The Genius of the Electoral College

[RickJames3000]

If they were, Clinton might actually have won both a plurality of the "popular vote," and the Electoral Collage vote. Just saying. :coffeepap:

The OP's point and the points made when one reads the article are, IMO valid. The Electoral College set up as a compromise by our very wise founders worked exactly as it was supposed to. :yes:

Yup. The electoral college still favors those who want to MAGA by re-instituting slavery.:roll:

 

[haymarket]

Actually 14 (AK, DE, MT, ND, VT, WY, HI, ID, ME, NH, RI, WV, NM and IA*) but CA is still limited to 55 EC votes no matter how large (or small) its popular vote total is.

* = IA could be replaced by any other 6 EC vote state like KS, MI, NV or UT.

Thank you for showing I was underestimating the power of California.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Thank you for showing I was underestimating the power of California.

Yet also underestimating the power of the urban vote in a purely nationwide popular vote system. Less than 60 of our (about) 3K counties contains the majority of the US population.

 

[Fishking]

Does a mob have a number? I believe the word is plural, right?

Just highlighting the illegitimacy of your position by taking it to it's own conclusion.

 

[jdog]

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?

You obviously do not understand the theory and mechanics of why the EC was created in the first place.

 

[Fishking]

No. Those three states overtook CA. But CA is still considered a mob state and those three are not? Boondoggle.

Yes, you're making my argument for me still, and you don't even know it. It's 3 states to counterbalance 1 state vs 1 state counterbalancing the rest of the country. Thanks again for your support.

 

[jdog]

The elimination of the EC could lead to a new Civil War.

 

[Fishking]

No, Trump won the electoral college vote, which bases results on a highly structured formula and for extremely narrow demographic distributions. A popular vote is just a popular vote. It ignores state lines, rural vs. urban, county results, poor vs. rich, liberal vs. conservative, black vs. white, etc.

Which would, again, have California picking the President. No matter how many times you try and reword it, that fact still remains. The rest of the country be damned.

Yes, and going to my previous point, if you believed in the principles of what makes the electoral college just, you would want it for the state as well.

How a state runs itself is up to the state. Hell, that's the reason we have the electoral college. You've inadvertently stumbled across a core premise of our founding.

 

[Cardinal]

Which would, again, have California picking the President. No matter how many times you try and reword it, that fact still remains. The rest of the country be damned.



How a state runs itself is up to the state. Hell, that's the reason we have the electoral college. You've inadvertently stumbled across a core premise of our founding.

You're hung up on the notion of state lines. In a popular vote there is no "California." Again, in a popular vote the concept of a "California" is all in your head. Frankly I would think you'd appreciate that because all the conservatives in that state would have their votes counted.

Also, the premise of the electoral college is that the founding fathers were too afraid of direct democracy with ignorant yahoos participating in it. And if you embrace the electoral college because it prevents regional hegemony but then dismiss those principles at the state level, then those principles were never important to you in the first place because you're only cynically selective of them where they appear to meet your ends.

 

[Jack Hays]

Our excellent electoral vote systemBy George F. Will

Political mildness is scarce nowadays, so it has been pleasantly surprising that post-election denunciations of the electoral college have been tepid. This, even though the winner of the presidential election lost the popular vote by perhaps 2.8 million votes, more than five times the 537,179 votes by which Al Gore outpolled George W. Bush in 2000.
In California, where Democrats effortlessly harvest 55 electoral votes (more than one-fifth of 270), this year’s presidential winner was never in doubt. There was no gubernatorial election to excite voters. And thanks to a “reform,” whereby the top two finishers in a multi-party primary face off in the general election, the contest for the U.S. Senate seat was between two Democratsrepresenting faintly variant flavors of liberalism. These factors depressed turnout in the state with one-eighth of the nation’s population. If there had been more excitement, increased turnout in this heavily Democratic state might have pushed Hillary Clinton’s nationwide popular vote margin over 3 million. And this still would not really matter. . . .

 

[Jack Hays]

You're hung up on the notion of state lines. In a popular vote there is no "California." Again, in a popular vote the concept of a "California" is all in your head. Frankly I would think you'd appreciate that because all the conservatives in that state would have their votes counted.

Also, the premise of the electoral college is that the founding fathers were too afraid of direct democracy with ignorant yahoos participating in it. And if you embrace the electoral college because it prevents regional hegemony but then dismiss those principles at the state level, then those principles were never important to you in the first place because you're only cynically selective of them where they appear to meet your ends.

From the link in #110:

Political hypochondriacs say, with more indignation than precision, that the nation’s 58th presidential election was the fifth in which the winner lost the popular vote. In 1824, however, before the emergence of the party system, none of the four candidates received a majority of the electoral votes, and the House of Representatives chose John Quincy Adams even though Andrew Jackson won more popular votes — 38,149 more, although only about 350,000 of the approximately 4 million white males eligible to vote did so. All four candidates had been together on the ballots in only six of the 24 states, and another six states, including the most populous, New York, had no elections — their legislatures picked the presidential electors.

 

[Bob N]

Just highlighting the illegitimacy of your position by taking it to it's own conclusion.

Your opinion is duly noted.

You obviously do not understand the theory and mechanics of why the EC was created in the first place.

I disagree; I do understand it; and I have the right to challenge it's outdated position.

Yes, you're making my argument for me still, and you don't even know it. It's 3 states to counterbalance 1 state vs 1 state counterbalancing the rest of the country. Thanks again for your support.

No problem. Just defining what a mob is to you. Whether it's in one state or several. Or maybe it's just people voting the way they want. I guess it's just in the way you look at it.

 

[VanceMack]

Nope, I officially take back my answer because I'm no longer certain what you were asking. If you refuse to clarify your question then it's obvious you're just being deceptive.



Data dump. Cite the exact passage relevant to your claims. Also, you still need to cite "...and voting rights AND which grants immunity for casting an illegal ballot."

This is tedious...but if it makes you happy...

2268. If a person who is ineligible to vote becomes registered to vote pursuant to this chapter in the absence of a violation by that person of Section 18100, that person’s registration shall be presumed to have been effected with official authorization and not the fault of that person.

2269. If a person who is ineligible to vote becomes registered to vote pursuant to this chapter and votes or attempts to vote in an election held after the effective date of the person’s registration, that person shall be presumed to have acted with official authorization and shall not be guilty of fraudulently voting or attempting to vote pursuant to Section 18560, unless that person willfully votes or attempts to vote knowing that he or she is not entitled to vote.
Bill Text - AB-1461 Voter registration: California New Motor Voter Program.

Now I believe you said you have proof that some odd million or so number of foreigners were voting to counter the military absentee ballots or some such thing...your turn as an offering of 'proof.'

 

[Cardinal]

This is tedious...but if it makes you happy...

2268. If a person who is ineligible to vote becomes registered to vote pursuant to this chapter in the absence of a violation by that person of Section 18100, that person’s registration shall be presumed to have been effected with official authorization and not the fault of that person.

2269. If a person who is ineligible to vote becomes registered to vote pursuant to this chapter and votes or attempts to vote in an election held after the effective date of the person’s registration, that person shall be presumed to have acted with official authorization and shall not be guilty of fraudulently voting or attempting to vote pursuant to Section 18560, unless that person willfully votes or attempts to vote knowing that he or she is not entitled to vote.
Bill Text - AB-1461 Voter registration: California New Motor Voter Program.

Now I believe you said you have proof that some odd million or so number of foreigners were voting to counter the military absentee ballots or some such thing...your turn as an offering of 'proof.'

Yeah, your claim has that "too outrageous to be true" look about it.

FALSE: California Passed a Law Allowing Undocumented Immigrants to Vote in Federal Elections : snopes.com

False.

ORIGIN:In February 2016, California officials announced that more than 600,000 undocumented people were granted driver's licenses in 2015 (the first year after AB 60 took effect):

Some 605,000 undocumented immigrants who live in California were granted driver's licenses in 2015, the first year they have been able to enjoy that benefit, officials said Monday.

The law known as AB60 took effect on January 2, 2015. The California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) expects a total of about 1.4 million people will get their license under the law by late 2017.

Governor Jerry Brown, a Democrat, signed the law in October 2013 to give a legal document to the 2.5 million undocumented immigrants in California alone -- most from Latin America and particularly neighboring Mexico.

That renewed interest in another California law, the "New Motor Voter Act," which was passed in October 2015. The combination of these two acts, one allowing undocumented people to obtain driver's licenses, the other automatically registering citizens to vote when obtaining a driver's license, sparked fears (which have been periodically resurrected for more than a decade) that California was allowing undocumented people to vote.

But neither Assembly Bill 60 nor the New Motor Voter Act provide undocumented immigrants with any additional federal benefits:

 

[VanceMack]

Yeah, your claim has that "too outrageous to be true" look about it.

FALSE: California Passed a Law Allowing Undocumented Immigrants to Vote in Federal Elections : snopes.com

False.

:lamo

Snopes.

:lamo

Look...I gave you the ACTUAL LEGISLATION. It does indeed autmoatically register voter. No...it doesnt grant them the RIGHT to vote...I never suggested that it did. In fact I QUITE SPECIIFICALLY stated that it DID NOT give them the LEGAL RIGHT to vote...hence...the granting of immunity for voting illegally. Which is IN THE LEGISLATION.

Oh yeah...and...

Snopes....

:lamo

 

[Cardinal]

:lamo

Snopes.

:lamo

Look...I gave you the ACTUAL LEGISLATION. It does indeed autmoatically register voter. No...it doesnt grant them the RIGHT to vote...I never suggested that it did. In fact I QUITE SPECIIFICALLY stated that it DID NOT give them the LEGAL RIGHT to vote...hence...the granting of immunity for voting illegally. Which is IN THE LEGISLATION.

Oh yeah...and...

Snopes....

:lamo

It doesn't give them the right to vote in Federal elections...period. This is true no matter which article you bring up that isn't Breitbart.

 

[VanceMack]

It doesn't give them the right to vote in Federal elections...period. This is true no matter which article you bring up that isn't Breitbart.

And you would acknowledge that not having the legal right to vote doesnt mean significant numbers didnt vote and that in fact, California provided them legal cover for voting illegally. Right?

 

[Cardinal]

And you would acknowledge that not having the legal right to vote doesnt mean significant numbers didnt vote and that in fact, California provided them legal cover for voting illegally. Right?

What they're doing is removing the onus from the voter and putting it onto the state when you're offered the chance to register at the dmv. The information that you need to vote still ultimately comes down to the information you provide in order to get your license in the first place. As it is supposed to work, automatic registration only applies to eligible voting citizens.

Also from the article:

The way automatic registration works is relatively simple: Eligible citizens are registered to vote when they show up at a Department of Motor Vehicles office to obtain a driver's license or state ID. The DMV gives the eligible voter a chance to opt out if they prefer not to register. If the person does not opt out, the DMV electronically transfers their voter registration information to the Secretary of State's office, rather than making election officials enter data by hand from paper registration forms...

"... Automated voter registration is actually a more secure way of doing things," California Secretary of State Alex Padilla told HuffPost in September. Potential voters "have to demonstrate proof of age, the vast majority of time people are showing a birth certificate or a passport, which also reflects citizenship. That's arguably more secure than someone checking a box under penalty of perjury," Padilla said.

If you believe there's fraud, feel free to quantify and document that for us.

Until then, I'll continue to claim that 17 million non-US citizens used military absentee ballots to vote because there are seven billion non-US citizens in the world and, technically, you have to admit it's possible.

 

[VanceMack]

What they're doing is removing the onus from the voter and putting it onto the state when you're offered the chance to register at the dmv. The information that you need to vote still ultimately comes down to the information you provide in order to get your license in the first place. As it is supposed to work, automatic registration only applies to eligible voting citizens.

Also from the article:



If you believe there's fraud, feel free to quantify and document that for us.

Until then, I'll continue to claim that 17 million non-US citizens used military absentee ballots to vote because there are seven billion non-US citizens in the world and, technically, you have to admit it's possible.

:lamo

You stand as an example as to why discussions on this site are so often inane.

We're done.

 

[Cardinal]

:lamo

You stand as an example as to why discussions on this site are so often inane.

We're done.

Happy holidays!

 

[VanceMack]

Happy holidays!

And to you and your wife.

 

[beerftw]

So you support a system from the 1700's which permits eleven states to pick a President if in each of those eleven he wins one more persons vote and gets absolutely no votes in any of the other 39 states?

So you support a system even older of direct democracy which has done poorly in the past? I went through the wiki list of countries that use direct elections, france and russia were the only real first world countries on the list, while the us uses electoral college, germany and ital use a mix of the electoral college and parliament, britain and canada have their leadership elected by those they elect, plus the monarchy thing.

You must really want to suck up to russias example, with the direct election stuffs. France changed their electoral college after the first time it had a different outcome than the popular vote, but france itself in the last decade has been the poster child of mob rule.

 

[beerftw]

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.

Direct democracy whether in elections or for laws far outdates the electoral college since direct democracy originates from ancient greece.

 

[Fishking]

You're hung up on the notion of state lines. In a popular vote there is no "California." Again, in a popular vote the concept of a "California" is all in your head. Frankly I would think you'd appreciate that because all the conservatives in that state would have their votes counted.

No, I want the cancer of California contained.

And the only way there is no California in the popular vote is if they aren't allowed to participate. California will still be there and they will still be giving millions of extra votes to leftists. Again, no matter how you want to say there is no California in a popular vote it is simply not factually true. California will still be there and will still be running the elections.

Also, the premise of the electoral college is that the founding fathers were too afraid of direct democracy with ignorant yahoos participating in it. And if you embrace the electoral college because it prevents regional hegemony but then dismiss those principles at the state level, then those principles were never important to you in the first place because you're only cynically selective of them where they appear to meet your ends.

Wrong again. It's up to the states to decide how to run things. There are 50 states to make their own little experiments. If one state turns into something that someone doesn't like they can move to a state that they prefer. Also, you have a significantly greater chance of effecting change at the state level, with some effort, than pissing in the wind to have any effect at the federal level.

Sorry, no. You lost according to the system in place and that system is exponentially better than what you support. Way smarter people than you created it for a reason and that reason was validated.

 

[Fishking]

:lamo

Snopes.

:lamo

Look...I gave you the ACTUAL LEGISLATION. It does indeed autmoatically register voter. No...it doesnt grant them the RIGHT to vote...I never suggested that it did. In fact I QUITE SPECIIFICALLY stated that it DID NOT give them the LEGAL RIGHT to vote...hence...the granting of immunity for voting illegally. Which is IN THE LEGISLATION.

Oh yeah...and...

Snopes....

:lamo

Don't you love how Snopes "fact checks" things by making a strawman for themselves to knock down and then point their finger at it say they proved it false? Seriously, it's a POS site that I've caught being wrong so many times I just mock anyone who still uses it now, like you just did.