Elizabeth Warren says she wants to eliminate Electoral College

Sparagmos said:

If you think that’s bad, then the electoral college is worse. A minority can enslave the majority, and we aren’t talking about a minority of more qualified people. Just people who live in more rural areas.

Click to expand...

Really? You think the minority can enslave the majority?

I don't like the way you said not qualified people, just more rural areas. What makes a city dweller more qualified? Are you suggesting that it is right to act like a tyrant over others, because they are rural and less "qualified" in your opinion?

I think rural people have a greater understanding of hard work, and what made American into the lone super power of the world, a bit more than welfare recipients, ivy league professors who have never worked a day in their life, and soccer moms who think meat and vegetables come from the grocery store. Having relatives who ran a farm, they have a far better understanding of hard work, than city people.

I don't see the minority trying to take away the livelihood of the majority, the way that the majority tried to drive Cliven Bundy into poverty by preventing him from grazing his cattle.

Besides, most of the power is in Congress, at least according to the constitution it should be. Therefore, it would be impossible for enslavement by the minority over the majority. The least of the states has only two senators, and a few house reps. Having a greater say on who signs, or vetos a bill, doesn't make them capable of passing a law saying we can enslave California. That is crazy talk.

The president has no ability to bring forward a bill. He can only sign or veto it.

However, for the sake of argument, let us even suggest that what you said is applicable.

You do realize that every single election is a rule of the minority. You know that right?

I'm not under the illusion that the electoral system is a perfect system. But if you want to complain about minority ruling the majority, we will end up with that under either system.

In a pure democracy, where people are elected by a pure majority vote, it is still a minority rule system. In 2008 when Obama won the election, he only had..... 69.4 Million votes. There were 304 Million people in the country in 2008.

So don't give me this idea you don't want to a rule of the minority. You do.

I seek only to try and give those in sparely populated states, not an equal voice, but a fighting chance against states with massive numbers of people. There will never be equality in any system. But we can mitigate the differences slightly.

I think that is a worth while way of doing it, and the founders agree with me. And quite frankly, their system created the most powerful country the world has ever known, vastly better than civilizations the have been around for thousands of years.

Silverback said:

Warren is the typical Democrat elitists, she also lies a lot.

Click to expand...

I'm sure she would have a lot of catching up to do before she would trump Donald on lying.

Lyin' Donald: 101 Of Trump's Greatest Lies

All False statements involving Donald Trump

Trump averaged 15 falsehoods a day in 2018

Donald Trump masqueraded as publicist to brag about himself

Donald Trump's Long, Strange History of Using Fake Names | Fortune

Sparagmos said:

I don’t blame Clinton’s loss on the EC at all. Not sure what you mean.

Click to expand...

I think much of the current discontent with the EC is from those folks that believe Clinton should be President because she won the popular vote.

I can see the reasoning in Warren's proposal, although I don't necessarily agree with it.

I guess after then-presidential candidates Jindal, Huckabee, and Santorum floated the idea of doing away with the Supreme Court after it voted in favor of same sex marriage, the notion of restructuring the government because it didn't do what you wanted it to do just seems too... Republican.

Sparagmos said:

I don’t blame Clinton’s loss on the EC at all. Not sure what you mean.

Click to expand...

Well I sure do.

American voters preferred her over the alternative.

But thats neither her nor there, as we can discuss the principles at stake regardless of who we preferred.

durangodawood said:

American voters preferred her over the alternative.

Click to expand...

First, there is statistical significance, but that's probably neither here nor there as well. It would come down to a legal difference in the vote count, wouldn't it? I've never looked into that before. Do you know what the legal threshold is for declaring a victor? Is it the same in all 50 states?

[edit] Oy. Found this: http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/automatic-recount-thresholds.aspx

Based on the votes counts at Wikipedia, the difference at a national level was 2.2%. Most pollsters claim a 5% error. Hmm.

Resha Caner said:

First, there is statistical significance, but that's probably neither here nor there as well. It would come down to a legal difference in the vote count, wouldn't it? I've never looked into that before. Do you know what the legal threshold is for declaring a victor? Is it the same in all 50 states?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how all your comments relate to my quote.

"Threshold for declaring a victor"? Huh? The R is the victor and I dont dispute that.

But voters preferred the D, and no one disputes that aside from sour-grapes baseless voter-fraud claims.

durangodawood said:

I'm not sure how all your comments relate to my quote.

"Threshold for declaring a victor"? Huh? The R is the victor and I dont dispute that.

But voters preferred the D, and no one disputes that aside from sour-grapes baseless voter-fraud claims.

Click to expand...

I edited post #192. Take a look.

Resha Caner said:

First, there is statistical significance, but that's probably neither here nor there as well. It would come down to a legal difference in the vote count, wouldn't it? I've never looked into that before. Do you know what the legal threshold is for declaring a victor? Is it the same in all 50 states?

[edit] Oy. Found this: http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/automatic-recount-thresholds.aspx

Based on the votes counts at Wikipedia, the difference at a national level was 2.2%. Most pollsters claim a 5% error. Hmm.

Click to expand...

Recount?
The 2.2% is well over the threshold for any recount anywhere.

And comparing media polling to tabulated ballot counts for margin of error? Frankly thats ridiculous.

durangodawood said:

Recount?
The 2.2% is well over the threshold for any recount anywhere.

And comparing media polling to tabulated ballot counts for margin of error? Frankly thats ridiculous.

Click to expand...

Ridiculous because you would have to change your position on 2016? Any credible pollster would be competent in statistics, and if they're saying the error is 5%, I'm more likely to believe them than the politically determined methods, which vary from an exact tie to 1% per the link I shared. If you want ridiculous, an exact tie is ridiculous.

Don't you want the vote to be as accurate as possible? So shouldn't we use the best knowledge statisticians have? I guess the challenge is out there. What studies have been done on election accuracy, and what percentage do they give? From what I've seen, when elections are that close, changing the election by a few days would have changed the outcome. But, like I said, let's see what the experts say.

Oh, and question #2. Does this mean you'd continue state by state elections, or are you taking away the Constitutional stipulation that states control elections? IMO if you do that, you've about stripped the last of their sovereignty. We might as well go to a hierarchical governmental form as opposed to a (pseudo) federal form.

durangodawood said:

Well I sure do.

American voters preferred her over the alternative.

But thats neither her nor there, as we can discuss the principles at stake regardless of who we preferred.

Click to expand...

The popular vote means nothing at the national level, only at the state level, our states pick the President. It was the basket of deplorable speech that sunk her, not the strippers the President knew.

Silverback said:

The popular vote means nothing at the national level, only at the state level, our states pick the President. It was the basket of deplorable speech that sunk her, not the strippers the President knew.

Click to expand...

The national vote means the voters preferred her. Thats all I'm claiming.

The other guy won the election. I completely concede that. I can say it again if it would help.

durangodawood said:

Its a basic value axiom, similar to the notion expressed in the Declaration of Independence, that "all men are created equal".

You may share it. Or you may think some peoples consent to be governed values more than others.

Click to expand...

The EC does not violate the notion of all being equal. The founders though in their wisdom foresaw that the potential for mob and one-party rule was so great, they had to devise a way to prevent it. We are not a democracy but a Constitutional Republic that elects representatives and our leaders through a careful system of checks and balances. The EC is not perfect, but reduces the risk of one party takeover and dictatorship.

durangodawood said:

The national vote means the voters preferred her. Thats all I'm claiming.

The other guy won the election. I completely concede that. I can say it again if it would help.

Click to expand...

No need, I hope you have blessed day

Veritas said:

The EC does not violate the notion of all being equal. The founders though in their wisdom foresaw that the potential for mob and one-party rule was so great, they had to devise a way to prevent it. We are not a democracy but a Constitutional Republic that elects representatives and our leaders through a careful system of checks and balances. The EC is not perfect, but reduces the risk of one party takeover and dictatorship.

Click to expand...

No one is suggesting we eliminate the representative nature of the republic. The pres would gain no additional powers. The congress would remain a representative body.

The original notion of choosing wise electors to pick a pres for us is already gone. Perhaps we should bring it back? Electors NOT pledged to a candidate.

Veritas said:

The EC does not violate the notion of all being equal. The founders though in their wisdom foresaw that the potential for mob and one-party rule was so great, they had to devise a way to prevent it. We are not a democracy but a Constitutional Republic that elects representatives and our leaders through a careful system of checks and balances. The EC is not perfect, but reduces the risk of one party takeover and dictatorship.

Click to expand...

You are correct, the EC helps preserve our freedoms. We don't always get the President we like, so, we suck it up, pray for them, and not speak evil of them. Then start it all over again.

Albion said:

How incongruous it was to see and hear Sen. Warren making news with her appeal for doing away with the Electoral College...while speaking to an audience in Mississippi, a state that would never, ever see a candidate for president again if the Electoral College were abolished. And in her usual backwards manner of thinking, she was actually telling those people that it would have the opposite effect.

Click to expand...

In the last three presidential election cycles, Mississippi has a combined total of one candidate visit. It's not a state most candidates will visit because it's considered to be safely Republican.

Veritas said:

The EC does not violate the notion of all being equal.....

Click to expand...

Of course it does. Individual votes have different levels of power.

The question is: is this violation equality-before-govt worth what it buys us?

I figure if you are going to keep the electoral college, you'd best make it proportional to POPULATION of each state.

Without that, you do NOT have a free and FAIR election.

variant said:

It has already happened twice in my lifetime which means 2 out of the last 6 presidents since I was born, or 2 out of the last three if you were born in 2000.

So, it's had a radical effect on the actual trajectory of the country.

Click to expand...

And it worked as it was intended to.