makes no sense that a minority of voters could elect a President. If we are all citizens with equal rights, there should no longer be some that are worth three fifths (or any other fraction, for that matter) of a free individual, like there might have been at the time the Constitution was framed. If you don't agree with this, you don't agree. But it's the most rational way to elect the President of ALL of us.