Elections Former Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton: The Electoral College "Needs To Be Eliminated"

[7437]

You do realize, the guy you hate so much, was a life long Dem, right?

Notice he didnt win an election in Texas until he got an R next to his name right?

 

[Darth_Inv1ctu5]

What are your preferred qualifications for someone being allowed to vote?

Nothing formal, just the ability to pass a knowledge test that has been developed in a manner that covers elementary issues at stake during elections, such as who is running, what the issues are, individual candidates' platforms, basic understanding of economics, public policy, political systems and, specifically, the US democracy (well, cleptocracy). If you don't know this, I, as a fellow citizens, should not be exposed to your voting power i.e. you should have no power over my destiny that you can manifest through voting.

 

[Cirris]

The dumb bitch should have campaigned on the rules that were in place, instead of talking to her idiot fan base

yep.

The 3 union blue states she lost were the 3 states she didn't bother campaigning in for the last 6 months of the election. It's her own damn fault. Because she was TPP advocate (faking that she was not), and she'd be questioned about it in those states.

 

[Seano]

Why is that a bad thing? It's people, right? People each get one vote, as It should be, who gives a shit where they live?

Because the values of NY, Texas and California aren't representative of the people of say Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont etc etc etc.

 

[Darth_Inv1ctu5]

Jesus christ, why is this so hard to understand? We all get it, CALI and NY do not speak for the entire country. So unless you truly believe all the other states do not deserve to have an opinion than the entire argument is pointless.
If you ARE saying that no states deserve a say except CA and NY than you are a jackass and noone cares what your opinion is.
A pure popular vote doesnt work.
If you want to fix the system fix the gerrymandering and the election rules within your state.
If you are in a BLUE state and mad that you lost you need to realize you did your part. YOUR state agrees with you, problem is the rest DONT. Unless you get the rest of the STATES to agree you will always lose.
And NO, we are not going to agree to a system that lets Californias illegal voters win the election for them.

Wow... And you're not even the stupidest of them... That's scary as fuck...

 

[Darth_Inv1ctu5]

Because the values of NY, Texas and California aren't representative of the people of say Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont etc etc etc.

Who gives a shit about values? Is this a democracy? Does every vote count the same? It's a super simple logical paradox - you can't call a pure democracy a system in which each vote doesn't count the same, period.

 

[sub_thug]

The EC needs to be tweaked in order to get rid of "winner takes all" stuff in states, but it shouldn't be totally abolished. The reason it should be tweaked is to encourage voting in states, and I've said this before: If you are a Democrat in Texas, there's virtually no point in engaging in the political process. If you are a Republican in California, there's virtually no point in engaging in the political process. This should be discouraged, bringing people out to vote. Encourage them to be involved, as every vote matters in how much your candidate wins by. It forces everyone to have a little more skin in the game.

However, there needs to be some protections for smaller, less populated states. It's not a red/blue thing, it's about ensuring the representation of people who don't live in major population centers. The least populated states include VT, a historically blue state, and WY, a historically red state. Both of these places deserve to have their interests preserved, whereas if we went to a system totally based on the popular vote, most of the campaigning and focus would be on winning cities in CA, TX, NY, FL, IL, etc. The small states would be afterthoughts.

Where things really need to be shaken up is in the primary process, and if you care about democracy, this is probably what you should be most interested in. The first primary for both parties is IA. About a week later, they go to NH. The race for delegates is heavily underway at this point. Then, the Democrats go to NV while the Republicans go to SC. The parties switch places for the next round of voting, and by this point, a strong frontrunner has usually emerged. As long as that candidate holds steady through Super Tuesday, the rest is mostly academic. The point? IA, NH, NV, and SC have way too much power in deciding the fate of Presidential elections. I'd be much more comfortable with another approach.

 

[surrealworlds]

Who gives a shit about values? Is this a democracy? Does every vote count the same? It's a super simple logical paradox - you can't call a pure democracy a system in which each vote doesn't count the same, period.

You call me stupid? First, NO, this is NOT a democracy. Its a Representative Republic. Our country has never been a democracy. YOU are advocating for a pure democracy which is fine, thats your opinion but if you dont even know that we dont live in a democracy this conversation might take awhile.
Second, we are a nation of states as well as people. So explain how in a pure democracy each STATE will be equally represented? I know, you dont care about state rights and probably dont want or understand why each state should be represented.
Im going to explain before you bitch out Each state is inherently different in many ways, geographically,financially, demographic,etc. Its HARD for a state to take care of everyones needs within their borders. It would be impossible for all needs to be taken care of at the federal level. So the only way to keep things running right in each state is for every state to have a say and to represent there own needs .
Your bitching because you dont feel fairly represented on the individual level regardless of the state level representation. I would rather have my state represented and my individual voice heard at the local level, where i can go talk to my politicians in person if need be.(Edited:for piss poor formatting on my phone)

 

[PG29 red0 Jr]

Seems reasonable.

It's amazing how upset some people get about the idea of every person's vote counting equally.



I think it should be based on how much tax you pay.

Yea, it would make sense based off the amount of taxes you pay.

 

[Seano]

Who gives a shit about values? Is this a democracy? Does every vote count the same? It's a super simple logical paradox - you can't call a pure democracy a system in which each vote doesn't count the same, period.

They do count the same, people just don't realize it. People believe they are directly voting for the president when they are voting for the guy who actually votes for the president.

Its sort of funny because its the millions of conservatives in California and NY and the libs in Texas who don't get fair representation that way. Those states have too much power one way or the other.

Like I said earlier, I believe the fair solution is to allow states to separate their electoral votes. We do that in Maine and I believe one other state does it too. I don't believe the fair way is to tell people in rural working communities that their decisions will be made by people who have a totally different set of values. The popular vote would be totally meaningless in smaller states.

 

[surrealworlds]

The EC needs to be tweaked in order to get rid of "winner takes all" stuff in states, but it shouldn't be totally abolished. The reason it should be tweaked is to encourage voting in states, and I've said this before: If you are a Democrat in Texas, there's virtually no point in engaging in the political process. If you are a Republican in California, there's virtually no point in engaging in the political process. This should be discouraged, bringing people out to vote. Encourage them to be involved, as every vote matters in how much your candidate wins by. It forces everyone to have a little more skin in the game.

However, there needs to be some protections for smaller, less populated states. It's not a red/blue thing, it's about ensuring the representation of people who don't live in major population centers. The least populated states include VT, a historically blue state, and WY, a historically red state. Both of these places deserve to have their interests preserved, whereas if we went to a system totally based on the popular vote, most of the campaigning and focus would be on winning cities in CA, TX, NY, FL, IL, etc. The small states would be afterthoughts.

Where things really need to be shaken up is in the primary process, and if you care about democracy, this is probably what you should be most interested in. The first primary for both parties is IA. About a week later, they go to NH. The race for delegates is heavily underway at this point. Then, the Democrats go to NV while the Republicans go to SC. The parties switch places for the next round of voting, and by this point, a strong frontrunner has usually emerged. As long as that candidate holds steady through Super Tuesday, the rest is mostly academic. The point? IA, NH, NV, and SC have way too much power in deciding the fate of Presidential elections. I'd be much more comfortable with another approach.

 

[lilelvis]

Who gives a shit about values? Is this a democracy? Does every vote count the same? It's a super simple logical paradox - you can't call a pure democracy a system in which each vote doesn't count the same, period.

It's not a democracy, just for that reason. Democratic republic, again, just for that reason.

 

[franklinstower]

It does need to be eliminated. But Hillary is only saying that because she can't get over her loss to Trump....

 

[sub_thug]

It does need to be eliminated. But Hillary is only saying that because she can't get over her loss to Trump....

Why do you think this?

 

[sambobeer]

Jesus christ, why is this so hard to understand? We all get it, CALI and NY do not speak for the entire country. So unless you truly believe all the other states do not deserve to have an opinion than the entire argument is pointless.
If you ARE saying that no states deserve a say except CA and NY than you are a jackass and noone cares what your opinion is.
A pure popular vote doesnt work.
If you want to fix the system fix the gerrymandering and the election rules within your state.
If you are in a BLUE state and mad that you lost you need to realize you did your part. YOUR state agrees with you, problem is the rest DONT. Unless you get the rest of the STATES to agree you will always lose.
And NO, we are not going to agree to a system that lets Californias illegal voters win the election for them.

we aren't asking you to agree with it. We are telling you that it is what will happen. Cali and NY have all the money and power. You drastically overestimate the power your broke, insolvent, and backwards state has. We are telling you how its going to be, and if you don't like it, feel free to leave. Trust me, you need us a lot more than we need you.

 

[surrealworlds]

we aren't asking you to agree with it. We are telling you that it is what will happen. Cali and NY have all the money and power. You drastically overestimate the power your broke, insolvent, and backwards state has. We are telling you how its going to be, and if you don't like it, feel free to leave. Trust me, you need us a lot more than we need you.

Let me know when you wake up from your fantasy land. Your punk ass states couldnt even beat Trump's halfwit ass. You dont run shit.

 

[sambobeer]

LOL, could you imagine ^ this guys state seceding. the only reason you aren't a third world is all the CALI and NY federal money you are given.

 

[surrealworlds]

You are special arent you? The United States works as a whole. Not seperate. If you think Cali or New York could secede you dont really understand how this works. Want to be your own country? Sweet, we will withdraw our military. Want to protect your coast?(you have alot of it) build your own Navy. Get the idea? The United States of America funds all of that for you and if you think you have enough money to do it yourself, go for it. We will laugh our asses off when Russia anal rapes you. Or when you come crawling back for military protection.
Did you think we pay for EVERYTHING with tax revenue? LMAO(edit:typo)

 

[franklinstower]

Why do you think this?

Why do you ask? Mainly though because she is an opportunist. I realize she has mentioned the electoral college before but it was in the context of a democrat losing the election to a republican. I dont see Hillary as being for anything much at all for the right reasons. She is no better than the average republican in this regard.

 

[sub_thug]

Why do you ask? Mainly though because she is an opportunist. I realize she has mentioned the electoral college before but it was in the context of a democrat losing the election to a republican. I dont see Hillary as being for anything much at all for the right reasons. She is no better than the average republican in this regard.

While I agree on the points you're making about her character, I meant why you thought that the EC should be abolished? I think it needs to be tweaked from its current state, but the principle of having representation from the states instead of just the major population centers seems pretty reasonable.