2016 Postmortem

Stuart G

(38,726 posts)

44. OH,,,,,REALLY? some are worried about small states??indeed.....

Thu Dec 1, 2016, 08:20 PM

Dec 2016

Get rid of the EC..let the total population determine the outcome......MY Goodness????

Small states....oohhhhhhh poor Wyoming...welllllllllll guess what...??

That state will still have 2 Senators, same as California..that was the deal...Senate has to pass the law too???

NOW....Hillary won by 2. 500,000..and counting..
FUCK the EC. ..

.count the votes, whoever has the most wins....EC was a mistake, kinda fake Parliament...get the picture??....

Small states still have 2 Senators..They will survive.......Now..change is unlikely..why? got to amend the Constitution, and that will take a lot of work..and that is very very unlikely...And...my opinion is the founding fathers of the U.S....whoever you want to name...would not believe this piece of trash that just got in.(orange hair..) .Include Lincoln if you wish. He had a pretty good brain, and could write and read a sentence......he would also agree........

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

64 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

If you abolish the EC, you might as well just [View all] B2G Dec 2016 OP

Well yeah. When most of their state is sand, that is what they would do. Tiggeroshii Dec 2016 #1

It won't happen. B2G Dec 2016 #2

How does it disenfranchise anything? We're all Americans. Dream Girl Dec 2016 #3

It would disenfranchise them from the 3-5 extra votes they are worth now. Tiggeroshii Dec 2016 #9

lol. n/t. okieinpain Dec 2016 #40

Maybe you haven't heard. Skinner Dec 2016 #4

And do you really think that's going to happen? B2G Dec 2016 #6

No, I don't believe the electoral college will be repealed. Skinner Dec 2016 #13

It's not about allowing states to dictate anything. drm604 Dec 2016 #14

Didn't the three states of Mich, WI and PA treestar Dec 2016 #19

Good point. boston bean Dec 2016 #23

Not really - it was more like 29 states... jmg257 Dec 2016 #27

It wouldn't happen. Ever hear of national television and national Internet? pnwmom Dec 2016 #57

Message auto-removed Name removed Dec 2016 #43

no... the EC was a racist compromise in the first place uponit7771 Dec 2016 #5

That doesn't pass the smell test. IIRC, Abolitionists were NOT a majority in the 1800s. Most were jack_krass Dec 2016 #50

That's where the People are! And, The presidency should be selected by the people!!! LostOne4Ever Dec 2016 #7

Here's what will happen. B2G Dec 2016 #11

That's what happens now. They focus on the swing states with the most electoral votes. drm604 Dec 2016 #15

Why would they focus on low population states? nt B2G Dec 2016 #16

They don't now. drm604 Dec 2016 #22

Who cares if they concentrate on low population states or not? CajunBlazer Dec 2016 #45

Message auto-removed Name removed Dec 2016 #26

No, they just focus on the swing states Retrograde Dec 2016 #28

Not on the large states, but on the big cities. hughee99 Dec 2016 #36

Your citation of cities is insightful Kolesar Dec 2016 #49

Meanwhile no candidate visited the 50 million people on the west coast a single time taught_me_patience Dec 2016 #37

+1 n/t. okieinpain Dec 2016 #41

The less populated states are overly represented in Congress. So - moonscape Dec 2016 #62

That's the most frustrating thing Jake Stern Dec 2016 #21

This is a bad thing? hrmjustin Dec 2016 #8

Not true...but people should vote. Demsrule86 Dec 2016 #10

What would be wrong with that? scscholar Dec 2016 #12

no that would be one person one vote treestar Dec 2016 #17

Works for me if bad choices are continually made by voters in the other states RonniePudding Dec 2016 #18

Another insightful, well-documented and well-supported analysis... LanternWaste Dec 2016 #20

Post removed Post removed Dec 2016 #25

Not really. Ken Burch Dec 2016 #24

Why wouldn't this encourage more people to vote? Republicans in Blue states, Democrats in Red states seaglass Dec 2016 #29

As Opposed To Now.... SoCalMusicLover Dec 2016 #30

San Francisco has more people than 5 states. RandySF Dec 2016 #31

In other words, you are in favor of some states having voters who count more- as it does now. themaguffin Dec 2016 #32

ok, sounds good, and i live in south dakota. nt TheFrenchRazor Dec 2016 #33

Hello??? Florida has about as many people as NY Stargleamer Dec 2016 #34

The context of your argument is flawed beyond saving. NCTraveler Dec 2016 #35

The Electoral College is representative... yallerdawg Dec 2016 #38

One person, one vote. That how democracies around the world do it lunamagica Dec 2016 #39

Yes, but we aren't a democracy philosslayer Dec 2016 #54

That can e fixed lunamagica Dec 2016 #59

A big reason why we see the problems we do is because we allow political minorities to run the show. baldguy Dec 2016 #42

The US Constitution help protect us from... yallerdawg Dec 2016 #52

Isn't it fortunate that we've been saved from the tyranny of Hillary voters? Crunchy Frog Dec 2016 #58

As Bush's mob has & Trump's mob will show. baldguy Dec 2016 #63

OH,,,,,REALLY? some are worried about small states??indeed..... Stuart G Dec 2016 #44

I can think of serval states that need to "pound sand" CajunBlazer Dec 2016 #46

If you only count votes in CA, NY and TX, then democrats would win without any trouble. LisaL Dec 2016 #47

If we abolished the EC, the parties would simply realign to reflect the fact Calista241 Dec 2016 #48

More like metro areas with rurals pounding sand BeyondGeography Dec 2016 #51

But the problem is, it's failing us. LisaM Dec 2016 #53

So instead matt819 Dec 2016 #55

Those small states still get 2 senators, same as the big states. POTUS should be determined by beaglelover Dec 2016 #56

Ridiculous! kebob Dec 2016 #60

Do they add up to 270? Nope! n/t TexasBushwhacker Dec 2016 #61

Not true. All states would be up for grabs. nt ecstatic Dec 2016 #64