Should the Electoral College be abolished?

wiscoaster

wiscoaster

Well-known member
As a conservative, I think there are still valid reasons today for retaining the electoral system of determining presidential elections. Yet, again as a conservative, I'm not really happy with the current all electoral votes to one candidate setup.

It seems to me that a fairly simple and equitable reform would be to give the two electoral votes corresponding to the states' senators to the candidate that gets a plurality of votes, and then to divide the electoral votes corresponding to the state's representatives in proportion to the division of the candidates' vote counts. This setup retains the original intents of the Senators representing the states' interests and the Representatives representing the peoples' interests, and it retains the intended safeguards that the Electoral College is needed for.

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
CrustyCoot

CrustyCoot

Active member
wiscoaster said:
As a conservative, I think there are still valid reasons today for retaining the electoral system of determining presidential elections. Yet, again as a conservative, I'm not really happy with the current all electoral votes to one candidate setup.

It seems to me that a fairly simple and equitable reform would be to give the two electoral votes corresponding to the states' senators to the candidate that gets a plurality of votes, and then to divide the electoral votes corresponding to the state's representatives in proportion to the division of the candidates' vote counts. This setup retains the original intents of the Senators representing the states' interests and the Representatives representing the peoples' interests, and it retains the intended safeguards that the Electoral College is needed for.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Once again, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Hard for me to believe you are truly a conservative.
 
wiscoaster

wiscoaster

Well-known member
CrustyCoot said:
Once again, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. ...
Click to expand...

In the sense that the Electoral College didn't stop the steeel, then maybe it's broken.

They're going to try to abolish it. I suggest having an alternate plan is a wise move.

(mispelling intentional)
 
W

WrongHanded

Well-known member
wiscoaster said:
As a conservative, I think there are still valid reasons today for retaining the electoral system of determining presidential elections. Yet, again as a conservative, I'm not really happy with the current all electoral votes to one candidate setup.

It seems to me that a fairly simple and equitable reform would be to give the two electoral votes corresponding to the states' senators to the candidate that gets a plurality of votes, and then to divide the electoral votes corresponding to the state's representatives in proportion to the division of the candidates' vote counts. This setup retains the original intents of the Senators representing the states' interests and the Representatives representing the peoples' interests, and it retains the intended safeguards that the Electoral College is needed for.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Not too many years ago I swung over to the concept of abolishing the EC. However, this election has made me rethink that. The States do need to retain full control over their own process. If the Federal Government gets any more involved in trying to dictate how each State should or should not conduct its election process (or which votes should and shouldn't be counted), there's room for some serious abuse of power. Funny how it took this election for me to see that.

But, your proposal is acceptable to me. I've never been a fan of the winner-take-all system, which is implement by most States. Of course this is pushed by whichever party regularly gets the majority, because if you're going to win you might as well win it all, right?
 
W

WrongHanded

Well-known member
CrustyCoot said:
The Electoral College had no way to stop the steal. That was up to State legislators, and the courts to address, as well as congress. They all failed.
Click to expand...
Evidence? Other than the sworn affidavits of hearsay? Of course not. I think it's time to consider that perhaps - given the lack of evidence - your narrative is simply a lie.
 
CrustyCoot

CrustyCoot

Active member
So now I am a liar? Biting my tongue right now. You obviously are quite happy with the results of the election and refuse to believe or are perfectly fine with the voting irregularities and feel no need for those to be looked into.
 
W

WrongHanded

Well-known member
CrustyCoot said:
So now I am a liar? Biting my tongue right now. You obviously are quite happy with the results of the election and refuse to believe or are perfectly fine with the voting irregularities and feel no need for those to be looked into.
Click to expand...
I didn't say you were a liar. But I think the narrative your pushing is. Did you come up with it yourself? Of course not! Trump did, and sold it to you.

When I heard about the accusations of voter fraud, I wanted the truth. But I trust the courts to do their job more than I trust baseless accusations. Where's the evidence? The sworn affidavits have not proven compelling to the courts, and I've yet to see them myself. I need some PROOF! Without that, it's just a conspiracy theory.

So what's more likely: That Trump is lying as his administration continues to just ship, whilst his law team fail repeatedly in court, because Biden actually did get more votes and really did win; or that's there's a massive multi-state conspiracy including Republicans and dozens of courts and judges?

Come on, man! Have you never heard of occam's razor?
 
CrustyCoot

CrustyCoot

Active member
Yes, I have. The huge dump of votes in the middle of the night, courts changing voting rule and not state legislatures as prescribed in the Constitution? Kind of hard to show proof if you aren't allowed to. Biden took fewer counties than any other candidate in Presidential history, and he got 80 million votes? The senile bastard is lucky to remember his own name from one day to the next. If you are so certain that he won fairly, why not investigate the concerns of 70+ million voters? January 20, 2021 will be an installation and not an inauguration.
 
W

WrongHanded

Well-known member
CrustyCoot said:
Yes, I have. The huge dump of votes in the middle of the night, courts changing voting rule and not state legislatures as prescribed in the Constitution? Kind of hard to show proof if you aren't allowed to. Biden took fewer counties than any other candidate in Presidential history, and he got 80 million votes? The senile bastard is lucky to remember his own name from one day to the next. If you are so certain that he won fairly, why not investigate the concerns of 70+ million voters? January 20, 2021 will be an installation and not an inauguration.
Click to expand...
A huge dump of votes at any time is to be expected if they are mail-in votes. It doesn't make sense to transport each vote from the post office individually. It's also to be expected if the counting is being done at a different location than where the votes were cast. Votes from the military personnel would also have been batched and could have arrived at any time.

It doesn't matter how many counties Biden won. Votes are per person, not per acre.

Why would I investigate an alleged crime when I don't believe there was a crime committed? Shall I go out wandering the woods til I find the absence of Bigfoot too? Or dive Loc Ness til I find the absence of a monster? If you want me to believe what you're claiming, you prove it to me. If Trump wants the American people to believe it, he needs to prove it to all of us.

You have no proof. You have not been provided any proof. You have no reason to believe the election was stolen other than the words of Trump and his acolytes, and the repetition of the same baseless claims from others such as yourself.

The emperor has no clothes.
 
H

Howland937

Active member
There's ample proof of irregularities in this past election if you look at it in the context of what's "regular". I've never before heard about millionaires and billionaires paying fines and court costs for convicted felons in order to restore their voting rights...but it did happen. Bloomberg and Lebron both did, and several thousand felons in the state of Florida benefitted. Highly irregular if you ask me, but irregular doesn't necessarily mean illegal. Hell, unethical bothers me more than irregular but it ain't illegal to be unethical either.
 
theotherwaldo

theotherwaldo

Well-known member
Howland937 said:
There's ample proof of irregularities in this past election if you look at it in the context of what's "regular". I've never before heard about millionaires and billionaires paying fines and court costs for convicted felons in order to restore their voting rights...but it did happen. Bloomberg and Lebron both did, and several thousand felons in the state of Florida benefitted. Highly irregular if you ask me, but irregular doesn't necessarily mean illegal. Hell, unethical bothers me more than irregular but it ain't illegal to be unethical either.
Click to expand...
-Sounds like a novel way to buy votes... .
 
CrustyCoot

CrustyCoot

Active member
140167.jpeg
 
wiscoaster

wiscoaster

Well-known member
WrongHanded said:
I need some PROOF! Without that, it's just a conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...

Obviously you didn't watch ANY of the state legislature hearings.

The proof provided in any of these hearings would have been accepted in any court and would have been convincing to any reasonable person (such as me - I found it convincing, and I'm a born skeptic) serving on a jury to reach a verdict of guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" --- of which the legal definition is:
The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty....Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof that must be met in any trial
Click to expand...
(from https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top