over throwing the constitutional electoral college

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
14,442
2,205
1,743
So Cal
#81
The way the college weighs the electorate they still do. All it does it keep a conservative from voting in Mass or a liberal in Texas.
I don't quite understand what you're trying to say.... There have been a number of attempts to change the distribution of CA electors based on % of vote received, instead of winner take all. (e.g., Hillary would get 45 and Trump 10, of the State's 55 electoral votes - instead of winner take all).

The "college" does not weigh the electorate. The number of electors is determined by the number of house and senate seats.

The States determine how to distribute the States popular vote among the electors.

Do all of a state’s electoral votes go to one candidate?
In every state except two, the party that wins the popular vote gets to send all of its electors to the state capital in December.
In the nonconforming Maine and Nebraska, two electoral votes are apportioned to the winner of the popular vote, and the rest of the votes are given to the winner of the popular votes in each of the states’ congressional districts. (Maine has two congressional districts and Nebraska has three.)
 

oks10

Territorial Marshal
Sep 9, 2007
7,480
6,453
1,743
Yukon, OK
#84
why do every one of your posts have to do with you telling me what I know and and what I trust in?
The post wasn't even directed to you. Instead, it was directed to Cimarron.

Anyway, just as people on here occassionaly write of what I surely must think or know on the issues, so should I have the right to return the favor.
You DO realize that it's THEM who are returning the favor... Right?... If you don't own the original "surely" statement then my entire life is a lie.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
14,442
2,205
1,743
So Cal
#87
Very funny. No doubt you pretty strongly believe that people who are okay with marijuana being legalized can only be smoking it. Now, California Cowboy, are you able to see how the game is played?
nope... where did I say anything about smoking anything? Are you on drugs?

and you refuse to respond to any of the points made in the thread. Why do you promote a centralized government to rule over us, instead of letting us govern ourselves in our own States?
 

oks10

Territorial Marshal
Sep 9, 2007
7,480
6,453
1,743
Yukon, OK
#88
No. The electoral college is there for a reason. Just because you are getting your ass kicked doesnt mean you change the rules. You play by them. Maybe the Democrats should change their message to something that aligns with middle america lol. All getting rid of the electoral college would do is silence a large portion of America.
Getting rid of the electoral college would double voter turnout. The electoral college does more to silence voters than anything now. Had it’s purpose but it’s time has passed.
Sure, might increase voter turnout in heavily populated states but you'd probably see a reduction in turnout in smaller states. I don't see how anyone could think that it wouldn't cause even MORE silence in the smaller states than the electoral college currently does.

I honestly don't understand how someone can claim to understand why the EC exists while at the same time saying we don't need it anymore...

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
15,776
2,095
743
Where else but Stillwater
#89
You refuse to respond to any of the points made in the thread. Why do you promote a centralized government to rule over us, instead of letting us govern ourselves in our own States?
It's too easy. Once again, the reasons for which the Founding Fathers created the Electoral College are no longer relevant for this day and age. Being educated and promptly informed about the issues is much easier for most everybody now, who takes an interest. Even President Trump doesn't like the electoral college. Are you ignorant of the fact that he said not before but after the 2016 election: "I would rather see it where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes and somebody else gets 90 million votes and you win." Maybe Trump is uncomfortable giving just 538 people in the Electoral College the power to decide who will be the next president.

Once again, it's just too easy. You quite passionately demand that the Electoral College must be kept, because it prevents mob rule. But as you seem to know, the Electoral College is a winner take all system in most states. That means the victor takes all the votes to the Electoral College no matter how close the popular vote was. All other voters are denied a voice. How's that for mob rule state by state? I mean I'm talking deluxe mob rule.

Finally, was it already pointed out to you in the past that the Electoral College was also made to protect southern slaveholder interests? Of course, that ugly issue is as totally irrelevant as it can be today.
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
15,776
2,095
743
Where else but Stillwater
#90
I think it would change things quite a bit if we went to popular vote. You would see a huge emphasis placed on heavily populated states. Republicans would be campaigning hard in states like California & New York. Maximizing votes in these states could become as important as winning the swing states.

You would also see a lot more money spent on advertising. Traditionally red or blue states tend to get ignored by the opposing party because they know they're wasting their time. You wouldn't see that if every vote counted. I'm sure Oklahoma would see a large increase in advertising from the Democratic party if it every happened.
So how did Trump and Clinton concentrate their campaigning with the Electoral College in mind? According to PBS NewsHour, Trump and Clinton made more than 90% of their campaign stops in just 11 so-called battleground states. Of those visits, nearly two-thirds took place in the four battlegrounds with the most electoral votes — Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and North Carolina. I agree with you. Other more populated states would get more attention from candidates. Like you wrote, the more votes they can get there, the more available to counteract losing close results in the battleground states.
 
Last edited:

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
65,330
47,651
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#91
Getting rid of the electoral college would double voter turnout. The electoral college does more to silence voters than anything now. Had it’s purpose but it’s time has passed.
If its purpose was to keep more populous states from dictating to less populous states and to make sure that rural areas have a say in election of a president, then the time isn't passed at all. So, that's a load of bullspit.
 

Donnyboy

Lettin' the high times carry the low....
A/V Subscriber
Oct 31, 2005
21,802
21,171
1,743
#92
If its purpose was to keep more populous states from dictating to less populous states and to make sure that rural areas have a say in election of a president, then the time isn't passed at all. So, that's a load of bullspit.
10’s of millions of people don’t vote because they know it doesn’t matter. Oklahoma, Kansas, Alaska..... they don’t matter. Republican in Massachusetts..... doesn’t matter. Candidates could give two shits about them. If everyone who could vote in those states contributed to a populous vote more people would turn out we would get a president that better reflects the nations views.
 

wrenhal

Territorial Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
6,565
3,375
743
48
#94
why do every one of your posts have to do with you telling me what I know and and what I trust in?
The post wasn't even directed to you. Instead, it was directed to Cimarron.

Anyway, just as people on here occassionaly write of what I surely must think or know on the issues, so should I have the right to return the favor.
See, you generalize and make blanket statements about all conservatives on here because you truly know nothing about their beliefs. Whereas, no one has to guess what you believe, you state it. You have conservatives and everything they stand for.

Sent from my Moto G Play using Tapatalk
 

Donnyboy

Lettin' the high times carry the low....
A/V Subscriber
Oct 31, 2005
21,802
21,171
1,743
#95
No, what we would get is a president that better reflects the views of the people in the biggest states and cities. No thanks.
So a better reflection of the populous..... how many more conservatives in New York and California would vote if they thought it mattered. You also realize in all these states that are going to be victimized the urban center of those states decides the election. Take a state like GA.....the Atlanta metro is 5.8 of GA 10 million. More than half of OKs pop is in Oklahoma and Tulsa counties.

A third of the country voted in the last election.... in the most divisive election in the majority of voters lives about half of those who could actually vote did and the majority of those people’s votes went to the loser. That is a broken system. Put your politics aside and look at that in a vacuum. And we haven’t even brought up that the electors don’t have to vote what the numbers say and have actually voted contrary to pledge.

All those in favor here are Trump and Bush votes. I was Bush vote and would be again after the fact. I didn’t vote in the last election because they are both horrible and I live in Texas so it doesn’t matter. I’m certain that if Gore or Clinton would have had the electoral college and Bush or Trump had the actual votes those singing the praises of this archaic system would be singing a different tune.
 

wrenhal

Territorial Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
6,565
3,375
743
48
#96
No, what we would get is a president that better reflects the views of the people in the biggest states and cities. No thanks.
So a better reflection of the populous..... how many more conservatives in New York and California would vote if they thought it mattered. You also realize in all these states that are going to be victimized the urban center of those states decides the election. Take a state like GA.....the Atlanta metro is 5.8 of GA 10 million. More than half of OKs pop is in Oklahoma and Tulsa counties.

A third of the country voted in the last election.... in the most divisive election in the majority of voters lives about half of those who could actually vote did and the majority of those people’s votes went to the loser. That is a broken system. Put your politics aside and look at that in a vacuum. And we haven’t even brought up that the electors don’t have to vote what the numbers say and have actually voted contrary to pledge.

All those in favor here are Trump and Bush votes. I was Bush vote and would be again after the fact. I didn’t vote in the last election because they are both horrible and I live in Texas so it doesn’t matter. I’m certain that if Gore or Clinton would have had the electoral college and Bush or Trump had the actual votes those singing the praises of this archaic system would be singing a different tune.
Seriously, putting words in people's mouths as bad as Townie. The only problem I have with elections is the integrity. The fact that white Democrats are constantly downplaying blacks and saying they are incapable of getting id's is racist. Give me a fair election where it's possible to know that the notes are by true eligible voters that voted once and I have no problem with the college. Even if my candidate won the popular vote but lost the EC.

Sent from my Moto G Play using Tapatalk
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
65,330
47,651
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#97
10’s of millions of people don’t vote because they know it doesn’t matter. Oklahoma, Kansas, Alaska..... they don’t matter. Republican in Massachusetts..... doesn’t matter. Candidates could give two shits about them. If everyone who could vote in those states contributed to a populous vote more people would turn out we would get a president that better reflects the nations views.
Oklahoma doesn't matter? Oklahoma's electoral votes went to who?
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
65,330
47,651
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#98
how many more conservatives in New York and California would vote if they thought it mattered.
All of them could vote and it still wouldn't matter. But all you're doing is pointing out the problems with voting and elections in the first place. There are winners and losers. Sucks to be a loser, right Hillary? But the electoral college ensures that rural areas and less populated states (like Oklahoma) still have a say in electing the president.

The assumptions of those wanting to change the system are: 1) that their candidate would have won, and 2) that the changes would always favor them. Neither are necessarily true. Trump certainly would have run a different campaign if popular vote and not electoral votes would have been the objective. I don't know if HRC would have or not, it is very difficult for me to see her overcoming her basic misanthropy. What if the system is changed and then in 2020 Trump wins the popular vote and HRC or whoever would have won the electoral vote? Think it can't happen? I thought Trump would never win the primaries, and then thought he would lose in the general election, didn't you?

Why would any state agree to basically turning over the presidential election to New York and California? Why the freak would Oklahomans agree to that?

We jack around with the system at our own peril.
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
51,773
17,964
1,743
#99
What freedoms would we have lost?
The biggest loss of freedom that I can think of recently is the Patriot Act. That probably would not have changed.
Every rule and regulation imposed on businesses and individuals is a loss of your freedom.
 

sc5mu93

WeaselMonkey
A/V Subscriber
Oct 18, 2006
8,659
7,564
1,743
Fairfield, CT
A concern I have is this effectively nationalizes the presidential election but not the election systems. Voter ID, requirements, etc can differ from state to state. The EC abstracts these differences so there are 50 mini elections where voting reqs are standardized. Will we have a race to the bottom by the states to allow everyone to vote? Does there need to be the nationalization of election laws?

And that is outside the basic premise that the NPVIC is on it's face an attempt to remove the EC from the presidential election, without meeting the heightened standard of constitutional amendment.

A lot of issues...