Kickaha Loc: Nebraska

I still say the Electoral College should be tweaked. For example, California has 55 electoral votes. They use a winner take all system which means a candidate can win Los Angeles and San Francisco and they would win the whole state. A better, fairer way to ensure the winner has widespread support of the country is to allocate the electoral votes by congressional district. The 2 electoral votes represented by the senators would go to the winner of the state. This is the system used by Nebraska and Maine.

Noraa Loc: Kansas

Changing the constitution is going down a very dark path, one the progressives would love and are actually trying for.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

Yes, if an amendment was passed and added to the US Constitution, the electoral college votes could be removed. But, as I stated in my previous post, I am not opposed to the electoral college system. I just could/would accept any change done properly through the process of a constitutional amendment. Yet, the numbers I posted offsets/negates arguments against the supposed advantage of California, New York & Chicago/Illinois.

C'est la vie, we shall continue to disagree.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

Fortunately, The Founding Fathers made adding an amendment to the Constitution somewhat difficult.

https://www.lexisnexis.com/constitution/amendments_howitsdone.asp

Amending the U.S. Constitution is a difficult and time-consuming process – in fact, it was designed to be that way. Since the states ratified the document in 1788, only 27 out of 11,000 proposed amendments have been adopted. A given amendment therefore has to attract a very wide base of support, impassioned belief, and political action as well as pass very specific political criteria.

Radiance3

=================
The democrats-socialist would love to change the Constitution because they will install Socialism. That means the power of the people returns to the government. Government is empowered and the freedom of the people in almost everything is removed. The dictates of the government will govern how our country is run.

Socialism is the dream of all the 20 democrats vying for the nominee.
Here are the dreams of the socialist-democrats.
Continue impeaching president Trump, demanded by AOC's stupid brain in Congress.
Fund the EPA $93 trillion to control climate change, demanded by the stupid AOC in Congress.
Fund the EPA $16.7 trillion to control climate change, demanded by Bernie Sanders.
Open all the borders and allow entries to millions of illegals, and Muslim terrorists all over the world.
Remove ICE.
Free healthcare to all including illegals.
Free college education to all including illegals.
Raise federal tax to 70%.
Tax the inheritance to 50% of the value of the assets.
Pay off all student loans of $1.6 trillion.
Don't eat meat.
Don't drive cars, ride bicycle or horses.
Close all natural gas fracking or exploration.

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

The Constitution doesn't need a lot of tinkering with.

Keeping it intact and original is not a bad thing.

Changing anything could end up bad.
My opinion.

ImLogicallyRight

If seems like every day or every other day we have the same complaints, often from the same FEW posters about how unjust and wrong the Electoral College is. And it is always the same with the same counter posters giving the same arguments for the Electoral College.

Frankly, I think we might be lucky to have it. Let me try two different arguments for it.

One. How many rural lightly populated states would want to join a union knowing that they would never carry any real weight in the election for President. They are already short changed in the House of Representatives with only 1 or 2 Representatives while New York, California, and Texas would dominate with huge numbers. America is a Republic, not a democracy, made up of 50 smaller democracies. It gives them a slightly larger voice with their minority status in their future. They have to be heard. They Presidential candidates have to pay attention, not just going to the 5 or 10 most populous states and ignoring the small lightly populated states. I know, that makes the libs happy seeing that they congregate in the more congested states. But our laws and rules are not just to make those libs happy.

Another point is the madness of a very tight race of say less then .5% or even .1%. Remember Florida and the hanging chads. Imagine doing a recount of all of America with that scrutiny. We'd still be unsure about the 2000 election. Imagine the costs to do that. Imagine the law suits. Imagine one State suing another over those precincts with more registered voters then residents, or all of those dead still in the voters roles.

Thanks, but no thanks. The Electoral College has served us well. But if you think you can get a Constitutional Amendment eliminating the Electoral College, Remember, you'd need most of those States you want to disenfranchise. Ain't going to happen.

ImLogicallyRight

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

Actually, this was written by Garrett Epps, a self-elevated expert on the Constitution and a vocal member of the "never Trump" and pro Marx movement seen on the University of Baltimore. Read the article at https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/electoral-college-terrible/597589/



In 2016 he wrote "“Political correctness” is out of favor, so I won’t pretend that “both sides” bear responsibility. The corrosive attack on constitutional values has come, and continues to come, from the right. It first broke into the open in 1998, when a repudiated House majority tried to remove President Bill Clinton for minor offenses." Taken from his Trumpism Is the Symptom of a Gravely Ill Constitution, The Atlantic, Sept. 20, 2016

What he is saying is very clear, Clinton was an important person: the elected President of the United States. And Paula Jones was a nobody, and probably just a tool of the President’s opponents. He was important, and she was “minor.” Some of these ordinary people—who used to be called “citizens” and “voters,” but are now called “basement dwellers,” “deplorables,” and “irredeemables”—know they have more in common with Jones, and if these people voted for Trump. This upset Epps. So, he writes an opinion pieces condemning both the Constitution and our founding fathers while praising Stanley Milgram’s ‘obedience to authority’ experiment. And with that mindset, he works hard to undo our Constitution using the young, inexperienced and impressionable minds at the University of Baltimore. He is not alone, liberal/progressive professors across the nation are planting the seeds that will destroy our nation.

In the Federalist paper #68, Alexander Hamilton is quoted "I venture somewhat further, and hesitate not to affirm, that if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent. It unites in an eminent degree all the advantages, the union of which was to be wished for."

He goes on to explain how popular votes can be bought and thereby delivering our nation into the hands of foreign king/queens. Quite an interesting read https://www.historycentral.com/elections/Federalist.html "But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. "

Alexander Hamilton, brilliant and as far removed from "car salesman" as can be imagined!

Radiance3

=================
I think the most equitable way of preserving the constitution is requiring only citizen taxpayers to vote during the election. Taxpayers are the people funding the government operations.

I would be happy to have it amended for that reason.

Kickaha Loc: Nebraska

We need to remember who was eligible to vote. Some conditions make sense others don't, but the founders had logical reasons for what they did. An eligible voter had to be 21 (since lowered to 18), which makes sense limiting the voting to adults. A voter had to be white, we've evolved and race no longer matters. A voter had to be male. At the time of the writing of the Constitution, women were considered property of their husbands. We've come to see women as individuals. A voter had to be free, which meant slaves could not vote nor could those in prison. We have learned that slavery is morally wrong and have outlawed it. Our founders knew if you were held in servitude, you may not be permitted to vote as you wanted. Prisoners still cannot vote. A voter must be a citizen to prevent influence from foreign powers. That still makes sense. A voter must be a property owner. We have done away with this requirements, but it did make sense. Property owners have a stake in the well being of the nation and will make decisions in the best interest of the country.

cbpat1

Because your one of the people that have the least amount of integrity on OPP. You and a handful of your pals tell one lie after the other, and if it’s not an outright lie, it is so misleading it might as well be a lie. You have zero credibility on this forum. It’s just one post with lies about the President after the other. I have no time for you or you kind.

karpenter Loc: Headin' Fer Da Hills !!

Then California Came In
Bottom Page Three
https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/sov/2016-general/ssov/pres-summary-by-county.pdf
Hillary Carried CA By Over 4.2 Million Votes
But The National Popular Vote By 3.2 Million

Until California, Trump Was Winning The Popular Vote And The Electoral College
And Would Have Continued To Take The Popular Vote And The Electoral College

So To Say NY, Illinois, And California
Are The Only States Needing To Vote With-Out The Electoral College
Is Entirely Valid, And Would Make The Other 47 States Irrelevant

Trump Won 30 States
Hillary Carried 20 States
Who Would Really Have Been Robbed
If Hillary Were President Today

EmilyD

So everyone can vote except prisoners? Is that what Obama was saying to all the illegal aliens? Since you are not prisoners, you can vote here. And vote often...

Kickaha Loc: Nebraska

I was just stating the legal requirements to vote. There are groups known for multiple votes, the dead voting, illegals voting and other forms of voter fraud.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

Again, "According to the 2016 election results, as one can see, the Dems certainly did not dominate the urban states and thus, their electoral votes. According to the numbers below, the GOP actually has a popular vote edge of about thirty million among the top ten states in population...."

Also again..."I am fine with the electoral college system, but if & when there is a constitutional amendment eliminating it in favor of the popular vote, I could/would accept such a decision."