If democrats abolish the Electoral College republicans would never win the WH

[LV426]

61 Republican state legislative chambers v. 31 Democratic chambers

So this is a typical thing you do, Flash...you present sort-of facts that aren't vetted, and which you won't defend.

Let me ask you this...of those 61 GOP-controlled state legislative chambers, what is the aggregate vote split among those chambers in each state? Because you're painting a distorted picture of those state chambers. Take my state of GA, for example. In this most recent election, Democratic State House candidates in GA received about 10,000 more votes than GOP State House candidates...yet, the State House split is 104-74 for the GOP.

So what that means is that of the 61 chambers the GOP controls, most of them are gerrymandered to give them that advantage. If those seats weren't gerrymandered like that, several of those GOP-controlled states would flip to Democrats. Texas and Georgia are probably the two best examples.

So this is a common tactic of yours...you post information without really vetting it, then when I start taking it apart, you get all pissy and arrogant.

It gets back to the same argument you always make, which boils down to this: "apples and oranges are the same thing because they're both fruit". While not technically incorrect, it is incredibly fucking lazy. And I think you know that.

 

[LV426]

Whining about "partisan gerrymandering" is what the Republicans did for years when the Democrats controlled the South.

WTF are you talking about, Flash? That was 60+ years ago. And who controls the South today? The same people who just switched their party affiliation after the Civil Rights Act and desegregation.

Your lazy, sophist argument really bore the shit out of me.

 

[MAGA MAN]

It would require a constitutional amendment to get rid of the electoral college, but if democrats can pull it off or inact some measure or proposal to lesson it’s useless impediment to real democracy, republicans would never win the White House.

Ignore republican whining because they believe that winning by getting the most votes is cheating.

Without the EC this election would have been indisputably over long ago. Donald Trump himself is the poster child for abolishing the EC. Lots of proposals on how to get it done.

Why would you want three or four major cities to have the only say on who is President?

 

[Flash]

Right, and apart from the garbage welfare states they run, they can't win votes in the rest of the country. They can't even win votes in their own state. TX and GA are perfect examples of states that have been gerrymandered at the state level.

In this last election in GA, Democratic State House candidates received about 10,000 more votes in the aggregate than Republicans. However, the GOP gerrymandered the state so that their Legislative advantage is 104-74, yet the aggregate vote totals are more like 50-50. So if GA had fair representation, the state house would be much more balanced than it currently is. So you say that the states elect Republicans, but do they??? If the State Legislature's aggregate vote is nearly a 50/50 split, how do you justify giving one party 30 more legislative seats in the chamber?

I seriously want to know the justification.

You can't gerrymander state governors or U. S. Senators; yet, they still win those offices. Did you complain about gerrymandering when the Democrats were controlling the U. S. House and state legislatures?

Democratic votes are concentrated in high density population centers and it "wastes" a lot of Democratic votes. You can't split up those urban areas because it destroys communities of interest and reduces minority voting strength which violates the Voting Rights Act.

 

[Ichabod Stain]

WTF are you talking about, Flash? That was 60+ years ago. And who controls the South today? The same people who just switched their party affiliation after the Civil Rights Act and desegregation.

Your lazy, sophist argument really bore the shit out of me.

hmm. you seem provoked.

 

[LV426]

From 2000 to 2016, Georgia voted Democratic 0 percent of the time and Republican 100 percent.
Republicans have controlled the GA state house, senate, and governorship since 2005.

And now, GA voted for Biden, and will probably also vote for Ossoff and Warnock. Abrams lost by just a whisker and it was a bullshit election anyway and Kemp couldn't even convincingly win it.

Why do you think that is? What could have possibly changed in Georgia in the last decade that it all of a sudden is now a blue state, like Virginia?

I'll give you one hint...Rick Grimes.

 

[LV426]

you're looking more and more the idiot. I never said such a thing and you're still missing the idea of a republic. you've confused it with something your handlers have spoon fed you to believe. you seem to have no clue about the intent of the USA at the time of the ratification. why is that?

I would ask you for your definition of "Republic", but I know it's fluid.

You haven't really expressed what you think it is on this thread, and I've never seen you express it elsewhere.

Instead, you set yourself up like you're the ambivalent scholar who knows precisely the mindset of 18th century slaveholders, when all that really is just self-confidence and arrogance.

If you think we should apply 18-century mindset to governance, then you must also think we should go back to using leeches for health care, getting everywhere on horseback, and shitting in holes that we dig in the ground.

Do you think that?

 

[LV426]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA you are about the second most delusional idiot on this forum. ZERO concept of military service or what it means, and again, I wouldn't trust most college grads to shovel my driveway. there is no fucking way you worked harder than I did as a Marine............no way you put in more hours, and no fucking way at all that you understand what it means to even be in the military, let alone the Marine Corps

Yes, defending my Master's Thesis was probably more brutal than any training you ever did in the Corps.

 

[Flash]

So this is a typical thing you do, Flash...you present sort-of facts that aren't vetted, and which you won't defend.

Let me ask you this...of those 61 GOP-controlled state legislative chambers, what is the aggregate vote split among those chambers in each state? Because you're painting a distorted picture of those state chambers. Take my state of GA, for example. In this most recent election, Democratic State House candidates in GA received about 10,000 more votes than GOP State House candidates...yet, the State House split is 104-74 for the GOP.

So what that means is that of the 61 chambers the GOP controls, most of them are gerrymandered to give them that advantage. If those seats weren't gerrymandered like that, several of those GOP-controlled states would flip to Democrats. Texas and Georgia are probably the two best examples.

So this is a common tactic of yours...you post information without really vetting it, then when I start taking it apart, you get all pissy and arrogant.

It gets back to the same argument you always make, which boils down to this: "apples and oranges are the same thing because they're both fruit". While not technically incorrect, it is incredibly fucking lazy. And I think you know that.

You determine who controls Congress, governor, state legislature, etc. by how many seats they hold. If Republicans control the state house and senate they make policy and control the state.

They are not sort-of facts that require vetting. You want to take simple election results and add all types of stuff like how many total votes they received and how representative that is for the state. You just want to add information to cover up for simple results.

However, you spout things like 20% of the time in "this century" when the century is only 20 years old. That is much more misleading than anything I write.

I can show you years in which Republicans got the most votes yet Democrats won more seats in Congress, but that is just whining about the results. If you tell me Democrats won control of Congress that year I don't tell you that is a "sort-of fact" that was not vetted. You ignore facts and try to come up with stuff that was not included that you think change the basic facts.

 

[LV426]

thank you for showing most of the board you're a total moron.

You're the one who shits in a hole you dug in the ground, not me.

 

[blackascoal]

It’s Time to Abolish the Electoral College / Brookings Institute
Brookings.edu

Great history here .. excerpt

America was still recovering from the Civil War when Republican Rutherford Hayes ran against Democrat Samuel Tilden in the 1876 presidential election. The race was so close that the electoral votes of just 4 states would determine the presidency. On Election Day, Tilden picked up the popular vote plurality and 184 electoral votes, but fell just one vote shy of the electoral college majority. However, Hayes claimed that he would have won Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina if not for the intimidation of black voters.

Instead of allowing the House to decide the winner as prescribed by the 12th amsndment. Congress passed a new law to create a bipartisan commission. Through this commission, five members each from the House, Senate, and Supreme Court
Would assign the 20 contested EC votes to either Hayes or Tilden. Hayes became president when this electoral commission assigned the contested votes to him. That decision would have far-reaching consequences because in return for securing the votes of the southern states, Hayes agreed to withdraw federal troops from the south, thereby paving the way for a massacre of vigilante violence against African-Americans and denial of their civil rights.

More at link.

The EC is antiquated and the presidency should not be negotiated or be in doubt, nor should this be about states rights, but about the United will of the American people to choose their own leadersh by the will of their collective votes.

 

[LV426]

BS. It was because the framers knew the states with smaller populations would not have approved popular vote.

No, it wasn't. It was purely to consolidate political power around slavery.

At the time, that was the Southern (slave) states, but it was population, not slavery, that was the issue.

No, slavery was the issue. That is the core issue. It's always been the core issue. They even talk about "free persons" in Article I, Section 2.

The core issue being representation, and how do you apportion representation when a significant part of your population is enslaved? You come up with a system that lets you have your cake (slavery) and eat it too (3/5 compromise)...this is the Electoral College and Article I, Section 2.

Madison designed the Constitution to make it very difficult for the majority to gain control. That is why he wanted a republic and not a democracy (Federalist #10), because he opposed the "tyranny of the majority."

First of all, MADISON WAS A SLAVE OWNER SO OF COURSE HE WOULD BE OPPOSED TO MAJORITY RULE.

Secondly, The Federalist Papers are not governing documents. They are the 18th-century equivalent to loudmouth morons on JPP screaming about how they know government more than the next guy.

Sigh...so Flash, do you apply 18th century thinking to other parts of your life, or just governance? Do you use leeches for your health care? Do you get around in a horse-and-buggy? Do you send messages by carrier pigeon? Do you shit in a hole you dug in the ground? Of course not. So why do you selectively apply an 18th-century mindset to 21st-century governance? How come you're cherry picking? You either go all in, or you don't.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I would ask you for your definition of "Republic", but I know it's fluid.

You haven't really expressed what you think it is on this thread, and I've never seen you express it elsewhere.

Instead, you set yourself up like you're the ambivalent scholar who knows precisely the mindset of 18th century slaveholders, when all that really is just self-confidence and arrogance.

If you think we should apply 18-century mindset to governance, then you must also think we should go back to using leeches for health care, getting everywhere on horseback, and shitting in holes that we dig in the ground.

Do you think that?

if you think advances in technology should overrule the basic tenets of individual liberty and freedom, then yes, we should.........because that would mean you're stupid. The founders set up our government so that all three entities would be represented. The people, through the house. The states, through the senate. And the country, through the white house. THAT is what is meant by the republic.........so that individual rights would reign supreme, then the states authority and rights, then the federal government as the nation.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Yes, defending my Master's Thesis was probably more brutal than any training you ever did in the Corps.

ROFL, you'd never make it through marine corps boot camp.

 

[LV426]

are all you idiot liberals an all or nothing group? or just you and domer?

So you don't want to answer because you know the answer is that you can't do any of that stuff on your own. That you need a government to do that, and you need to pay taxes so they can.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

So you don't want to answer because you know the answer is that you can't do any of that stuff on your own. That you need a government to do that, and you need to pay taxes so they can.

no, moron. government does play a role, but it's not EVERYTHING

 

[LV426]

You can't gerrymander state governors or U. S. Senators

Well, you can certainly rig the vote, which is what we saw here in GA in 2018. That's accomplished any number of ways from purging voters illegally, to cutting early voting hours, to slowing down distribution of mail ballots, to closing polling stations, etc. Most all of that is done by the State Legislatures.

Democratic votes are concentrated in high density population centers

No. It's not merely "high density" it's "high population". "High density" implies the same population is spread out over a larger area, but it's not.

How many people live in NYC, Flash, vs. how many people live in Wyoming?

Most people in this country live in or adjacent to urban areas.

Most rural areas are losing population, not gaining them.

There's a reason most people live in or near cities, and that reason is because there's more oppurtunity.

 

[Joe Capitalist]

It would require a constitutional amendment to get rid of the electoral college, but if democrats can pull it off or inact some measure or proposal to lesson it’s useless impediment to real democracy, republicans would never win the White House.

Ignore republican whining because they believe that winning by getting the most votes is cheating.

Without the EC this election would have been indisputably over long ago. Donald Trump himself is the poster child for abolishing the EC. Lots of proposals on how to get it done.

Dems have won the popular vote in 7 out of the last 8 presidential elections so you're probably right.

But that's the Repubs fault, not the people's fault. Maybe if the Repubs want to win some elections, maybe they should stop groveling to racists, billionaires, the NRA, Televangelists, climate change deniers and FoxNews.

 

[LV426]

You determine who controls Congress, governor, state legislature, etc. by how many seats they hold. If Republicans control the state house and senate they make policy and control the state.

Right, which involves rigging the state so they can't lose power. So we're saying the same thing, that these Republicans rig elections and rig their states to maintain power that they cannot win at the ballot box.

They are not sort-of facts that require vetting. You want to take simple election results and add all types of stuff like how many total votes they received and how representative that is for the state. You just want to add information to cover up for simple results.

Flash, is an aggregate vote total a better or worse representation of the voting in the state?

However, you spout things like 20% of the time in "this century" when the century is only 20 years old. That is much more misleading than anything I write.

How is it misleading, Flash? I qualified it clearly and you don't seem to have any sort of answer for it. You are content to shrug it off and that's because it doesn't affect you because of your inherent status and privilege. Because no matter what, mediocre white men like you will never be forced to reckon with the status you never earned.

What happened is that you got mad that I shot your shit down, and rather than build a case, you just lazily snipe because that's all you can do.

 

[LV426]

I can show you years in which Republicans got the most votes yet Democrats won more seats in Congress, but that is just whining about the results.

I'll call this bluff...when was the last time that happened?

If you tell me Democrats won control of Congress that year I don't tell you that is a "sort-of fact" that was not vetted.

Well, I would never do that because I'm upfront and honest about the work I do, so I would have definitely qualified it with that fact that the Democrats got more seats despite the GOP getting more votes. But when was the last time that happened? Was it during Civil Rights, when today's GOP were 60's Democrats?

You ignore facts and try to come up with stuff that was not included that you think change the basic facts.

You: Apples and oranges are the same thing because they're both fruit.

While not a technically incorrect statement, it is a very sophist and dishonest one, isn't it? Because apples and oranges aren't the same thing.