If you agree with the Electoral College, you agree with Slavery

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am ambivalent about the electoral college so does it mean that I am ambivalent about slavery?

Yes

Where can I find my very own slave who will do my every bidding?

Thailand Sri Lanka Nepal India China
Or you could get married.

I want a slave not be one!

[Anonymous]

We are a republic. If we elected our president based on total vote, California and New York would choose our president every time.

FWIW, and I cannot remember where I saw it, but I read that--without California--that Trump would have won the popular vote, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We are a republic. If we elected our president based on total vote, California and New York would choose our president every time.

FWIW, and I cannot remember where I saw it, but I read that--without California--that Trump would have won the popular vote, too.

Well, that is a fact: Hillary got 3.4 million more votes than Trump in CA which more than accounts for her dominance in terms of the popular vote.

http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president

[Anonymous]

100 working actors and 3,399,900 wannabe actors

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We are a republic. If we elected our president based on total vote, California and New York would choose our president every time.

FWIW, and I cannot remember where I saw it, but I read that--without California--that Trump would have won the popular vote, too.

This is a ridiculous argument. Everyone's vote should carry the same weight. Many democrats in red states and republicans in blue states don't even bother voting because they feel like they have no say. Wouldn't it be great if everyone's vote counted?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are a republic. If we elected our president based on total vote, California and New York would choose our president every time.

FWIW, and I cannot remember where I saw it, but I read that--without California--that Trump would have won the popular vote, too.

This is a ridiculous argument. Everyone's vote should carry the same weight. Many democrats in red states and republicans in blue states don't even bother voting because they feel like they have no say. Wouldn't it be great if everyone's vote counted?

You lads are pretty funny.

Sure, change it to popular vote. And who will benefit the most? A populist like Trump, who will just hold 100 rallies in CA, FL and NY and destroy any Hillary-like drone even more clearly than Trump did.

[Anonymous]

So, if the situation had been reversed and Hillary had won the electoral votes and lost the popular vote, I assume Democrats would be outraged about how unfair this is to Trump and the Republicans?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are a republic. If we elected our president based on total vote, California and New York would choose our president every time.

FWIW, and I cannot remember where I saw it, but I read that--without California--that Trump would have won the popular vote, too.

This is a ridiculous argument. Everyone's vote should carry the same weight. Many democrats in red states and republicans in blue states don't even bother voting because they feel like they have no say. Wouldn't it be great if everyone's vote counted?

You lads are pretty funny.

Sure, change it to popular vote. And who will benefit the most? A populist like Trump, who will just hold 100 rallies in CA, FL and NY and destroy any Hillary-like drone even more clearly than Trump did.

Nope. There's a reason he didn't get their votes, they saw through his BS and they couldn't stand him. But I guess the rural American vote was bamboozled by the city slicker and his goofy, meaningless reality TV / WWE "star power". Urban voters knew better, they recognized him as a charlatan right off the bat. It should tell you something that Trump didn't even win his own home state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, if the situation had been reversed and Hillary had won the electoral votes and lost the popular vote, I assume Democrats would be outraged about how unfair this is to Trump and the Republicans?

I would not be outraged, but I would agree that it is unfair and should be changed. A Californian should be equal to someone in Wyoming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are a republic. If we elected our president based on total vote, California and New York would choose our president every time.

FWIW, and I cannot remember where I saw it, but I read that--without California--that Trump would have won the popular vote, too.

This is a ridiculous argument. Everyone's vote should carry the same weight. Many democrats in red states and republicans in blue states don't even bother voting because they feel like they have no say. Wouldn't it be great if everyone's vote counted?

You lads are pretty funny.

Sure, change it to popular vote. And who will benefit the most? A populist like Trump, who will just hold 100 rallies in CA, FL and NY and destroy any Hillary-like drone even more clearly than Trump did.

If that is the result, so be it. I want my vote to count no matter where I live. Let's work together and make it happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/

It is that simple. This is a great test to see if someone is racist or not. Ask if they agree with the EC. If they do, then you know the answer.

It's 'that simple', eh? One of these days, the roles will be reversed. So, that means you're not aware of it yet, but you have deemed your future self racist also.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No. Wy with a population of 550000 gets 3 EC votes which is the minimum any state should get. But ND with a population of 750,000 also gets 3 EC votes. So they are allocated on a range. So it doesn't matter you win ND with about 200,000 more votes you still get only 3EC votes. Wait it gets much worse, CA gets only 55 EC votes despite having a population of 35Million.

The senate has 2 seats no matter the population of the state. Fine,, senate was designed so the small state gets a voice at the table. But then why should a DIRECT ELECTING presidential election also skew the vote to the small WY over CA? A CA vote is literally worthless compared to a WY vote. CA is the largest state in the union but is the most disenfranchised in the union.

What body decides on the allocation differentials between the states? How often is it realigned? Based on these numbers CA should have like 1,000 votes but honestly...I don't think 1 or 2 states should have all the power to decide our nation's presidency. People in North Dakota have just as much right to vote for a president and expect their vote to mean something as someone who lives in New York. Otherwise they're not part of a union but a tyranny.

Really what you're asking for cities to be the arbitrators of power. Los Angeles, New York City, and Chicago would decide our fates. That's a lot of power resting only in the wealthy elites, in those mayors, and in rule by density.

No your calculation is wrong. Do the math again. CA will not have a thousand votes. CA should have about about 120 EC votes, if you eliminate all the rounding.

There is the senate that takes care of the voice for the small states. Every state has 2 senate seats regardless of the population. That was the design of the senate and nobody complains about it. Have you ever seen any protest that the senate is not representative?

But the Electoral college for presidency is also skewed to the small states? So you think there should be tyranny of the minority in the presidential election as well as in the senate? So the CA voter has no rights, even when contributing the most to the union?

I can't spoon feed the entire history of EC and american election evolution. Read up lil bit on your own.

It was just an estimate and I still don't agree with your desire to do this.

"So the CA voter has no rights, even when contributing the most to the union?"

Contributing the most what? People. That's a silly arbitrator of power.

Besides if this came to pass, it's more than likely California would be broken up into four states - I'm not sure you'd like it so much then. If we can't have companies that are too big to fail, entrusting half of our electoral process of the executive branch to one state is certainly wishful thinking.

Let it go.

If you think CA contributes only in population then you have no grasp about anything. You are confusing the senate to direct election of the president. Nobody is arguing the usefulness of the senate in acting as strong voice for small states. But to elect a president it shoud simply be one person-one vote. Period. That's how every nation In the world works. There is no country other than the slavery era EC used by USA that skews the vote so a small state voter has 4/5 times as many votes as a big state voter. None. Can you name any?

How is it done in the country you come from?

[Anonymous]

The United States is basically the ONLY modern democratic, industrialized nation that still has a byzantine, obfuscatory, and retrograde policy in place as the Electoral College. We are still living in the 18th Century.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Well, Trumpers, Trump himself said it, so it must be true. End of discussion.

Trump supporters, you have no ammunition or basis for arguing. Stop already.

[Anonymous]

When you leftists say you want to do away with U.S. Senate and the Supreme Court because neither represents the will of the popular majority, then we can start talking about the EC.

But not until.