Dem Senators introduce a bill to eliminate the Electoral College

Webster's defines it as: something that furnishes proof

The evidence of no widespread voter fraud comes from the recounts, audits, and research done on multiple, recent elections. Dating back to 2000, all this evidence has shown the average number of fraudulent votes per election falls somewhere between 1 in 50,000 and 1 in 100,000 votes. To put this in perspective, there were about 154,000,000 votes for POTUS this past election. Total fraud votes, across the entire country, would be expected to fall between about 1,550 and 3,100 total.

Under the current system, you could double the number of expected fraud votes and still not have enough fraud to overturn a single state. Using popular vote, you would need about 900X the expected fraud votes to possibly change the election outcome; and this assumes 100% of the fraud votes would all be for the losing candidate, and not split between the winner and loser.

If you want to keep ignoring the evidence of no widespread fraud that has already been linked and posted, that's on you. For everyone else, plenty of links up thread showing that based on recounts, audits, and research showing fraud just isn't a problem with our elections.

 

See, since we won't check for fraud, there isn't fraud to be found. Brilliant. Can't fix stupid...

 

So recounts, audits, and academic research on past elections that include searching for fraud isn't checking for fraud because?????

 

lol. Just laugh at them. It's all you can do when you people are this ignorant.

 

I do laugh at your ignorance. I asked a simple question. Why does all the evidence of a minute amount of fraud uncovered by recounts, audits, and election research not count as evidence of no widespread fraud?

If you can't answer this question, which one of us should be laughing at the other's ignorance?

 

No amount of facts or common sense is going to matter here.

 

LOL. Thanks for the laughs. Coming from you means even more laughter. Still butthurt about losing the election I see...

 

Said it before the EC is an anachronism that should be eliminated. It never operated as intended and completely distorts the electoral process. That being said it will never be eliminated as long as smaller states believes that it provides them with disproportionate influence. By the way there is a scenario under which a candidate can lose the popular vote and win an EC majority by winning the larger states. It could happen if the margins in the larger states are very close while the margins in the smaller states are much larger.

 

Day 1, nuke the filibuster in the senate. It's time to teach the democratic socialist party a lesson they won't forget for generations.

Now, now, don't say it is anti-democracy. The democratic socialists were going to nuke the filibuster for packing the court and passing a federal abortion law had they won. Once nuked, always nuked.

Now the democratic socialists are wanting to do away with the electoral college further showing their anti-US Republic colors.

Get dinosaur Mitch McConnell out of the way and get the filibuster nuked republicans. No excuses to not fully implement Trump's agenda. The democrat socialists are guaranteed fight the will of the American people.

 

I am in board with getting rid of the filibuster and the EC. Your fellow right wingers are not in favor though

 

In this thread, not finding fraud equals not checking for fraud. It's weird.

 

I agree. The U.S. is not mature or intelligent enough to have an electoral college. The constitution, BTW, does not provide for an electoral college--it only refers to electors. I propose the electoral college be replaced by an electoral kindergarten until right-wing voters become more mature.

 

Jefferson, BTW, was a little too enamored with the killings of the French Revolution. And he spent half of his time in office painting Federalists as tyrants and monarchy-obsessed Anglophiles, even though there was no evidence of that.