Some people just crave the idea of single party rule. Nothing you can do lol

I find it ridiculous that 40 million people’s vote doesn’t count as much as 40 million outside of that state. Nobody forces people to live in the sticks. Tyranny of the majority. Lol. Wut? the CA narrative is so broken on the R. So the R in CA their vote is forever irrelevant in this model or the D in AL. The EC was in part created to outweigh the black vote fitting for these times.

This post was edited by theCrossbones on Sep 24 2020 11:27pm

There's no desire for single-party rule. There is, however, desire for representation and empowerment of voters. The Electoral College devalues individual voters and instead values land mass. It also, like I said before, trivializes much of our election process. The allocation of most electoral votes by each state is done in a Winner Take All format. In my own state of California, voting anything other than Democrat is a waste of your vote. The number of Democrat voters in California is so much higher than Republicans and every other party/candidate that nobody stands a chance. You might as well write-in "Handcuffs" because it would have as much power as voting Republican.

Nonsense, nonsense, and more nonsense.

First, of the (just under) 40 million people in California, Clinton only received 8.7 million votes. Again, you're acting as though "The Nation voted for HER!" No. Most of the nation did not. In California she received some 3.5 million more votes than Trump. That not only covers the "2 million" votes, but significantly more. By your claim that she "won" the popular vote, California literally matters to you more than every other state combined, because Donald Trump won the rest of the nation by 1.5m votes. See how easy it is to flip that?

EC has nothing to do whatsoever with "black voting". Whatever joke book you're reading should be put down. The EC predates voting by pretty much everyone who wasn't a land owner. At that time, the taxes paid to the states were only paid BY landowners and a few select wealthy trade types. Only those taxpayers had the right to a vote. The fact that states went "winner take all" also predates the rights of the majority to vote.

You know neither the system nor the history, yet are convinced it should be burned down, and we should take you seriously?

personally as a rule i don't take anyone seriously here, but you are on fucking fire tonight. loving your posts

I wasn't speaking to Clinton.. geez was speaking to the amount of wasted votes divided and controlled by the EC system. The wasted R votes in blue states and the wasted D in R states the vast over representation of a minority of people. Stop making the about HRC. you should read about the 3/5's compromise if you don't think that was part of keeping the EC in place was based on ownership of slaves your in denial.

Was looking at this.. Looks like it might also be R that want a popular vote.. until you know they have power
A Gallup poll after the election showed that Republicans who favored a national popular vote dipped from 54 percent in 2011 to 19 percent in December 2016.

This post was edited by theCrossbones on Sep 25 2020 12:07am

We do not have a national popular vote for president by default. Due to the nature of winner takes all the system is currently under, every state casts it's own vote for who they will appoint as President. Based on those results, assuming one nominee has a minimum of 270 votes, there is a winner. The only time a popular vote might matter is if a clear winner is not decided by 270. But even then, the likelihood is the winner will be selected by the House (President) and Senate (Vice President). If you're unhappy that many votes "don't matter" in a state, convince people in that state to vote the other way, make the other side's votes "not matter". "My State voted for XXXX". THAT is the popular vote where President is concerned.

3/5ths compromise had nothing to do with the E/C or it's implementation. It had to do with selecting representatives for the House. And the "slaves" that were mentioned included all forms of indentured servants, white, black, brown, and yellow. That's not even relevant today, nor did it have any great impact on the parties of the time. The US Census gives their best guess on population based on their responses, and it's updated every 10 years. Likewise, both Representative counts and EC votes the state receives are adjusted based on the Census population estimates.

Again, your words are meaningless.



I don't understand how this is relevant to anything at all. Polls clearly showed Clinton would win in a landslide, and she lost. What's your point?

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on Sep 25 2020 12:19am

James Madison
There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.

The argument for keeping the EC instead of a popular vote driven by fear of black population creating more influence.

I don't understand how this is relevant to anything at all. Polls clearly showed Clinton would win in a landslide, and she lost. What's your point?


My point is there has been a long history of questioning the effectiveness of the EC. Even on the R side.
Which goes to the amount of representation in the Senate and the IE will of the people, which is the subject of the SCOTUS selection when it appropriate to vote in or wait for the next president.
It goes to stand that even with the Senate majority it doesn't necessarily speak to representing the majority's wish.

This post was edited by theCrossbones on Sep 25 2020 12:33am

Your continued failed understanding is completely unhinged. Only taxpayers could vote. Only landowners and weathy tradesmen were taxpayers. Do you follow me?

The fact that the population of one state was 1 million and another was 300,000 didn't mean there were anywhere near that number of voters, you'd be looking at a few thousand voters per state.

It was not some fictional "fear of black people" that led to a limitation of only 3/5th's of every slave or indentured servant being counted. It was the necessity to limit the power of slave owners, so they would not simply buy up a million more slaves and dictate to the rest of the nation how things would be.

The slaves didn't have a vote you ingrate. It was the landowners who happened to OWN those slaves that gained a greater vote due to owning more people.

FFS, did you even GO to school?



The Senate is elected, 2 members per state, by popular votes within each state. The Senate choosing to vote for, against, or defer the vote until after the election cycle IS, BY DEFINITION, the will of the people. Every single Senator won their office through the popular vote.

Which part of this is confusing to you? Trump WON the popular vote, because each state has it's OWN popular vote on the President, and gains population-weighted total votes that they assign based on that popular vote.

How do you still not understand this? There is quite literally NO FEDERAL POPULAR VOTE. You vote on things at a state level, and then the States determine the rest. That's it, that's all. It's 50 individual democracies tied together as one representative republic. The Federal Government is not, and never has been a "national democracy".

Learn how the system works before you talk about how it's broken.

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on Sep 25 2020 12:38am

The issue of how to count slaves split the delegates into two groups. The northerners regarded slaves as property who should receive no representation. Southerners demanded that Blacks be counted with whites. The compromise clearly reflected the strength of the pro-slavery forces at the convention. The “Three-fifths Compromise” allowed a state to count three fifths of each Black person in determining political representation in the House. It was an early American effort to avoid the intersectionality of race, class, nationality and wealth for political control.

this isn't even the rabbit hole that matters in this thread. I'm trying to get across the point that the EC mis appropriates power to certain sections of the country and has for a LONG time. And isn't the best system, and never has been. I said the same thing in the above post. The edits are getting behind.. yes I understand there is not a POPULAR vote. I'm saying that there should be a system that actually puts more emphasis on the individual vote vs the state.

This post was edited by theCrossbones on Sep 25 2020 12:43am