Democrats want to end electoral college so they can one day elect the next Hitler?

2aguy

Diamond Member
Jul 19, 2014
111,977
52,255
2,290
This article makes the point that the states who are joining a compact to give their electors for President to the one candidate who wins the popular vote.......would have given their votes to hitler if they had been in Germany in 1932......

Other points are made, but this point is important......socialists hate anything that gets in the way of their power....and in their pursuit of power, monstrous things have happened...

Checks and balances to hamper the acquisition of power is one thing that has kept the U.S. from becoming a monster....the democrats, as usual, want to embrace the worst practices.....to make heaven on earth...

https://www.americanthinker.com/art...scheme_is_unconstitutional_and_dangerous.html

As the number of candidates for election increases, the likelihood of having an extreme candidate receive the most popular votes goes up dramatically.

Germany held a federal election in November of 1932, and the results were as follows: National Socialist German Workers Party (33.1%), Social Democratic Party of Germany (20.4%), Communist Party (16.9%), Centre Party (11.9%), and the German National People's Party (8.3%).

If a fifth major candidate had run for president in the United States in 1824 or 1860, the percentages could have appeared similar. If the reader hasn't figured it out yet, the leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party was Adolf Hitler.

Even though fewer than one third of all German voters selected the National Socialist German Workers Party, the NPVIC approach would have automatically made Adolf Hitler president with no safety mechanism.

The Electoral College is only part of the genius of the system our founders created to select a president. There is a second step involved if no candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes. This has happened twice (1800 and 1824), but the 1824 case is the more illustrative. When no candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes, the election goes to the United States House of Representatives. Each state gets a single vote to choose among the top three recipients of electoral votes, as specified by the 12th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In 1824, Andrew Jackson had the most popular votes, and the most electoral votes, but they were not a majority.
 
freakin jackass UN-American hypocrites/etc --as usual
.....the critical proof is that they CRIED/whined/went berserk when Trump was fairly/legally/ elected--if their candidate was elected , they would not want to change anything
 
The Left (Democrats) want to install ONE PARTY Democrat rule, and that's why they push to abolish the EC, and their push for Amnesty which is a euphemism for Open Borders.

If they can effectively and illegally abolish the EC, that means L.A., and/or NYC can control who becomes President forever, and we know how those brainwashed idiots vote. In addition, if they import enough ILLEGALS to critical, typically Republican leaning states like Florida and Texas they can control Congress, FOREVER.

That is what they want. One Party Totalitarian rule which is just Fascism by another name. Kiss your Natural Rights GOOD BYE!
 
This article makes the point that the states who are joining a compact to give their electors for President to the one candidate who wins the popular vote.......would have given their votes to hitler if they had been in Germany in 1932......

Other points are made, but this point is important......socialists hate anything that gets in the way of their power....and in their pursuit of power, monstrous things have happened...

Checks and balances to hamper the acquisition of power is one thing that has kept the U.S. from becoming a monster....the democrats, as usual, want to embrace the worst practices.....to make heaven on earth...

https://www.americanthinker.com/art...scheme_is_unconstitutional_and_dangerous.html

As the number of candidates for election increases, the likelihood of having an extreme candidate receive the most popular votes goes up dramatically.

Germany held a federal election in November of 1932, and the results were as follows: National Socialist German Workers Party (33.1%), Social Democratic Party of Germany (20.4%), Communist Party (16.9%), Centre Party (11.9%), and the German National People's Party (8.3%).

If a fifth major candidate had run for president in the United States in 1824 or 1860, the percentages could have appeared similar. If the reader hasn't figured it out yet, the leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party was Adolf Hitler.

Even though fewer than one third of all German voters selected the National Socialist German Workers Party, the NPVIC approach would have automatically made Adolf Hitler president with no safety mechanism.

The Electoral College is only part of the genius of the system our founders created to select a president. There is a second step involved if no candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes. This has happened twice (1800 and 1824), but the 1824 case is the more illustrative. When no candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes, the election goes to the United States House of Representatives. Each state gets a single vote to choose among the top three recipients of electoral votes, as specified by the 12th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In 1824, Andrew Jackson had the most popular votes, and the most electoral votes, but they were not a majority.
How can you take this article seriously?? Especially after this last election. The popular vote was for Clinton, the moderate establishment candidate. Trump was the extreme “bull in the china shop” candidate and he won through the electoral college. This flys in the face of your point. Do yourself a favor and delete this thread
 
This article makes the point that the states who are joining a compact to give their electors for President to the one candidate who wins the popular vote.......would have given their votes to hitler if they had been in Germany in 1932......

Other points are made, but this point is important......socialists hate anything that gets in the way of their power....and in their pursuit of power, monstrous things have happened...

Checks and balances to hamper the acquisition of power is one thing that has kept the U.S. from becoming a monster....the democrats, as usual, want to embrace the worst practices.....to make heaven on earth...

https://www.americanthinker.com/art...scheme_is_unconstitutional_and_dangerous.html

As the number of candidates for election increases, the likelihood of having an extreme candidate receive the most popular votes goes up dramatically.

Germany held a federal election in November of 1932, and the results were as follows: National Socialist German Workers Party (33.1%), Social Democratic Party of Germany (20.4%), Communist Party (16.9%), Centre Party (11.9%), and the German National People's Party (8.3%).

If a fifth major candidate had run for president in the United States in 1824 or 1860, the percentages could have appeared similar. If the reader hasn't figured it out yet, the leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party was Adolf Hitler.

Even though fewer than one third of all German voters selected the National Socialist German Workers Party, the NPVIC approach would have automatically made Adolf Hitler president with no safety mechanism.

The Electoral College is only part of the genius of the system our founders created to select a president. There is a second step involved if no candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes. This has happened twice (1800 and 1824), but the 1824 case is the more illustrative. When no candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes, the election goes to the United States House of Representatives. Each state gets a single vote to choose among the top three recipients of electoral votes, as specified by the 12th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In 1824, Andrew Jackson had the most popular votes, and the most electoral votes, but they were not a majority.
How can you take this article seriously?? Especially after this last election. The popular vote was for Clinton, the moderate establishment candidate. Trump was the extreme “bull in the china shop” candidate and he won through the electoral college. This flys in the face of your point. Do yourself a favor and delete this thread
??????? hahahahahahhahaha
 
This article makes the point that the states who are joining a compact to give their electors for President to the one candidate who wins the popular vote.......would have given their votes to hitler if they had been in Germany in 1932......

Other points are made, but this point is important......socialists hate anything that gets in the way of their power....and in their pursuit of power, monstrous things have happened...

Checks and balances to hamper the acquisition of power is one thing that has kept the U.S. from becoming a monster....the democrats, as usual, want to embrace the worst practices.....to make heaven on earth...

https://www.americanthinker.com/art...scheme_is_unconstitutional_and_dangerous.html

As the number of candidates for election increases, the likelihood of having an extreme candidate receive the most popular votes goes up dramatically.

Germany held a federal election in November of 1932, and the results were as follows: National Socialist German Workers Party (33.1%), Social Democratic Party of Germany (20.4%), Communist Party (16.9%), Centre Party (11.9%), and the German National People's Party (8.3%).

If a fifth major candidate had run for president in the United States in 1824 or 1860, the percentages could have appeared similar. If the reader hasn't figured it out yet, the leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party was Adolf Hitler.

Even though fewer than one third of all German voters selected the National Socialist German Workers Party, the NPVIC approach would have automatically made Adolf Hitler president with no safety mechanism.

The Electoral College is only part of the genius of the system our founders created to select a president. There is a second step involved if no candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes. This has happened twice (1800 and 1824), but the 1824 case is the more illustrative. When no candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes, the election goes to the United States House of Representatives. Each state gets a single vote to choose among the top three recipients of electoral votes, as specified by the 12th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In 1824, Andrew Jackson had the most popular votes, and the most electoral votes, but they were not a majority.
How can you take this article seriously?? Especially after this last election. The popular vote was for Clinton, the moderate establishment candidate. Trump was the extreme “bull in the china shop” candidate and he won through the electoral college. This flys in the face of your point. Do yourself a favor and delete this thread
??????? hahahahahahhahaha
You confused about something?
 
This article makes the point that the states who are joining a compact to give their electors for President to the one candidate who wins the popular vote.......would have given their votes to hitler if they had been in Germany in 1932......

Other points are made, but this point is important......socialists hate anything that gets in the way of their power....and in their pursuit of power, monstrous things have happened...

Checks and balances to hamper the acquisition of power is one thing that has kept the U.S. from becoming a monster....the democrats, as usual, want to embrace the worst practices.....to make heaven on earth...

https://www.americanthinker.com/art...scheme_is_unconstitutional_and_dangerous.html

As the number of candidates for election increases, the likelihood of having an extreme candidate receive the most popular votes goes up dramatically.

Germany held a federal election in November of 1932, and the results were as follows: National Socialist German Workers Party (33.1%), Social Democratic Party of Germany (20.4%), Communist Party (16.9%), Centre Party (11.9%), and the German National People's Party (8.3%).

If a fifth major candidate had run for president in the United States in 1824 or 1860, the percentages could have appeared similar. If the reader hasn't figured it out yet, the leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party was Adolf Hitler.

Even though fewer than one third of all German voters selected the National Socialist German Workers Party, the NPVIC approach would have automatically made Adolf Hitler president with no safety mechanism.

The Electoral College is only part of the genius of the system our founders created to select a president. There is a second step involved if no candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes. This has happened twice (1800 and 1824), but the 1824 case is the more illustrative. When no candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes, the election goes to the United States House of Representatives. Each state gets a single vote to choose among the top three recipients of electoral votes, as specified by the 12th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In 1824, Andrew Jackson had the most popular votes, and the most electoral votes, but they were not a majority.
How can you take this article seriously?? Especially after this last election. The popular vote was for Clinton, the moderate establishment candidate. Trump was the extreme “bull in the china shop” candidate and he won through the electoral college. This flys in the face of your point. Do yourself a favor and delete this thread
??????? hahahahahahhahaha
You confused about something?
Its best to ignore truly crazy - you are not going to get through.
 
This article makes the point that the states who are joining a compact to give their electors for President to the one candidate who wins the popular vote.......would have given their votes to hitler if they had been in Germany in 1932......

Other points are made, but this point is important......socialists hate anything that gets in the way of their power....and in their pursuit of power, monstrous things have happened...

Checks and balances to hamper the acquisition of power is one thing that has kept the U.S. from becoming a monster....the democrats, as usual, want to embrace the worst practices.....to make heaven on earth...

https://www.americanthinker.com/art...scheme_is_unconstitutional_and_dangerous.html

As the number of candidates for election increases, the likelihood of having an extreme candidate receive the most popular votes goes up dramatically.

Germany held a federal election in November of 1932, and the results were as follows: National Socialist German Workers Party (33.1%), Social Democratic Party of Germany (20.4%), Communist Party (16.9%), Centre Party (11.9%), and the German National People's Party (8.3%).

If a fifth major candidate had run for president in the United States in 1824 or 1860, the percentages could have appeared similar. If the reader hasn't figured it out yet, the leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party was Adolf Hitler.

Even though fewer than one third of all German voters selected the National Socialist German Workers Party, the NPVIC approach would have automatically made Adolf Hitler president with no safety mechanism.

The Electoral College is only part of the genius of the system our founders created to select a president. There is a second step involved if no candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes. This has happened twice (1800 and 1824), but the 1824 case is the more illustrative. When no candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes, the election goes to the United States House of Representatives. Each state gets a single vote to choose among the top three recipients of electoral votes, as specified by the 12th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In 1824, Andrew Jackson had the most popular votes, and the most electoral votes, but they were not a majority.


Our founding fathers were wise beyond the average Tards comprehension.
 
This article makes the point that the states who are joining a compact to give their electors for President to the one candidate who wins the popular vote.......would have given their votes to hitler if they had been in Germany in 1932......

Other points are made, but this point is important......socialists hate anything that gets in the way of their power....and in their pursuit of power, monstrous things have happened...

Checks and balances to hamper the acquisition of power is one thing that has kept the U.S. from becoming a monster....the democrats, as usual, want to embrace the worst practices.....to make heaven on earth...

https://www.americanthinker.com/art...scheme_is_unconstitutional_and_dangerous.html

As the number of candidates for election increases, the likelihood of having an extreme candidate receive the most popular votes goes up dramatically.

Germany held a federal election in November of 1932, and the results were as follows: National Socialist German Workers Party (33.1%), Social Democratic Party of Germany (20.4%), Communist Party (16.9%), Centre Party (11.9%), and the German National People's Party (8.3%).

If a fifth major candidate had run for president in the United States in 1824 or 1860, the percentages could have appeared similar. If the reader hasn't figured it out yet, the leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party was Adolf Hitler.

Even though fewer than one third of all German voters selected the National Socialist German Workers Party, the NPVIC approach would have automatically made Adolf Hitler president with no safety mechanism.

The Electoral College is only part of the genius of the system our founders created to select a president. There is a second step involved if no candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes. This has happened twice (1800 and 1824), but the 1824 case is the more illustrative. When no candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes, the election goes to the United States House of Representatives. Each state gets a single vote to choose among the top three recipients of electoral votes, as specified by the 12th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In 1824, Andrew Jackson had the most popular votes, and the most electoral votes, but they were not a majority.
How can you take this article seriously?? Especially after this last election. The popular vote was for Clinton, the moderate establishment candidate. Trump was the extreme “bull in the china shop” candidate and he won through the electoral college. This flys in the face of your point. Do yourself a favor and delete this thread
??????? hahahahahahhahaha
You confused about something?
your post makes no sense = crap
 

Forum List

Back
Top