The movement to end the electoral college and select the U.S. president by popular vote—reinvigorated after President Donald Trump won the 2016 election despite Hillary Clinton receiving more than 3 million more votes—is poised to claim another victory as a bill in Colorado is close to becoming law.
Good… 1 person equals 1 vote!
What if 200 million voters turn out in Wyoming, swamping the popular vote from the other 49 states? You know and I know that Wyoming doesn’t have that many residents, but you get the idea. I’m asking, how does the nation prevent vast ballot stuffing in a very few thoroughly corrupt states so that the election is thrown?
More to the point, why don’t our corrupt legislators move directly into an election system that has been proven to be inherently corruption-resistant.
Wait, I just figured out the answer to that question. And that’s why we’re getting rid of the electoral college.
Thank you Guild312s-----that was wonderful : )
“The purple finger knows.”
What can possibly be a logical argument in favor of the electoral college. There were 10.6 million more votes for the other candidates yet Trump is president. There were 3 million more votes for Clinton and 7. 6 million votes for Johnson Stein and other, yet we cling to a nineteenth century flawed system. Isn’t it time to stop digging this hole? We are a global joke every time we mouth “DEMOCRACY”.
“I’m asking, how does the nation prevent vast ballot stuffing in a very few thoroughly corrupt states so that the election is thrown?”
You’re conflating two separate issues. Ballot stuffing is part of the same problem as voter ID laws that tend to disenfranchize poor people and minorities.
If you’re against this bill, you’re against democracy. But I can see where Republicans would be agaisnt this bill as they would seldom win elections–if ever–if they had to run on their true proposals, which are nothing more than being in favor of corporate welfare. It’s past time that the masses in the Republican party woke the f*ck up and began voting for what’s in their own best interests.
I think you missed the sarcasm in Paul’s comment: