2016 Postmortem

B2G

(9,766 posts) Thu Dec 1, 2016, 05:11 PM Dec 2016

If you abolish the EC, you might as well just [View all]

hold the vote in CA, TX and NY only.

And tell the other states to go pound sand.

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No, I don't believe the electoral college will be repealed.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