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

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "If you agree with the Electoral College, you agree with Slavery"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I see that Maine splits its electoral vote - not sure the formula, but Hillary won the popular vote about 48 to 45% and she got 3 of he 4 electoral votes, and Trump got 1.  So it seems states can proportion their EC votes to reflect the popular vote?[/quote]

Yes only Maine and Nebraska does this.[/quote]

Is it a choice the individual states get to make?
So could more do this if they wanted to?[/quote]

Yes its the choice of the state and more can do it if they wanted to BUT that won't fix the issue that the EC votes themselves are not allocated fairly. For instance WY with 550K voters have 3 EC votes as does North Dakota with 750k voters. So the person winning ND will have 200K more votes BUT still get only 3 EC votes. Thats the crux of the problem.

[/quote]
PP, maybe you should move to Wyoming then you could feel good about there 'advantage'. LOL[/quote]

OP - think about it.... even if you reduced these small states (WY, ND, SD, MT etc.) from 3 EC votes down to 1 EC vote to "correct" as you say for their "over representation" in the EC Donald Trump still would have won the EC and the presidency.

[/quote]

No you are wrong, if it goes all the way then every state including PA will be reduced. The other way to look at this is instead of reducing you increase the EC votes based on population then CA will have 110 EC votes. Remember math is proportional, so it won't change the outcome as long as the Winner has a majority vote win. Hillary's lead is over 1 Million votes and its a travesty that 1 Million voters are DISENFRANCHISED. [/quote]

Why didn't you and HRC's other supporters not bring up the flaws of the EC process BEFORE she lost??????[/quote]

It is not about this election alone. Its about the principle that the mejority vote winner wins ANY ELECTION ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD but for America.EC is antiquated and it is rooted in slavery. It disenfranchised over 1 Million voters,how is that fair?

Infact trump himself said EC is disaster to democracy and even in the 60 minutes interview, to his credit, he didn't back off from what he said before by saying his opinion about EC hasn't changed just because he won via EC without majority vote. [/quote]

That's is simply false.

Please see how Angela Merkel or Theresa May became leaders of their countries.

If you want to be taken seriously, you need to be seriously sure of the statements you make. [/quote]

You have no clue about the differences between a direct election presidential system and parliamentary system. First get some basic civics course before you spew ignorance. In a parliamentary system(UK and germany are examples) the party,usually a coalition of parties, that wins an election controls both the legislative and executive branch. The party then elects the prime minister/chancellor.

The US elects its president directly like France. But unlike France, which goes by majority vote, US doesn't pick the majority vote winner. Infact it has an anachronistic Electoral College which has now elected a majoity vote loser as president even when he lost by over 1 million votes. So essentially those 1 Million voters are disenfranchised. THERE IS NO COUNTRY IN THE WORLD THIS HAPPENS. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics