• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Genius of the Electoral College

The LOW estimates show that 6% of California's population is illegal. Real world figures are that there are likely double the 3 million immigrants counted during the 2013 census. California grants all residents a drivers license and registers them to vote (and covers them with immunity for voting illegally). Spread those illegal immigrants out throughout the country in states where they dont get voting rights automatically and who knows what the final vote tally will be.

It's also estimated that seventeen million foreign citizens used the military absentee ballot to cancel out the votes of our enlisted men and women.
 
California gets 55 electoral votes and Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida get 67 altogether. Why wouldn't those states constitute mob states as well?
Those states are like everyone else...popular vote states. All you are doing is pointing out WHY the EC is in place and the balance it already provides. By YOUR OWN offering, California gets NEARLY the same electoral representation as 3 major states COMBINED.
 
I imagine you'd be singing a different tune if Hillary had won the electoral vote.
Actually Josie, I have never been a fan of the electoral vote, but yeah, I did hold my nose and voted for Hillary.
 
But not for the President. Never has been. There is no 'popular vote' win or lose for the office of President.

All you're repeating is the rules we already know, but if the principle was important, you'd be applying them to the states as well. That you're not is evidence that you don't really care about the principle of how the electoral college works, only that it happens to be working in your favor.
 
It's also estimated that seventeen million foreign citizens used the military absentee ballot to cancel out the votes of our enlisted men and women.
If there is actual evidence of illegal activity that should be addressed...wouldnt you say?
 
I imagine you'd be singing a different tune if Hillary had won the electoral vote.

The important consideration is that regardless of who seems to be benefitting from the electoral college at one point or another, it's an outdated system that makes no sense and, when its origins are analyzed, are frankly offensive. Literally the only cogent defense of the electoral college is "it helped my candidate." That's it.
 
Those states are like everyone else...popular vote states. All you are doing is pointing out WHY the EC is in place and the balance it already provides. By YOUR OWN offering, California gets NEARLY the same electoral representation as 3 major states COMBINED.
But why is it that people believe that California is a mob state when all they did is vote the way the people there wanted to vote?
 
It wouldn't change the popular vote by much though. Look, Trump is the new President. But the electoral college does need to go. Why not use an electoral college to vote on lawmakers too?

The EC needs to go only if you believe that a few isolated population spots should rule the lives of all citizens. I reject that belief.

You don't understand the election process much, do you? States choose their lawmakers. I guess if they so chose, they could use a process similar to the EC, but they don't.
 
All you're repeating is the rules we already know, but if the principle was important, you'd be applying them to the states as well. That you're not is evidence that you don't really care about the principle of how the electoral college works, only that it happens to be working in your favor.
The EC has ALWAYS worked in the favor of ALL states...not just the big states. In that sense it is no different than the senate.

Since you are all about the 'popular' vote, would you be OK with the state of California apportioning its EC votes based on the breakdown of the popular vote?
 
The LOW estimates show that 6% of California's population is illegal. Real world figures are that there are likely double the 3 million immigrants counted during the 2013 census. California grants all residents a drivers license and registers them to vote (and covers them with immunity for voting illegally). Spread those illegal immigrants out throughout the country in states where they dont get voting rights automatically and who knows what the final vote tally will be.

No question on the figures. It's absurd to claim there are only the millions identified in the last census. Where are the many hundreds of thousands of illegals entering the US every year going to? My best guess is the number is at least 4 million minimum, and that is a very conservative guess.

Because of California, if Trump got the votes he did on November 8, and Hillary did not receive a single vote in Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, D.C., Hawaii, Main - at large, Main - 1st, Nevada, and New Hampshire, she would have still won the popular vote.

That would mean she would have won only 13 states/districts, to Trumps 43.

And the shocking thing is, the liberal/socialist progressives don't have a problem with that.

Thank goodness the Founding Fathers predicted there would be people like them and took steps to ensure they couldn't prevail.
 
The EC has ALWAYS worked in the favor of ALL states...not just the big states. In that sense it is no different than the senate.

Since you are all about the 'popular' vote, would you be OK with the state of California apportioning its EC votes based on the breakdown of the popular vote?

Well, since I just called the electoral college stupid, outdated and offensive, I think it stands to reason that I'm fine with California apportioning its EC votes based on the breakdown of the popular vote.
 
What part of what I said is difficult for you to understand?

If you want evidence, go out and get it. I don't know what you expect me to say.
 
But why is it that people believe that California is a mob state when all they did is vote the way the people there wanted to vote?
You are trying to have an argument with someone that doesnt take the opposition position you want to engage.

California politics are decided by the popular vote. California has 55 electoral delegates and all 55 will go and vote for the rat party candidate. Not 33 for HRC, 22 for Trump, based on the results of the state, but all 55 for HRC. That is the way their state rolls. The popular vote in a state is fine for how their state is run. It is not fine for how the country is run because it gives too much power to large states.
 
If you want evidence, go out and get it. I don't know what you expect me to say.
1-You made the allegation...you should be able to support it. 2-All I stated is what shold be common ground. If the activity is ILLEGAL it should be addressed, just as the state of California's granting of voting rights to illegal immigrants should be addressed.

The process either matters or it doesnt.
 
You are trying to have an argument with someone that doesnt take the opposition position you want to engage.

California politics are decided by the popular vote. California has 55 electoral delegates and all 55 will go and vote for the rat party candidate. Not 33 for HRC, 22 for Trump, based on the results of the state, but all 55 for HRC. That is the way their state rolls. The popular vote in a state is fine for how their state is run. It is not fine for how the country is run because it gives too much power to large states.

Um...that's the way all states roll.
 
1-You made the allegation...you should be able to support it. 2-All I stated is what shold be common ground. If the activity is ILLEGAL it should be addressed, just as the state of California's granting of voting rights to illegal immigrants should be addressed.

The process either matters or it doesnt.

You're the one who alleged illegal behavior. If you want evidence, feel free to go out and get it.
 
Well, since I just called the electoral college stupid, outdated and offensive, I think it stands to reason that I'm fine with California apportioning its EC votes based on the breakdown of the popular vote.

The odds of that passing in CA are slim to none - CA wants to be more "blue" not less so.
 
The odds of that passing in CA are slim to none - CA wants to be more "blue" not less so.

Maybe I misinterpreted his post, but I took what he said to mean, would I be fine with, in the actuality of the country's president being determined by popular vote, I would find it acceptable if California's 55 electoral votes were to be broken down into its popular vote results.

To be honest, I found the wording of his post a little confusing.
 
Um...that's the way all states roll.
Most...but not all. Maine and Nebraska allow for splitting their EC vote and ALL have the right to do so.
 
I'm voting for the "San Andreas Big One" in 2020.
 
You're the one who alleged illegal behavior. If you want evidence, feel free to go out and get it.
WHat I cited is the facts regarding California LAW. The state issues drivers licenses to all. They register to vote EVERY licensed driver and their law provides protections for people that vote illegally. YOU made the assertion that foreign voters are cancelling out the military absentee ballots votes. If what you are asserting is illegal and correct, it should be addressed, should it no? YOUR assertion. Your burden of proof.
 
Back
Top Bottom