Warren calls for the elimination of the Electoral College

[29again]

If Trump had received more popular votes but Hillary won, I’d feel the same. I wasn’t fond of either of them, but my third party vote was irrelevant because I live in a blue state.

If the election had gone the other way, and Hillary won, how many of you would still support doing away with the electoral college?

Why does the popular vote mean so much? We vote for someone to represent us, our views, our opinions... and as we move up the line, so-to-speak, one person represents more people. It makes sense to me that we have certain electors who vote according to how the majority in the state voted. What would really tick me off is if candidate A got more votes, but my states electors voted for candidate B because of how they personally felt. THAT is when your vote becomes irrelevant.

I would like to see more 3rd party candidates that aren't whack-a-doos, myself. Especially Libertarian candidates. My state had a really awesome Libertarian running for gov back in '12, but the establishment GOPers in the state gov got too scared of him and "decided" he really didn't get that many signatures to get on the ballot. That is when I knew my gov was shady.

[29again]

Right back at you. If Hillary had won without the popular vote, but thanks to the EC, how many of YOU would be bitching about it?

If the election had gone the other way, and Hillary won, how many of you would still support doing away with the electoral college?

I would not be bitching. I see the vote in each state as a direction for the EC votes. So, yeah, the "numbers" won't always "match up" the way some want them to. I don't place national importance on the popular vote.

[Libbylu2]

If the election had gone the other way, and Hillary won, how many of you would still support doing away with the electoral college?

I would!
Definitely!
The Electoral College is taking away the right to vote from citizens.
We just go through the motions while a few people in each state decide what their state supposedly wants them to do!

No, libby, that is not how it goes. Not the way you imply. The EC electors in each state vote for the candidate the majority of the people in their state voted for. Now, are there issues/problems in how state pick their electors? Yes, but that doesn't mean we should scrap the whole thing and just let a few big cities decide for the whole country. You stated earlier that your state's electors went for Hillary, because the majority of the voters in your state voted for her. How much more majority rule can you get, than the few people chosen to vote in the EC vote the way the majority of your state voted?

Yah right.

[Momto2boys973]

Of course you wouldn’t.
Isn’t it so easy to take the high road when it’s all hypothetical?

Right back at you. If Hillary had won without the popular vote, but thanks to the EC, how many of YOU would be bitching about it?

If the election had gone the other way, and Hillary won, how many of you would still support doing away with the electoral college?

I would not be bitching. I see the vote in each state as a direction for the EC votes. So, yeah, the "numbers" won't always "match up" the way some want them to. I don't place national importance on the popular vote.

[29again]

Of course you wouldn’t.
Isn’t it so easy to take the high road when it’s all hypothetical?

Right back at you. If Hillary had won without the popular vote, but thanks to the EC, how many of YOU would be bitching about it?

I would not be bitching. I see the vote in each state as a direction for the EC votes. So, yeah, the "numbers" won't always "match up" the way some want them to. I don't place national importance on the popular vote.

I am not in the habit of lying, so.... when I say I would not be upset, then that is the truth.
Isn't it so easy to take the low road when things don't go your way?

[29again]

I would!
Definitely!
The Electoral College is taking away the right to vote from citizens.
We just go through the motions while a few people in each state decide what their state supposedly wants them to do!

No, libby, that is not how it goes. Not the way you imply. The EC electors in each state vote for the candidate the majority of the people in their state voted for. Now, are there issues/problems in how state pick their electors? Yes, but that doesn't mean we should scrap the whole thing and just let a few big cities decide for the whole country. You stated earlier that your state's electors went for Hillary, because the majority of the voters in your state voted for her. How much more majority rule can you get, than the few people chosen to vote in the EC vote the way the majority of your state voted?

Yah right.

OK, then... where did I get it wrong, in reference to how the electoral college works? Tell me, please, libby, how I got it wrong.

[Deleted User 969]

“What would really tick me off is if candidate A got more votes, but my states electors voted for candidate B because of how they personally felt. THAT is when your vote becomes irrelevant.“

Which is what happened in the last election, somewhat. Candidate A got more votes but the EC chose Candidate B.

With a true popular vote, every person has a say.

If Trump had received more popular votes but Hillary won, I’d feel the same. I wasn’t fond of either of them, but my third party vote was irrelevant because I live in a blue state.

If the election had gone the other way, and Hillary won, how many of you would still support doing away with the electoral college?

Why does the popular vote mean so much? We vote for someone to represent us, our views, our opinions... and as we move up the line, so-to-speak, one person represents more people. It makes sense to me that we have certain electors who vote according to how the majority in the state voted. What would really tick me off is if candidate A got more votes, but my states electors voted for candidate B because of how they personally felt. THAT is when your vote becomes irrelevant.

I would like to see more 3rd party candidates that aren't whack-a-doos, myself. Especially Libertarian candidates. My state had a really awesome Libertarian running for gov back in '12, but the establishment GOPers in the state gov got too scared of him and "decided" he really didn't get that many signatures to get on the ballot. That is when I knew my gov was shady.

[29again]

No. That is not what happened in the last election. Which state's electors voted differently than the majority of the voters of the state? I don't see how an election process for 50 separate states could be done any more fairly than what we have with the EC.

“What would really tick me off is if candidate A got more votes, but my states electors voted for candidate B because of how they personally felt. THAT is when your vote becomes irrelevant.“

Which is what happened in the last election, somewhat. Candidate A got more votes but the EC chose Candidate B.

With a true popular vote, every person has a say.

If Trump had received more popular votes but Hillary won, I’d feel the same. I wasn’t fond of either of them, but my third party vote was irrelevant because I live in a blue state.

Why does the popular vote mean so much? We vote for someone to represent us, our views, our opinions... and as we move up the line, so-to-speak, one person represents more people. It makes sense to me that we have certain electors who vote according to how the majority in the state voted. What would really tick me off is if candidate A got more votes, but my states electors voted for candidate B because of how they personally felt. THAT is when your vote becomes irrelevant.

I would like to see more 3rd party candidates that aren't whack-a-doos, myself. Especially Libertarian candidates. My state had a really awesome Libertarian running for gov back in '12, but the establishment GOPers in the state gov got too scared of him and "decided" he really didn't get that many signatures to get on the ballot. That is when I knew my gov was shady.

[Deleted User 969]

I just meant that more of the country wanted Candidate A to win but Candidate B did because of the EC. The EC did not represent the choice of the voters.

The EC isn’t especially “fair” as it is. The smaller states still have vastly less voice than the larger, more populous states. So where’s the harm in changing it so every voter’s vote counts?

No. That is not what happened in the last election. Which state's electors voted differently than the majority of the voters of the state? I don't see how an election process for 50 separate states could be done any more fairly than what we have with the EC.

“What would really tick me off is if candidate A got more votes, but my states electors voted for candidate B because of how they personally felt. THAT is when your vote becomes irrelevant.“

Which is what happened in the last election, somewhat. Candidate A got more votes but the EC chose Candidate B.

With a true popular vote, every person has a say.

Why does the popular vote mean so much? We vote for someone to represent us, our views, our opinions... and as we move up the line, so-to-speak, one person represents more people. It makes sense to me that we have certain electors who vote according to how the majority in the state voted. What would really tick me off is if candidate A got more votes, but my states electors voted for candidate B because of how they personally felt. THAT is when your vote becomes irrelevant.

I would like to see more 3rd party candidates that aren't whack-a-doos, myself. Especially Libertarian candidates. My state had a really awesome Libertarian running for gov back in '12, but the establishment GOPers in the state gov got too scared of him and "decided" he really didn't get that many signatures to get on the ballot. That is when I knew my gov was shady.

[29again]

But when we vote for a president, we do it by states. Not individuals.
If it (the EC) is changed, then those small states with a small voice NOW will have essentially NO voice at all. How is that fair?

I just meant that more of the country wanted Candidate A to win but Candidate B did because of the EC. The EC did not represent the choice of the voters.

The EC isn’t especially “fair” as it is. The smaller states still have vastly less voice than the larger, more populous states. So where’s the harm in changing it so every voter’s vote counts?

No. That is not what happened in the last election. Which state's electors voted differently than the majority of the voters of the state? I don't see how an election process for 50 separate states could be done any more fairly than what we have with the EC.

“What would really tick me off is if candidate A got more votes, but my states electors voted for candidate B because of how they personally felt. THAT is when your vote becomes irrelevant.“

Which is what happened in the last election, somewhat. Candidate A got more votes but the EC chose Candidate B.

With a true popular vote, every person has a say.