Warren calls for the elimination of the Electoral College

[DSamuels]

Being able to also vote in a country where each vote counts directly, I can see her point. When I vote in America, I feel my vote is wasted unless I vote like the majority of my state. When I vote in Mexico, I feel my vote counted and wasn’t just dismissed because more people in my state voted differently. It sort of feels annulled for me, as if my vote was pointless. So I think the EC encourages absenteeism. And ultimately, it can happen as it did with Trump, Americans can have a president that the majority of the population doesn’t want.
The EC also gives value to states, so that candidates don’t focus their efforts in all of the population, but rather focus on the states they think they can sway to their side and just pass by on those that are a sure win and ignore those that are a sure loss.

If you take away the EC then candidates will concentrate on NYC, the large cities on the west coast and New England. All the states in the center will be ignored. Between just NYC and LA Is where Hillary picked up her just under 3million more votes.

Think about that, TWO CITIES could have decided the president for all the other states.

How is that fair?

[Billie.jeens]

Being able to also vote in a country where each vote counts directly, I can see her point. When I vote in America, I feel my vote is wasted unless I vote like the majority of my state. When I vote in Mexico, I feel my vote counted and wasn’t just dismissed because more people in my state voted differently. It sort of feels annulled for me, as if my vote was pointless. So I think the EC encourages absenteeism. And ultimately, it can happen as it did with Trump, Americans can have a president that the majority of the population doesn’t want.
The EC also gives value to states, so that candidates don’t focus their efforts in all of the population, but rather focus on the states they think they can sway to their side and just pass by on those that are a sure win and ignore those that are a sure loss.

If you take away the EC then candidates will concentrate on NYC, the large cities on the west coast and New England. All the states in the center will be ignored. Between just NYC and LA Is where Hillary picked up her just under 3million more votes.

Think about that, TWO CITIES could have decided the president for all the other states.

How is that fair?

Democrats always think in static terms.
That's why tax increases don't bring in the additional revenue that they are counting on.
People change their behavior
If the Presidential Election were held under different rules the candidates would change their behavior -
It's not a static world.

[Momto2boys973]

It’s as fair as dismissing the votes of those 3 million people over a made up system of which state gets to have more votes.
There’s no system that’s 100% fair. But what’s more fair is to have each vote count, every vote counts.
And what your saying happens with the EC too. Especially because each state has a certain member of electoral votes, so candidates still focus on those with the most votes and that can be swayed. The states that are on their side, they pass by to appease the people, the states that are on the opponent’s side, they don’t even bother with. Whereas if each individual vote counts, then it’s worth a shot trying to convince a few more people.
Most democratic countries have a system of popular vote, and that’s because it is the most fair and the one who truly represents the whole population instead of just throwing away the votes of the minority by giving the whole state to one candidate.

Being able to also vote in a country where each vote counts directly, I can see her point. When I vote in America, I feel my vote is wasted unless I vote like the majority of my state. When I vote in Mexico, I feel my vote counted and wasn’t just dismissed because more people in my state voted differently. It sort of feels annulled for me, as if my vote was pointless. So I think the EC encourages absenteeism. And ultimately, it can happen as it did with Trump, Americans can have a president that the majority of the population doesn’t want.
The EC also gives value to states, so that candidates don’t focus their efforts in all of the population, but rather focus on the states they think they can sway to their side and just pass by on those that are a sure win and ignore those that are a sure loss.

If you take away the EC then candidates will concentrate on NYC, the large cities on the west coast and New England. All the states in the center will be ignored. Between just NYC and LA Is where Hillary picked up her just under 3million more votes.

Think about that, TWO CITIES could have decided the president for all the other states.

How is that fair?

[Momto2boys973]

Well, I’m not a Democrat, so there’s that.

Being able to also vote in a country where each vote counts directly, I can see her point. When I vote in America, I feel my vote is wasted unless I vote like the majority of my state. When I vote in Mexico, I feel my vote counted and wasn’t just dismissed because more people in my state voted differently. It sort of feels annulled for me, as if my vote was pointless. So I think the EC encourages absenteeism. And ultimately, it can happen as it did with Trump, Americans can have a president that the majority of the population doesn’t want.
The EC also gives value to states, so that candidates don’t focus their efforts in all of the population, but rather focus on the states they think they can sway to their side and just pass by on those that are a sure win and ignore those that are a sure loss.

If you take away the EC then candidates will concentrate on NYC, the large cities on the west coast and New England. All the states in the center will be ignored. Between just NYC and LA Is where Hillary picked up her just under 3million more votes.

Think about that, TWO CITIES could have decided the president for all the other states.

How is that fair?

Democrats always think in static terms.
That's why tax increases don't bring in the additional revenue that they are counting on.
People change their behavior
If the Presidential Election were held under different rules the candidates would change their behavior -
It's not a static world.

[Billie.jeens]

I know history is lost on people.

We are a county of separate - specifically separate but United States - that was for a reason
It's worked pretty damn well, for a pretty damn long time.

A lot of Compromises were made to Unite the States -
Whether it be the 3/5 rule so that Slave States didn't have too much power, the Missouri Compromise to maintain balance or the EC to ensure that small states have a voice.

The Freak Out over 1 election in 240 some years is really sort of overdramatic don't you think?

It’s as fair as dismissing the votes of those 3 million people over a made up system of which state gets to have more votes.
There’s no system that’s 100% fair. But what’s more fair is to have each vote count, every vote counts.
And what your saying happens with the EC too. Especially because each state has a certain member of electoral votes, so candidates still focus on those with the most votes and that can be swayed. The states that are on their side, they pass by to appease the people, the states that are on the opponent’s side, they don’t even bother with. Whereas if each individual vote counts, then it’s worth a shot trying to convince a few more people.
Most democratic countries have a system of popular vote, and that’s because it is the most fair and the one who truly represents the whole population instead of just throwing away the votes of the minority by giving the whole state to one candidate.

Being able to also vote in a country where each vote counts directly, I can see her point. When I vote in America, I feel my vote is wasted unless I vote like the majority of my state. When I vote in Mexico, I feel my vote counted and wasn’t just dismissed because more people in my state voted differently. It sort of feels annulled for me, as if my vote was pointless. So I think the EC encourages absenteeism. And ultimately, it can happen as it did with Trump, Americans can have a president that the majority of the population doesn’t want.
The EC also gives value to states, so that candidates don’t focus their efforts in all of the population, but rather focus on the states they think they can sway to their side and just pass by on those that are a sure win and ignore those that are a sure loss.

If you take away the EC then candidates will concentrate on NYC, the large cities on the west coast and New England. All the states in the center will be ignored. Between just NYC and LA Is where Hillary picked up her just under 3million more votes.

Think about that, TWO CITIES could have decided the president for all the other states.

How is that fair?

[Della]

I think certain states should have more electors while others perhaps should have less.

After reviewing our electors (a couple who I know personally) for the state of FL, I also think the way they are chosen needs to be reviewed.

And I despise how voting districts are drawn.

[Momto2boys973]

Maybe that’s a better idea at the moment. Not a downright abolition, but a revision.

I think certain states should have more electors while others perhaps should have less.

After reviewing our electors (a couple who I know personally) for the state of FL, I also think the way they are chosen needs to be reviewed.

And I despise how voting districts are drawn.

[EarlGrayHot]

A direct vote election would clearly allow your vote to count and does not in any way mean "liberal cities or states" would be speaking for you. It does NOT mean that "fly-over" country has no say. That's nonsense. Nor would eliminating the EC mean we might as well "scrap the entire Constitution." That is also ridiculous.

[ReadingRainbow]

I agree with her...

We no longer live in the time where information is only easily gotten by the big cities... States will still vote individually on their own matters...

But enough of this notion that people who live in big cities don't have a voice that matters as much as those who live in small towns.

One person should equal one vote. It's absurd to act like small towns vote one way and big cities vote the other way. There are mixed votes everywhere, and everyone's vote should matter.

[ReadingRainbow]

Oh yes, let’s do that so NYC, LA, and other large liberal cities elect the president while fly over country has no say. SMH

Why would New York and LA speak for you ?


That's pushing forth a false notion that there are not Democrats , Republicans and Independents scattered across the entire nation. They are everywhere...