How you shut down the "Abolish the Electoral College" jackasses.

[wig]

So, in a discussion with a friend of mine (from CA) who believes there may be some merit to abolishing the electoral college (you know, so EVERYBODY's vote counts) I finally provided her with the salient point she needed to understand why abolishing the electoral college would be so much worse for her and her liberal friends.

Since she could not grasp the concept of how the Electoral college provides a balance so each state has relatively equal say in who gets elected to the office, I just simplified if for her.

I said, "I don't know how many voters there are in CA, but let's just say for simplification there are 100 million voters in CA." (She said, "I don't think it's that many, but ok.") I replied, "Ok, then let's assume there are maybe 1 million voters in MT." (Again, that's an overestimate, but it makes the illustration simpler.)

So I told her, "Ok, you want to abolish the Electoral College, all you have to do is make a MT vote worth 100 CA votes to even out the ratio. That way the needs of a rural, small-community and business driven state like MT would have the same voting power of a larger state like CA."

"Then EVERYONE's vote can be counted. Obviously smaller population states' votes would be counted a bit more to ensure equality across the board."

Her response after a moment of thinking about it, "But MT would vote almost entirely Republican. And if their votes were worth 100 times somebody in CA it would equal out CA's vote."

Uh, ya.

 

[wig]

Moments later she came to the realization, "If you did that democrats would never win."

Again... ya.

 

[Vader]

Moments later she came to the realization, "If you did that democrats would never win."

Again... ya.

The founders wanted the system we have. Don't like it? Leave. This is a constitutional republic not a democracy. They wanted to make sure everyone in the country had a hand in what was happening in the federal government. That's why we have delineated powers. The entire electoral process is focused on states NOT individuals on purpose. It wasn't an accident.

 

[wig]

Oh, I get that. But there are SO many folks out there who are truly confused about the foundational value of the electoral college.

And yet it IS flawed. For example, CA's huge number of votes is, in part, based on their counting millions of illegal immigrants in order to stuff congress with extra representation.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

They can ***** about it all they want but the simple fact is you would need a Constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College.
Amendments have to pass a 2/3 vote in the Senate, or 66 votes.
Then they have to be ratified by 2/3 of the states, or 33 state legislatures.
You will not find 50 Senators or 40 states who will vote to eliminate their power to elect a President.
Some states are trying an end-around by passing laws saying their electoral votes will go to the winner of the popular vote but I'd bet that is found unconstitutional.

 

[Steeltime]

They can ***** about it all they want but the simple fact is you would need a Constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College.
Amendments have to pass a 2/3 vote in the Senate, or 66 votes. Then they have to be ratified by 2/3 of the states, or 33 state legislatures.

The proposed amendment must be approved by at least 2/3 of the vote in the Senate (67 votes), and then ratified by at least 3/4 of the states (38 of the 50 states).* The states can call a Constitutional convention by way of a 2/3 vote of state legislatures, but libs are terrified of that prospect since many more states are controlled by Republican legislatures than by the Dims (currently 61-37, (R)).

https://ballotpedia.org/Partisan_composition_of_state_legislatures

If a constitutional convention were held, the proposed amendments would undoubtedly focus on limiting spending, limiting the powers of Congress, etc. Libs would be a non-entity. No way they would ever help a Constitutional convention take place. Therefore, any proposed amendment to do away with the electoral system needs 38 states to agree ... and you can bet that I can name off the top of my head at least 13 states which would say, "@#$% you" to that change (North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, Arizona, Nevada, Alaska, Idaho, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Nebraska, Kansas, Arkansas).

If those 13 states say, "No" (and they would), the amendment fails.

* Article V of the Constitution: "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress."

 

[Ron Burgundy]

The proposed amendment must be approved by at least 2/3 of the vote in the Senate (67 votes), and then ratified by at least 3/4 of the states (38 of the 50 states).* The states can call a Constitutional convention by way of a 2/3 vote of state legislatures, but libs are terrified of that prospect since many more states are controlled by Republican legislatures than by the Dims (currently 61-37, (R)).

Okay, I was close.

 

[Steeltime]

Okay, I was close.

 

[DBS1970]

If the EC is ever abolished it will be time for the rifles to come out. I will not be a slave to LA, NYC, Seattle, Boston and Chicago.

 

[SteelChip]

If the EC is ever abolished it will be time for the rifles to come out. I will not be a slave to LA, NYC, Seattle, Boston and Chicago.

Now you did it.....the gun collection committee will be at your door first thing Monday, that's a red flag statement fur shur.

 

[jitter77]

So, in a discussion with a friend of mine (from CA) who believes there may be some merit to abolishing the electoral college (you know, so EVERYBODY's vote counts) I finally provided her with the salient point she needed to understand why abolishing the electoral college would be so much worse for her and her liberal friends.

Since she could not grasp the concept of how the Electoral college provides a balance so each state has relatively equal say in who gets elected to the office, I just simplified if for her.

I said, "I don't know how many voters there are in CA, but let's just say for simplification there are 100 million voters in CA." (She said, "I don't think it's that many, but ok.") I replied, "Ok, then let's assume there are maybe 1 million voters in MT." (Again, that's an overestimate, but it makes the illustration simpler.)

So I told her, "Ok, you want to abolish the Electoral College, all you have to do is make a MT vote worth 100 CA votes to even out the ratio. That way the needs of a rural, small-community and business driven state like MT would have the same voting power of a larger state like CA."

"Then EVERYONE's vote can be counted. Obviously smaller population states' votes would be counted a bit more to ensure equality across the board."

Her response after a moment of thinking about it, "But MT would vote almost entirely Republican. And if their votes were worth 100 times somebody in CA it would equal out CA's vote."

Uh, ya.

Again......if you take the 10 most populated states.....Im not talking about cities, but whole states it is only around half the popular vote. (California, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina, and Michigan). Several of those states are already "battleground" states so the premise of large cities deciding elections is just not correct. PA has Pittsburgh and Philly, but Trump still received more popular votes in PA. Even in California Trump had over 30% of the votes. He got crushed in San Fran, but the rural counties helped even it out. The electoral college was set up out of compromise due to many factors including slavery, letting congress pick the president etc etc....

 

[Steelr4evr]

Abolish the electoral college? Yeah, let's get that constitution convention set up. We can pass term limits and a balanced budget amendment for sure.

If you want to break the country up or start a war abolish the electoral college. I'll be damned if a few states will impose rule over the rest. That would certainly be worth fighting for.

 

[jitter77]

Abolish the electoral college? Yeah, let's get that constitution convention set up. We can pass term limits and a balanced budget amendment for sure.

If you want to break the country up or start a war abolish the electoral college. I'll be damned if a few states will impose rule over the rest. That would certainly be worth fighting for.

with the electoral college 4 states make up over half the needed electoral votes. California, Texas, Florida, and New York. With a popular vote you would need about 10 states to equal that. Seems to be alot of fake news when it comes to the electoral college

 

[Ron Burgundy]

PA has Pittsburgh and Philly, but Trump still received more popular votes in PA.

True but those of us in the PA hinterlands have to work our ***** off to counter all the straight D votes in Pittsburgh and Philly, along with the dead voters. I'm an elected member of my county Republican committee and I do a lot of the nuts and bolts work that people don't think about. The work done by the folks in little old Lawrence County north of me may well have swung the state to Trump.

 

[Steelr4evr]

with the electoral college 4 states make up over half the needed electoral votes. California, Texas, Florida, and New York. With a popular vote you would need about 10 states to equal that. Seems to be alot of fake news when it comes to the electoral college

Oh I just want a constitutional convention. The electoral college wouldn't even be on the agenda. Most politicians are scared shitless about any possibility of a convention. That's why you'll hear damn near all of them put down the idea. It will probably take the lefties getting into the oval office again before people sign on from all over and we get this **** done.

 

[Steeltime]

with the electoral college 4 states make up over half the needed electoral votes. California, Texas, Florida, and New York.

Texas and Florida are battleground states as it is. So you want to amend the Constitution so that New York and California, which have 80 of the 435 House seats right now, get more attention?

With a popular vote you would need about 10 states to equal that.

Uhhh, yeah, I already wrote about that extensively above. Ten states have 54% of the popular vote - TEN. Not 21, or 18, or 15 - TEN.

Further, for popular votes, your bizarre interpretation that candidates would go to small, rural areas is just dumb. Candidates go to small, rural areas in Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida, Pennsylvania, etc. because 1,000 votes mean something in an electoral race. They can mean a lot, actually. In races as tight as Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, maybe Florida, and Arizona, and North Carolina, and New Hampshire, 1,000 votes mean a damn lot.

What do 1,000 votes mean in a popular-vote election? NOTHING. Not one goddamned thing. 1,000 votes out of 130,000,000? Are you joking? That is 0.00077%. Yes, that is right, less than 1/1000th of a percent.

So again, candidates in a popular vote election would never visit Arizona, apart from Phoenix, or New Hampshire at all, or Florida outside of Miami, Orlando, Tampa/St. Pete, or Iowa at all (maybe, just maaaaybe Des Moines ... no, probably not), or Ohio apart from Columbus, Cleveland and Cincinnati, maaaaaybe Toledo, or Pennsylvania other than Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.

Trump visited Prescott Valley in 2016. Beautiful place, just south of Prescott, Arizona. Too much recent construction so not as nice as Prescott, but whatever. Population 38,822.

38,000 total population. Maybe 18,000 registered voters. Maybe. And you think any candidate visits Prescott ******* Valley, Arizona in a popular vote election?!? Really?!?

And I know that you think the great unwashed in flyover country are garbage, and don't matter for **** compared to beautiful places like San Francisco, and its ubiquitous feces and needles, or Seattle, and its thousands of drug-addled homeless, or Los Angeles, with its traffic and homeless, and New York, with its feces on the uptick hoping to match its West Coast competitors, but the truth of the matter is that Trump learned a lot about America by getting out of ******* New York, Chicago, LA, and Miami.

And he gained that education by visiting such huge population centers as Oskaloosa, Hampton, Norwood, Keene, Franklin, Waterloo, Sparks, Ft. Dodge, Beaumont, Biloxi, Windham, Exeter, Florence, Holderness, Highfill, Depere, Racine, Watertown, Wilkes-Barre, Fresno, Moon, The Woodlands, St. Clairesville, Westfield, Scranton, Davenport, Mechanicsburg, Ashburn, Vienna, Green Bay, Sunrise, Spencer, Altoona, Erie, Clive, Tyngsboro, Canton, Estero, High Point, Manheim (famous for the car sales thing), Pueblo, the aforementioned Prescott Valley, Naples, Sanford, Kinston, and on and on and on and on.

Yes, Trump visited every one of those cities in 2015-2016. Every last one, and dozens more. Know what they have in common? EVERY ******* PLACE HAS A POPULATION BELOW 125,000. Many have a population below 50,000, and quite a few (Manheim, Oskaloosa, Hampton, Norwood, Tyngsboro, Spencer, Clive, Moon, St. Clairesville, Holderness, Walterboro, Highfill, Radford, Vienna, Mechanicsburg, Wilmington) have populations below 15,000. A lot of those stops have a population belown 10,000.

You are simply making **** up when you claim that the popular vote would give those locations more than a sliver of a fraction of the attention they get today. For **** sake, Trump held a campaign rally in Hershey, Pennsylvania on November 4, 2016, just days before the election - I guess due to the massive influence of its 14,000 residents and maybe 8,400 voters in the 130,000,000 votes to be cast? I mean, I am certain that in a popular vote contest, candidates would visit those small towns, dozens upon dozens of times.

Seems to be alot of fake news when it comes to the electoral college

The only fake news in this discussion is coming from you in claiming that overturning the Constitution would somehow make candidates visit more areas.

I genuinely believe that you think Drunk Hillary, unable to stagger to a van, is the model for most candidates, and thereby falsely believe that candidates do not visit dozens upon dozens of areas already.

 

[Steelworth]

 

[jitter77]

Cali carries the same weight electorally vs popular which is roughly 10%. The only difference is with the electoral college the 55 votes all go toward one party (10%) of the total electoral votes needed. For this to happen with a popular vote every single person in that state would have to vote for one party. Based on 2016 Cali was only worth 6.5% of the total popular vote for the state winner. Every vote gained from the losing party whether it's from san fran of some small town dominishes the overall weight cali carries. So i have no clue how you guys think a popular vote is giving a large state more power. Just look at the numbers.

 

[jitter77]

with the electoral college the top 10 states carry about 90% of the total needed to win. If a candidate won every single vote in those states it would equate to only 50-60% of the popular vote. Candidates would still have to play to their bases and Trump would not want to lose the rural areas, but he could also gain votes in an area like san fran which was ridiculously dem.

 

[Steeltime]

with the electoral college the top 10 states carry about 90% of the total needed to win. If a candidate won every single vote in those states it would equate to only 50-60% of the popular vote. Candidates would still have to play to their bases and Trump would not want to lose the rural areas, but he could also gain votes in an area like san fran which was ridiculously dem.

Great strategy there. Have Trump spend time in Fecesville to get some popular vote.

Except that the ******* crazies in California would attack him. Like they did in 2016:

BURLINGAME, Calif. — A little over a month before California’s pivotal Republican presidential primary, Donald Trump began his official wooing of party delegates Friday, headlining a kickoff lunch at the state’s annual GOP convention. But Trump’s appearance was nearly derailed by massive protests outside the Hyatt Regency hotel, where the convention is being held. More than a thousand protesters blocked surrounding streets, and at one point, knocked down police barricades as they attempted to storm the building before Trump’s speech.

The protests also blocked the candidate’s motorcade route, forcing him and his Secret Service detail to abandon their vehicles on a nearby highway, jump a barricade wall and cross a ditch to get to the hotel’s back entrance.

https://news.yahoo.com/protests-force-trump-into-a-ditch-en-route-to-213432995.html

So you want to force the President to be attacked by crazy protesters, most of whom need to get a ******* job, while visiting population centers made unlivable by the leftists who hate him so much, all in the name of the popular vote?

Finally, your math games are ridiculous. "Oh, a candidate would need to win every vote in California to have the same impact as winning the 55 electoral votes."

Jesus Christ, no he wouldn't. He would need to make up the 4.3 million vote difference in the state. He would basically blow off California in terms of that difference, apart from maybe - MAYBE - San Dieo. No, not worth it. Not worth the crazies and the psychos that now run (ruined) the state. He would focus instead on Houston, Dallas, Austin, Miami, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Columbus, Cincinnati, Phoenix, Albany, Tampa/St. Pete, Jacksonville, San Antonio, Ft. Worth, Indianapolis, Nashville, Memphis and Las Vegas. He lived in NYC, so probably some time there.

20 cities in 9 states, covering 27 million citizens and about 15 million votes. Trump would not waste time putting up with the **** from Gavin and the Believers in the great state of Crazy.

And he sure as **** would not go to any of the dozens upon dozens of small cities I listed in my prior post if the popular vote prevailed. Not one. Your whole argument is based on the premise that winner-take-all makes no sense and rewards candidates for abandoning states.

News alert. The entire difference in the popular vote - more than the difference - was present in California alone and the 4.3 million vote difference. So California right now makes up the entire difference. All of it. The ONLY reason that votes in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, North Carolina, Nevada, New Mexico, Minnesota, Iowa, Colorado, Kansas, Oregon, Kentucky, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, and Washington even count is the electoral college. The fact that you are unable to figure that out does not change the fact, any more than you failing to understand quantum mechanics disproves string theory.

So you think that the electoral system is unhinged based on a winner-take-all strategy (not even true in every state, by the way) and that the popular vote would make every vote count and mean candidates visited ... well, big cities.

Completely wrong. All the corrupt shitheads known as the (D)ims would need to do is make sure that enough votes were cast (*cough* found) in Chicago, San Fran, LA, and NYC to rule the show. **** middle America. Who needs 'em? Well, I mean, apart from those that like to eat and heat their homes and drive their cars, I mean.

Finally, any comment about the popular vote MANDATES voter ID. The United States now has ... 22 million? More? Less? ... illegals in the country. We don't even ******* know how many. And basically every illegal can register to vote, and an uncounted number, probably in the hundreds of thousands and very likely above a million, already have registered.

For all their fake worry about foreigners interfering in our elections, the (D)ims seem obsessed with allowing illegals to vote. Make the popular vote controlling and insure that illegals vote by the tens or hundreds of thousands.

 

[tsbraut]

Those who wish to abolish the electoral college have devised a work around. It's called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact... I'm flabbergasted that a state's citizens would give away their voting power this way, but it's starting to happen... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

 

[jitter77]

I agree that voters should have an ID, be an American citizen and all that. It is not "math games" though it is a fact. I actually way undervalued Cali originally. It is 10% of the total electoral votes 55/538 and 20% of the electoral votes needed to win 55/276. Doesnt matter if you win by 1 vote or 10 million boom your 20% ahead. This is simply a fact..... If a candidate won all roughly 14 million votes in California that equates to about 10% of the total popular votes, which is 10% less weight than Cali carries in the electoral college. Lets say Cali goes 80-20 for dems (which is highly unlikely) that drops Calis weight to only 8.6%. A more likely 65-35 spilt would give the winner a 7% advantage. It is also a fact that the popular vote difference was made up by Cali alone, but it still doesnt change its overall weight. People are people whether you live in alone a cabin on 100 acres or in some seedy apt in the middle of a city. If a candidate wants to win the popular vote they are still going to have to campaign various places. I dont see strategies changing much. Trump would have to pull all the rural areas heavily and steal some votes from the cities. Dems would do the opposite. The top 10 states carry 256 electoral votes and only 270 are needed to win. Trump won 7 of those states with several close ones and it could have been flipped the other way for Hillary. A candidate could win 7 states and already be at close to 50% of the total electoral votes needed. For the popular vote a candidate would have to win every single vote in the top 8 states to near that number.

 

[Stoney]

So, in a discussion with a friend of mine (from CA) who believes there may be some merit to abolishing the electoral college (you know, so EVERYBODY's vote counts) I finally provided her with the salient point she needed to understand why abolishing the electoral college would be so much worse for her and her liberal friends.

Since she could not grasp the concept of how the Electoral college provides a balance so each state has relatively equal say in who gets elected to the office, I just simplified if for her.

I said, "I don't know how many voters there are in CA, but let's just say for simplification there are 100 million voters in CA." (She said, "I don't think it's that many, but ok.") I replied, "Ok, then let's assume there are maybe 1 million voters in MT." (Again, that's an overestimate, but it makes the illustration simpler.)

So I told her, "Ok, you want to abolish the Electoral College, all you have to do is make a MT vote worth 100 CA votes to even out the ratio. That way the needs of a rural, small-community and business driven state like MT would have the same voting power of a larger state like CA."

"Then EVERYONE's vote can be counted. Obviously smaller population states' votes would be counted a bit more to ensure equality across the board."

Her response after a moment of thinking about it, "But MT would vote almost entirely Republican. And if their votes were worth 100 times somebody in CA it would equal out CA's vote."

Uh, ya.

Thats a real compelling argument. I usually go with, "Shut your ******* ****-holster".

 

[wig]

It's simple. It's a federal election. You have to win the state. You can't 'do pretty darn well' in a state. You have to WIN it!

 

[Coach]

Trump won 22 of 25 states with the highest birth rates. Give it some time liberals may change their tune on abortion


Sent from my iPhone using Steeler Nation mobile app