There are a ton of good arguments for and against the electoral College.. I'm not sure which way is the best to go.. Much studying needs done.

As for any president being able to pardon himself, REALLY, is that a thing? Seriously.. Can a president pardon himself?

I'm all for that to be made impossible.

I understand what the electoral college was first intended to do. Now it serves a different purpose.

I'm not a fan of the Popular Vote Idea. But I also don't like the way the Electoral College is at this point. I'd rather keep the college, but give out votes proportionally instead of winner take all.

Winning a state by 1,000 votes shouldn't give you all the delegates. It should give you a percentage portion of what you earned.

In a state like mine (Connecticut), where politicians only come to fundraise at expensive dinners for our wealthiest, I feel like i never get a chance to see a candidate. This would give me a chance because candidates wouldn't take for granted that all our votes will go Democrat. They'd be working for something more than fundraising dollars.

Small states like Wyoming and Vermont should be protected so that their people get a chance to feel represented by the government by having the electoral college.

And states like Ohio and Florida won't get all the coverage because they're "battleground" states. They won't be so important, which seems fair to me.


IMO, Democrats will be winning the popular vote for some time. As long as Texas continues to go more and more blue (which it is), the democrats will continue to win the Popular Vote. While the state might stay Red, the margin will continue to decrease. Meanwhile California's margin will probably stay the same.


My system is more equatable. The small states will still have an advantage (as their population counts more per vote, so they won't be forgotten), while a state like Florida won't send all their votes one way or another in a nail biter election (making the candidate who loses that state's efforts a complete waste)

All they have to do is get the Senate to agree and the President to sign it.

Baw

Haw

BahHawhahahahahahahahaha snort

Hey 40...Why do you have throw cold water on the poor dems. schemes to rig the elections shame on you.....LMAO

I think that if an electoral college could work in the 20th century, it needs to place the voter in the state they grew up in. Republican states can no longer mismanage themselves to where every Democrat leaves, and they win presidential land slide victories.

Good. Get rid of it. It’s an outdated system.

Oh you are right, making the votes of people actually count would be rigging the election. smh

An amendment like this would be a death knell to the troglodyte voter. No more grip on major parties based in hate.

And this can be done without consent from your side if States call for a convention. How many States are run by Dems right now?

How would that work?

A state has 25 Electoral votes (that would be 100%)

Candidate A gets 3 Million votes

Candidate B gets 2 million votes

Candidate A therefore receive 15 electoral votes

Candidate B therefore received 10 Electoral Votes

Do I have that right?

I could deal with that. I think it means my vote would count again...

And you think that's funny..... geez

Republicans complaining about rigging schemes,,, That's precious.

I support this bill. It's pure common sense and fair to all.

Hard to imagine that people in OHIO want to diminish their voices. Is it only because your candidate lost?

Trump won 37 states, Hill won 13. Liberals want to make this the United States of California.

I think you can look at it from both directions.

Gerrymandering has made the electoral college a joke. Nothing it was intended to be.

Now if your party gains from this you would want to continue the status quo.

Now if your party had lost two presidential elections by winning the popular vote by millions and still losing the election you would want that changed.

But there are some factors I think are worth considering here. On average a state is awarded one electoral vote for every 565,166 people. Now let's take a state like Wyoming. Wyoming has three electoral votes and only 532,668 citizens (as of 2008 estimates). As a result each of Wyoming's three electoral votes corresponds to 177,556 people. Understood in one way, these people have 3.18 times as much clout in the Electoral College as an average American.

States such as Alaska, N. Dakota, S. Dakota and Nebraska also have very skewed numbers favoring the power of those populations in voting power.

The figures I'm using come from https://www.fairvote.org/population_vs_electoral_votes and are based on 2008 populations.

New York have rates 51st in per vote power. California rates 49th per voter power.

So as you can see, the range varies wildly in how much power your vote actually has based on where you live.

Now I understand that the current system tries to give each state equal representation, yet, how far can we go to maximize the power of one citizens vote only to devalue the power of another citizens vote?

I'm not sure as to the answer to this question yet I do find the current system far too skewed to be considered fair.

Yet the power of a voter in California ranks 51st in the country.

It has worked for X amount of years. It was ok until the spoiled left lost and started crying.

Yeah that does not seem fair. There isn't a great answer on one hand the votes count less in more populated, more homogeneous states. On the other you'd be neutering the other 50 states which just off the top of my mind would likely not help the country and lets be honest with ourselves would likely lead to political, interstate violence if not war.


I think Trump took advantage of this and that's why Dems want it gone, in part due to their derangement about the man and in part that yeah it sucks for them. I don't like that someone can take advantage like that, but it wasn't exactly a secret either, Hilary didn't need to call people deplorable. She could have just as easily kept her mouth shut and campaigned in those states.

I am absolutely spit balling here but being an Ohioan I absolutely do not want New York and California being the only political lobbying grounds.

Yet you seem to think that it's fine for a state to have over three times the voting power per person than average. You mean it works for you?

The first thing I learned in the work force was that "that's how we always have done it" was the wrong approach.

Well I wasn't considering the last presidential election into all of that. I didn't think either party ran a candidate worthy of the office of president. I stand by that to this day.

But it's the second time it's happened. Gore lost the same way.

And I'm not saying every state should be identical in population by electoral college vote. But they should be much closer. When margins can reach 2.5 to 1 and over 3 to 1 advantage depending on where you live, something is way out of whack.

It's why they have been importing illegals and driving out the middle class like in New York and California.

They are trying to give Illegals the right to vote in local elections in places in California.

Another Trump lie being spread by our usual troll.

I think it's somewhere in-between. Importing? No, but they at least have a passive understanding that if these people get in and are able to vote the majority of them will probably vote democrat. I can't see them being dumb enough to not understand that as a very real possibility if not full on probable.

Why are you a TROLL?
Why do you consider yourself a TROLL?

We all live in the US under the same government. Every vote should count equally. If your politics are truly mainstream then you have nothing to worry about by this happening. I remember when California was a great Republican state that produced the likes of Reagan. BUT those republicans would be far left today.

I have no issue with majority rule.

And on the flip side the GOP loves the cheap labor they garner from illegals. People act as though this is a one sided issue when business loves illegals as much as democrats do.

Let's face it, Reagan gave amnesty to millions of illegals and Obama deported more of them than any other president. The right loves to force feed the message that it's the Dems who want their votes, but history dictates it's not a Dem vs GOP issue.

Constitutional Amendments don't require presidential signature. They require 2/3 of the House & Senate approve of the proposal and send it to the states for a vote. Then 3/4 of the states to ratify. (but you made your point)

Speaking of constitutional amendments, Sen. Ted Cruz and Rep. Francis Rooney proposed a Constitutional amendment to impose term limits on members of both houses of Congress.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/04/politics/term-limits-ted-cruz-proposal/index.html

But his proposal was a bit odd I thought. He proposed two terms each for both the congress and senate. That would give senators a much longer time in power than the congress. But then again, he's a senator.

I don't know what the right answer would be... 3&2, 2&2, but it nice the conversation is starting.

4 and 2. Give em 12 years each. We don't need to see the efficiency of the two party system streamline their political talent into a presidential pipeline. The problem with Congress is that it's essentially 1 year of work and 1 year of campaigning for their chair. That's why the most powerful Congressmen are just the biggest funders of the party.

I agree that the term limits should add up to equal time.

But I have to give old Ted kudos here. It's high time there were some serious conversations about it.

I don't see where the people in congress and the senate would have any actual incentive to help undermine their own political power, but the conversation has to start somewhere.

C'mon - that was funny!

The purpose of the EC is to prevent large states from overpowering the smaller states. If we get rid of the EC, the campaign trail would consist of New York, Florida, Texas and California and to hell with the rest of the country. Fair? Hardly. Then again, liberals have a messed up definition of fair when they think a 70% tax rate is fair.

So your definition of fair is that because you live in BFE that your one vote should be equivalent to 10s or 100s of people that live in big cities? Fair? Hardly. Then again, GOPers are so full of themselves they never see other people.

If you go to a pure population vote then many small states no longer have a reason to stay a part of a united states because they will have no voice. Right now politicians have to go and earn the votes. IF you change it to a popular vote half the states won't even matter anymore and the only thing politicians will do is go to a few big cities and ignore the rest of America.

Thats OK let all your food get grown by corporations and be laced with GMO and other toxic qualities. Watch how fast regular farmers stop growing food when you tell them their voice doesn't matter anymore.

The house of representatives is where the popular voice is heard. The senate where all states are equal. The electoral college is the only fair way for ALL states of have a fair shot at having a voice on who is the President.

This nonsense goes through and chances are it rips the country apart as the smaller population states decide it's not worth being controlled without a voice.

I'm fine with term limits to limit the number of lifetime politicians. Then again only being run by newbies and having no senior statesmen could be bad too. Perhaps 4 terms of congress and 2 of the senate.

Wah Wah Wah, democrat, democrat, democrat. I don't understand the electoral college or what it was meant to do, Whah!

The electoral college will be here for a very long time to come because its the way the founders intended. Anyone who disagrees with the general principles of the electoral college doesn't understand why it was invented.

It does its intended job every single presidential election and it performs well. Its a true indicator for what the combined states in the US want or vote for across the geographic regions.

No way won’t ever happen. The GOP would never win another election and they all know it.

I'll tell you what it wasn't meant to do. It wasn't meant make one Americans vote worth more than three other Americans votes combined.

The electoral college was enacted in 1804. There were only 18 states in 1804. The vast majority of the states that have a disparity of over 2 to 1 power by vote weren't even states in 1804.

[/URL]

Cheap labor for the GOP. Reagan gave amnesty to over 2 million illegals when he was president.

Figure it out yet?