BREAKING: Democrats Introduce Bill To Eliminate Electoral College

Having heard about this the following can be stated:

It is not just a bad idea, but a very bad idea. It would bypass what the founders had wanted for the determination of the leader and ultimately would result in far worse than the system that we have now.

The system is not perfect, and the states are partially to blame for this. The founders wanted this to be fair with all of the voices heard, however, the constitution did not specify as to how to choose the electors. So it was often left up to the state legislators to choose the electors. But the electors were often free to vote who they wanted, giving time and thought to the candidate and then cast the vote, free to cast as their conscious would dictate.

But that in time changed. And while that change was going on, the states started to develop and get into law where the winner of the popular vote would get all of the electors votes, and to prevent the electors from casting a vote for someone else.

This is the main problem with the system. The voice and will of the people are not being truly represented by the votes that they are casting. And in heavy partisan states, this is very evident. Point in case would be the state of California and Texas. One is Democrat and the other is Republican. Now if one is a republican in the state of California, then that is the voice of the political minority is often drowned out by the political majority in the state.

I relooked at the 2016 election and removed the winner take all system, giving the proportional elector’s votes to the candidates. The results were very much shocking and revealing. The facts are that neither candidate, not Clinton or Trump, would have won the required number of electoral votes to become president. The votes for both were not there for such a win.

Under this proposed system, it would result in entire states not having any voice. And the candidates would not have to go to many of the states, cause the political power would then rest in a few areas, and leave the rest out of the cold. Based on demographics, area’s like the city of LA, would have a far greater weight than the entire state of Montana, as the population of LA is far greater, in a presidential election.

If they want to make it fair, then it would be remove the winner take all and that would change the dynamics of presidential elections, as then every vote would have real meaning and count.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: KansasGirl
Let's hope. PLEASE, let's hope people haven't become THAT unhinged and idiotic. 😳

They would need a super majority in both Houses for this to happen which they are not even remotely close to at this time. People worry about this because they don't actually understand how the Constitution functions.

I understand how the Constitution functions. I also understand that our "representatives" have their own hopes and plans which have nothing to do with benefitting the country at large, but rather benefitting themselves and their hold on power now and in the future. And I don't doubt their ability to get the public whipped up into demanding the thing they (the "representatives") really want to accomplish.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

ByRyan Saavedra
@realsaavedra

Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) introduced two bills on Thursday, one to eliminate the electoral college and the other to prohibit presidents from pardoning themselves or their family members.

A press release from Cohen's office stated that the "senior member of the House Judiciary Committee, introduced two Constitutional Amendments today on the opening day of the new Congress. The first would eliminate the Electoral College and provide for the direct election of the President and Vice President of the United States. The second would limit the presidential pardon power by prohibiting presidents from pardoning themselves, members of their families, members of their administrations and their campaign staff."
...
"Presidents should not pardon themselves, their families, their administration or campaign staff," Cohen continued. "This constitutional amendment would expressly prohibit this and any future president, from abusing the pardon power."

Cohen wasn't the only Democrat that took action aimed at President Donald Trump on Thursday, as Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) introduced "articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump, filing them as his first order of business in the new, Democrat-controlled House of Representatives."

Democrats have long sought a way around the electoral college, which prevents the U.S. from being controlled by major population centers which are Democrat strongholds.
...

www.dailywire.com...

cohen.house.gov...

Here we have it, the first thing Democrats want to do as they have taken control of the House of Representatives is to abolish the Electoral College.

The Electoral College is part of the check and balances to try to stop "a dictatorship of the majority." That is exactly what democrats like Cohen want. By abolishing the Electoral College the only votes that will matter are votes in California, New York, Florida, etc. The majority of these votes are "democrat." Not only will the votes of people on most other states will not matter, but if democrats were ever to pass this sort of draconian laws, all other states will have to abide by the voting laws and regulations of major states like California.

Most people don't understand that almost every state has different laws on voting, giving them sovereignty over their own elections. What democrats want is to centralize the vote, and only the popular vote will decide the POTUS and Vice-President of the U.S.

The Founding Fathers feared such a tyranny by the majority which is the reason why they included the Electoral Vote.

The second amendment that democrats introduced will take away the power of the POTUS to grant pardons.

What we have seen with the Mueller witch hunt is that democrat allies were given immunity by the corrupt Mueller team, meanwhile they have gone after anyone affiliated in any way with POTUS Trump. In this manner the corrupt democrats will be the only ones able to give "immunity," exactly as Mueller did, only to those who are allied with democrats, or will work with them to further the agenda of democrats.

In short, both of these bills are nothing more than yet more attempts by democrats to have all the power.

That’s the only way the libs can win, by changing the Constitution.... getting rid of the electoral college, trying to allow illegals to vote, etc.

originally posted by: narrator
Provide any shred of evidence regarding the "huge voter fraud" that you mention, then I'll entertain that thought.

There is so much evidence it is ridiculous, but you obviously will not entertain it. That said, here is one, and another one, and a book documenting a lot more.

But I won't expect you to bother to even read these much less admit it.

No they don't, not in the strictest sense. Regardless of whether or not the gap was 3 million (it was, but for the sake of argument), Hillary got more votes than Trump. It doesn't make sense to me that she lost. It doesn't mean I wanted her to win (I definitely didn't), I just believe that the majority of voters wanted her to win, so it doesn't make sense that she lost.

Again, you need to engage in rational thought to be able to discern how a system that is capable of preventing the populations of 3 or 4 major cities in the country to rule over the entire country benefits the nation as a whole.

originally posted by: KansasGirl
I understand how the Constitution functions. I also understand that our "representatives" have their own hopes and plans which have nothing to do with benefitting the country at large, but rather benefitting themselves and their hold on power now and in the future. And I don't doubt their ability to get the public whipped up into demanding the thing they (the "representatives") really want to accomplish.

Then don't vote for mamby pambies.

originally posted by: narrator
-Where did I say anything about micromanaging?

You said "our government is very poorly set up to manage a country of our size and diversity", which suggests to me that you want one that is very efficiently set up to manage the country. I admit I embellished by adding micro, just a habit because the vast majority who want the government to manage/control things that is what they mean.

My bad if you worded your argument so poorly that I failed to discern that it didn't mean what it suggested.

If anything, I want the government to be LESS involved. Meaning, right now, the government is directly involved in our voting system. I want to remove the government involvement from it. LESS micromanaging. Don't put words in my mouth.

Since the government would still be managing the elections, abolishing the EC would obviously not achieve your claimed goal.

-I stand by it, very pro-abolishing the EC.

And obviously need to rethink it (but I'll wager you still won't get it).

-Sort of like states, but I don't want the federal government to have the final say over said self-governed sections. Again, LESS federal government involvement. People in DC that run the federal government have no idea how Alaska, or North Dakota, or Texas, etc. should actually be run. Let them run themselves, with NO federal overwatch. LESS government.

Ah, you want to go back to the Articles of Confederation... I wouldn't be totally against that, but I certainly wouldn't trust a Constitutional Convention with that as its stated goal to get us there.

-People always use CA and NY as examples of why we need the EC, because then we'd always have a D government. Now you're saying if I lived in CA or NY I'd be represented by staunch Republicans?

? You said you didn't want to be dominated by R's, but didn't want to live in CVali or NY. I merely pointed out that if you did go there, you would achieve your goal.

Which is it? You're contradicting your own argument here.

Nope, but I did correct your poor reading comprehension.

-We should strive to always be improving. I feel like you (and folks who think like you) feel that America is already perfect and we can never change anything, ever. I disagree with that.

I'm all for improving things when it is possible, and my personal 'Perfect Constitution' project proves that I certainly don't think what we have now is perfect - far from it, really.

If we find something that works better, why not use it?

We should - but nothing you have suggested would make it better.

originally posted by: JimTSpock
And America is a type of democracy, called a representative democracy.

Benjamin Franklind called it a Republic. Many others of the time - people who had a hand in its creation - called it a Constitutional Republic. Yes, it engages certain democratic elements (elections), but in a democracy, two wolves and a sheep decide whats for dinner, and the only rule is who wins the vote. In a Constitutional Republic, there are many things that are not subject to the whim of the fickle majority - whats (or who's) for dinner being one of them.

I'll rely on what the framers called our nation and will ignore the fantasy that the wikipedia maintainers want us to believe.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: narrator
Provide any shred of evidence regarding the "huge voter fraud" that you mention, then I'll entertain that thought.

There is so much evidence it is ridiculous, but you obviously will not entertain it. That said, here is one, and another one, and a book documenting a lot more.

But I won't expect you to bother to even read these much less admit it.

No they don't, not in the strictest sense. Regardless of whether or not the gap was 3 million (it was, but for the sake of argument), Hillary got more votes than Trump. It doesn't make sense to me that she lost. It doesn't mean I wanted her to win (I definitely didn't), I just believe that the majority of voters wanted her to win, so it doesn't make sense that she lost.

Again, you need to engage in rational thought to be able to discern how a system that is capable of preventing the populations of 3 or 4 major cities in the country to rule over the entire country benefits the nation as a whole.

- I read both articles you linked, both from conservative think tanks, neither of which could realistically be considered scholarly sources. But for sake of argument I'll play along.
1,100 instances of voter fraud spanning 47 states seems to be the number they're touting. So, instead of winning by 3,000,000, Clinton won by 2,998,900. Voter fraud is against the law, and I'm completely against people doing it. However, your own sources say that it occurs .037% of the time. That small of a number isn't going to affect an election. I'm not saying it isn't wrong to do it, I'm just saying (in the literal sense) the amount that it's happening isn't going to affect the outcome.

- I am engaging in rational thought. Stop trying to backhandedly insult me, and just have a debate. I've already said multiple times that I fully understand and agree that if we used my idea in our current system it would be unfair to certain parts of the population. I've also said many times that I think our current system needs to be re-evaluated.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: narrator
-Where did I say anything about micromanaging?

You said "our government is very poorly set up to manage a country of our size and diversity", which suggests to me that you want one that is very efficiently set up to manage the country. I admit I embellished by adding micro, just a habit because the vast majority who want the government to manage/control things that is what they mean.

My bad if you worded your argument so poorly that I failed to discern that it didn't mean what it suggested.

If anything, I want the government to be LESS involved. Meaning, right now, the government is directly involved in our voting system. I want to remove the government involvement from it. LESS micromanaging. Don't put words in my mouth.

Since the government would still be managing the elections, abolishing the EC would obviously not achieve your claimed goal.

-I stand by it, very pro-abolishing the EC.

And obviously need to rethink it (but I'll wager you still won't get it).

-Sort of like states, but I don't want the federal government to have the final say over said self-governed sections. Again, LESS federal government involvement. People in DC that run the federal government have no idea how Alaska, or North Dakota, or Texas, etc. should actually be run. Let them run themselves, with NO federal overwatch. LESS government.

Ah, you want to go back to the Articles of Confederation... I wouldn't be totally against that, but I certainly wouldn't trust a Constitutional Convention with that as its stated goal to get us there.

-People always use CA and NY as examples of why we need the EC, because then we'd always have a D government. Now you're saying if I lived in CA or NY I'd be represented by staunch Republicans?

? You said you didn't want to be dominated by R's, but didn't want to live in CVali or NY. I merely pointed out that if you did go there, you would achieve your goal.

Which is it? You're contradicting your own argument here.

Nope, but I did correct your poor reading comprehension.

-We should strive to always be improving. I feel like you (and folks who think like you) feel that America is already perfect and we can never change anything, ever. I disagree with that.

I'm all for improving things when it is possible, and my personal 'Perfect Constitution' project proves that I certainly don't think what we have now is perfect - far from it, really.

If we find something that works better, why not use it?

We should - but nothing you have suggested would make it better.

So you're admitting that you put words in my mouth, because you hold a bias during debates. I figured as much. I didn't word my argument poorly, in fact it was perfectly worded, you just didn't understand my meaning. But you decided that instead of looking for clarification, you'd just insult me instead. The lowest form of debate.
I'm done debating you, unless you stop with the backhand insults and act a bit more civil.
Every response you've written to me includes phrases such as "you need to engage in rational thought", "you still won't get it", etc. If you drop that crap, I'll happily continue debating. Otherwise, I'm out, as I take no joy in debating people who have to lower themselves to using insults.
I'll also remind you that this isn't the mud pit. Insults aren't generally well-accepted outside of the mud pit, and I'm avoiding the mud pit for that exact reason. You're trying to inject Mud Pit arguments where they don't belong, and I'm done responding to you.
If you want to have a debate without that crap, let me know.

ETA: Yes I did say that I didn't want to be governed by staunch republicans. In the same paragraph I said that I don't want to be governed by the same politics as CA or NY either. Apparently I'm not the only one with reading comprehension problems.

originally posted by: narrator
- I read both articles you linked, both from conservative think tanks, neither of which could realistically be considered scholarly sources. But for sake of argument I'll play along.
1,100 instances of voter fraud spanning 47 states seems to be the number they're touting. So, instead of winning by 3,000,000, Clinton won by 2,998,900. Voter fraud is against the law, and I'm completely against people doing it. However, your own sources say that it occurs .037% of the time.

No... that is the number of cases prosecuted.

As with most things, for every case prosecuted, there are likely dozens, hundreds, even thousands of cases that aren't prosecuted.

There is a lot of evidence showing how illegal aliens can easily vote in Cali or NY or other sanctuary city/states, with no paper trail or other evidence that could result in a prosecution, much less a conviction. That is by design. The government of Cali wants illegal aliens to vote. But since the sources will not be ones you like, I won't bother posting any.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: narrator
- I read both articles you linked, both from conservative think tanks, neither of which could realistically be considered scholarly sources. But for sake of argument I'll play along.
1,100 instances of voter fraud spanning 47 states seems to be the number they're touting. So, instead of winning by 3,000,000, Clinton won by 2,998,900. Voter fraud is against the law, and I'm completely against people doing it. However, your own sources say that it occurs .037% of the time.

No... that is the number of cases prosecuted.

As with most things, for every case prosecuted, there are likely dozens, hundreds, even thousands of cases that aren't prosecuted.

There is a lot of evidence showing how illegal aliens can easily vote in Cali or NY or other sanctuary city/states, with no paper trail or other evidence that could result in a prosecution, much less a conviction. That is by design. The government of Cali wants illegal aliens to vote. But since the sources will not be ones you like, I won't bother posting any.

- Even if all of that is true, she still got more votes. Period. We can continue to beat that horse, it still won't change the fact that Clinton got more total votes than Trump. Nowhere is there a legitimate argument that voter fraud is rampant enough that if it were completely gotten rid of, then Trump would've won the popular vote as well.
I understand what you're saying, but it just isn't happening in large enough numbers to have affected the popular vote outcome. Clinton got more total votes than Trump. I didn't vote for her, I don't want her to be president, but facts are facts. Even if there were hundreds of thousands of cases of voter fraud, she still won by over 2 million. That's all I'm saying. To say otherwise is to ignore facts.

- You know what other states don't require photo ID to vote? Kentucky, Alaska, Iowa, Missouri, Montana, Oklahoma, Utah, West Virginia, Nebraska, New Mexico, Wyoming. To name a few.
It isn't just a Democrat issue. I fully agree that you should be required to prove who you are in order to vote in our elections, and I agree that it's currently an issue. However, it seems to be a conservative talking point that it's only a Democrat thing, but there are several very conservative states on the list of states that don't require photo IDs, and in NE, NM, and WY's case, they don't require ID at all. It's not just a Democrat thing.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: JimTSpock
And America is a type of democracy, called a representative democracy.

Benjamin Franklind called it a Republic. Many others of the time - people who had a hand in its creation - called it a Constitutional Republic. Yes, it engages certain democratic elements (elections), but in a democracy, two wolves and a sheep decide whats for dinner, and the only rule is who wins the vote. In a Constitutional Republic, there are many things that are not subject to the whim of the fickle majority - whats (or who's) for dinner being one of them.

I'll rely on what the framers called our nation and will ignore the fantasy that the wikipedia maintainers want us to believe.

If you look into it a bit more they were clearly referring to direct democracy. The system of government of many western countries including the USA is actually what's known as a representative democracy, which is not a direct democracy, but it is a type of democracy. This is very basic. And a country can also be a republic, as many are.

There are two main types of democracies: direct and representative.

The United States is a representative democracy.

www.ducksters.com...

www.merriam-webster.com...


Under US law the USA is a liberal democracy.

Liberal Democracy Law and Legal Definition

A liberal democracy is a form of representative democracy with free and fair form of elections procedure and competitive political process. The most interesting feature of liberal democracy is that all adult citizens is given the right to vote regardless of race, gender or property ownership. A liberal democracy may take various constitutional forms such as constitutional republic, or federal republic, or constitutional monarchy, or presidential system, or parliamentary system, or a hybrid semi-presidential system. For example, the countries such as United States, India, Germany or Brazil takes the form of a constitutional republic or sometimes the form of a federal republic. The countries such as United Kingdom, Japan, Canada or Spain take the form of a constitutional monarchy. A liberal democracy is also called as a bourgeois democracy or constitutional democracy.

definitions.uslegal.com...

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

"A dictatorship of the majority"

LOL.

Yes... it's called being a Democracy.

Which we most certainly are not... in fact the founding fathers stated many times that becoming a Democracy was what they feared the most.

History is fun!

They also didn’t want political parties because they thought it would lead to factionalism. I suppose they were right there.

a reply to: narrator

Changing the government is a different discussion than changing the EC.
Thanks for your response.

originally posted by: soundguy
I can see how this would scare right wingers to death, since they can’t win the popular vote at the national level. Personally I don’t like the winner take all system, it’s time has come and passed. That country no longer exists. a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Doesn't matter, power is concentrating, soon absolute power will be fully concentrated, and then the fit shall rule over the unfit, doesn't matter the number of unfit if the power of the atom is surpassed the power of the laws of men will be surpassed and the law will be in the hands of the fittest lifeform. A single vote can overturn a billion votes. Natural selection reigns above the law of men, and the laws of physics cannot be overturned, the divine will and the divine fate cannot be changed, the deterministic system and its self-fulfilling prophecies is a perfect work.

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: narrator
Provide any shred of evidence regarding the "huge voter fraud" that you mention, then I'll entertain that thought.

There is so much evidence it is ridiculous, but you obviously will not entertain it. That said, here is one, and another one, and a book documenting a lot more.

But I won't expect you to bother to even read these much less admit it.

No they don't, not in the strictest sense. Regardless of whether or not the gap was 3 million (it was, but for the sake of argument), Hillary got more votes than Trump. It doesn't make sense to me that she lost. It doesn't mean I wanted her to win (I definitely didn't), I just believe that the majority of voters wanted her to win, so it doesn't make sense that she lost.

Again, you need to engage in rational thought to be able to discern how a system that is capable of preventing the populations of 3 or 4 major cities in the country to rule over the entire country benefits the nation as a whole.

- I read both articles you linked, both from conservative think tanks, neither of which could realistically be considered scholarly sources. But for sake of argument I'll play along.
1,100 instances of voter fraud spanning 47 states seems to be the number they're touting. So, instead of winning by 3,000,000, Clinton won by 2,998,900. Voter fraud is against the law, and I'm completely against people doing it. However, your own sources say that it occurs .037% of the time. That small of a number isn't going to affect an election. I'm not saying it isn't wrong to do it, I'm just saying (in the literal sense) the amount that it's happening isn't going to affect the outcome.

- I am engaging in rational thought. Stop trying to backhandedly insult me, and just have a debate. I've already said multiple times that I fully understand and agree that if we used my idea in our current system it would be unfair to certain parts of the population. I've also said many times that I think our current system needs to be re-evaluated.

cali is known for basically being sanctuary city capital and a sanctuary state. They've also blocked independent auditing of their votes. Whether there is fraud or not is unknown, but there could indeed be vast fraud to the tune of millions.

Hillary got more votes, but it was basically all due to cali. Without cali she loses popular vote on national level by nearly 2 Million votes. Sure we may say cali is legit in its votes, but that doesn't deny most states and basically most people outside of cali wanted Trump. And as I said without multiple independent audits of their entire voting system I won't trust cali. What message did Hillary have to compel nearly 3M vote win in cali? People are defecating on the streets and needless are everywhere, everyone with half a brain is leaving that disease riddled dystopian state. Why would anyone want that for the rest of the country over the promise of restoring america to its once marvelous greatness?

originally posted by: JimTSpock
If you look into it a bit more they were clearly referring to direct democracy.

No, actually, they were referring to a system of what I call 'the tyranny of the 50.1%'.

The main difference in a Constitutional Republic, is that the legislative powers are well defined and limited.

In a dumbocracy, anything goes. 50.1% can force the other 49.9% to where red shirts on Sundays if that is how they vote.

In a Constitutional Republic, they cannot do this.

Interestingly, in areas where the Federal Government has 'Exclusive Legislative Jurisdiction' - Wash DC, Federal land/property inside the States where the State has ceded jurisdiction, military bases, etc - the Constitutional limitations don't exist - Congress could pass a law requiring everyone to wear red shirts on Sundays, and they could legally enforce it.

a reply to: tanstaafl

You guys think the left is involved in more voter fraud than the right, but the data simply doesn't show that to be the case. Trump himself started an investigation into that kind of voter fraud, and it found nothing. In this last election, there were several instances of corrupt voting practices done by Republicans, usual ones in power.

As for gerrymandering, here is an interesting analysis from Princeton that discusses it. Both sides do it, but according to this research, Republicans do it more.

Princeton: Gerrymanders, part 1: busting the both-sides-do-it myth

I should also note that I'm not for dismantling the electoral college. Sure, countering gerrymandering and tackling voter fraud are great ideas. They would solve the issue better than getting rid of the electoral college.

originally posted by: darkbake
Trump himself started an investigation into that kind of voter fraud, and it found nothing.

Obfuscate much?

You know (or should know) very well that the investigation launched was terminated because no one would cooperate and provide any data. Kind of impossible to 'find' anything when everything is intentionally hidden from you and you have no power to compel cooperation.

What I do know for fact is the one (or was it two) recounts that were initiated at the behest of the Green Party candidate (Jill something?) was showing a lot of voter fraud on the dems side, so it was terminated before it could sho just how bad it was.

Sorry, your 'data' sucks.