The electoral college

[PonoBill]

My grandfather had a  good one, "Get in a pissing contest with a skunk, and you're going to get sprayed."

I'm no genius on a founding fathers of politics level, just seems f@cked to me that the parts of the country footing 2/3 of the bill and who are the majority, don't get to call the shots. Especially when it comes to rolling back the clock on environmental issues.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2016/11/29/another-clinton-trump-divide-high-output-america-vs-low-output-america/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=metro

That's called taxation without representation. Seems to me we didn't like that much back in 1776. And it's not 2/3 on a electoral basis or on a state basis. It doesn't take a genius to do the math. What you are proposing is called tyranny. With the same line of thinking, you should be comfortable with only the wealthy having a vote, or only landowners, or maybe you get one vote for every dollar you pay in taxes. Or get right down to the basics and say "only white people".

We are a republic, as are all countries that stay stable while referring to themselves as democracies. There are a host of reasons democracies are unstable, and the nastiest one is the tyranny of the majority. It generally takes a shooting war to end that. Be careful what you wish for--and read a little history.

[Bean]

Well said PB.

[stoneaxe]

You seriously want it to be decided by just those that foot the bills? OK...just those that pay taxes get to vote....liberals never win again....

[Tom]

I don't think anyone is proposing having the value of votes based upon taxes paid, but when the loser gets 2.3 million more votes than the winner, and when an elector, who isn't elected, can decide on who he will cast his vote for, then it may be time to look at the current system.

[stoneaxe]

He said foot the bills...how does that not mean that?

[magentawave]

You seriously want it to be decided by just those that foot the bills? OK...just those that pay taxes get to vote....liberals never win again....

Right, and no electoral college means every presidential election will be decided by New York City, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. Gawd help us. Actually, I do think that only those that pay taxes should be given the right to vote. It will never happen, but...

...but when the loser gets 2.3 million more votes than the winner, and when an elector, who isn't elected, can decide on who he will cast his vote for, then it may be time to look at the current system.

When considering the consistently massive crowds at Trump rallies, crickets chirping at Hillary rallies, no ID required to vote, electronic voting machine results that can be modified without detection (see "Black Box Voting"), plus high-level democrat operatives admitting on camera how they commit voter fraud, I'm inclined to believe that Trump actually won the popular vote by a YUUUGE landslide. I do agree that it is time to "look at the current system."

[Weasels wake]

If only tax payers voted in 2012, according to CNN~

[PonoBill]

Look all you like. There are many, many books on the subject. If you spend some serious time looking at various election systems, and the math behind them, and how they can be gamed, and how often the outcome actually represents the considered will of the people instead of the whim of the people, you'll probably come to the same conclusion most people who have studied this come to--the electoral system is pretty good.

This is all kind of moot. The electoral system is part of our constitution.

[magentawave]

Have you guys heard about electoral college members getting death threats? https://www.google.com/search?q=electoral+college+members+getting+death+threats&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

[pdxmike]

I heard about a plan that doesn't need the feds to change anything since it could happen on the state level.  It doesn't change the electoral college system just how it's implemented.  Reportedly 11 states so far have passed in their own legislatures a bill giving all their electoral votes to the nationwide popular vote winner.  The purpose being to make each vote relevant not just the rust belt.

What do you think of this?

I'd guess those 11 are states whose vote matched the national popular vote.  How ironic would it be if next election one of those states' residents voted for the national loser.  Would you have a situation where the state's voters went say, 1 million to zero for the Democrat, but all that state's electoral votes went to the Republican?


You'd also have a situation where in a close election, voter fraud in one state could change the electoral vote in up to 11 states, massively magnifying the fraud's impact.

[tautologies]

If only tax payers voted in 2012, according to CNN~

See you might just be better off trying to check your sources a bit. Provide the link at CNN where you found it?

http://www.snopes.com/what-if-taxpayers-only-voted-map/

[magentawave]

If only tax payers voted in 2012, according to CNN~

See you might just be better off trying to check your sources a bit. Provide the link at CNN where you found it?

http://www.snopes.com/what-if-taxpayers-only-voted-map/

CNN and Snopes...   two highly questionable sources.

[tautologies]

CNN and Snopes...   two highly questionable sources.

Wait what do you mean?
You can just click the link that they refer to and check yourself. How on earth do you check sources? 

[magentawave]

I don't know about the map, but Snopes, like CNN, are shills for the status quo so I don't consider them credible.

[tautologies]

I don't know about the map, but Snopes, like CNN, are shills for the status quo so I don't consider them credible.

That literally do not make any sense. First of all the link / article you disregarded had sources. If you want to comment on something make at least a minimal effort. Secondly, you make a claim that they are shills for status quo without backing it up whatsoever. Why participate in the discussion at all then?

Our of curiosity how do you judge what a shill for status quo is?