Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
remember wanting to change the rules after The Hag lost?
what are you talking about moron? there is a process to amending the constitution.
which, of course, doesn't mean that some loser in North Dakota should have a vote worth 700 of mine.
I am talking about how only after The Hag & Co. lost did the electoral college suddenly become a problem that needed fixed.
remember wanting to change the rules after The Hag lost?
what are you talking about moron? there is a process to amending the constitution.
which, of course, doesn't mean that some loser in North Dakota should have a vote worth 700 of mine.
I am talking about how only after The Hag & Co. lost did the electoral college suddenly become a problem that needed fixed.
The Electoral College has ALWAYS been a problem that "needed fixed". And again for the slow readers --- it comes up every four years specifically because that's when it's in play. What exactly does the EC do between elections?
And it came up here, way before the election as well.
remember wanting to change the rules after The Hag lost?
what are you talking about moron? there is a process to amending the constitution.
which, of course, doesn't mean that some loser in North Dakota should have a vote worth 700 of mine.
I am talking about how only after The Hag & Co. lost did the electoral college suddenly become a problem that needed fixed.
The Electoral College has ALWAYS been a problem that "needed fixed". And again for the slow readers --- it comes up every four years specifically because that's when it's in play. What exactly does the EC do between elections?
And it came up here, way before the election as well.
The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists
Some claim that the founding fathers chose the Electoral College over direct election in order to balance the interests of high-population and low-population states. But the deepest political divisions in America have always run not between big and small states, but between the north and the south, and between the coasts and the interior.
One Founding-era argument for the Electoral College stemmed from the fact that ordinary Americans across a vast continent would lack sufficient information to choose directly and intelligently among leading presidential candidates.[...]
Standard civics-class accounts of the Electoral College rarely mention the real demon dooming direct national election in 1787 and 1803: slavery.
At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct national election of the president. But the savvy Virginian James Madison responded that such a system would prove unacceptable to the South: “The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.” In other words, in a direct election system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves (more than half a million in all) of course could not vote. But the Electoral College—a prototype of which Madison proposed in this same speech—instead let each southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall count.[...]
In light of this more complete (if less flattering) account of the electoral college in the late 18th and early 19th century, Americans should ask themselves whether we want to maintain this odd—dare I say peculiar?—institution in the 21st century.
remember wanting to change the rules after The Hag lost?
what are you talking about moron? there is a process to amending the constitution.
which, of course, doesn't mean that some loser in North Dakota should have a vote worth 700 of mine.
I am talking about how only after The Hag & Co. lost did the electoral college suddenly become a problem that needed fixed.
The Electoral College has ALWAYS been a problem that "needed fixed". And again for the slow readers --- it comes up every four years specifically because that's when it's in play. What exactly does the EC do between elections?
And it came up here, way before the election as well.
remember wanting to change the rules after The Hag lost?
what are you talking about moron? there is a process to amending the constitution.
which, of course, doesn't mean that some loser in North Dakota should have a vote worth 700 of mine.
I am talking about how only after The Hag & Co. lost did the electoral college suddenly become a problem that needed fixed.
The Electoral College has ALWAYS been a problem that "needed fixed". And again for the slow readers --- it comes up every four years specifically because that's when it's in play. What exactly does the EC do between elections?
And it came up here, way before the election as well.
Feel sorry for yourself all you like but I refuted your timeline.
So did the Rump tweets posted backthread.
Before the November results proved they didn't have to worry about the popular vote, the Demwits could foresee a situation where Trump could have gotten overwhelming support in the states he won, but barely lose in the states he lost.I am talking about how only after The Hag & Co. lost did the electoral college suddenly become a problem that needed fixed.remember wanting to change the rules after The Hag lost?
Oh how quickly they forget...
While it’s almost forgotten now, the George W. Bush campaign was planning to challenge the results of the 2000 vote if he lost the electoral vote, but won the popular vote. His campaign hoped to spark a national movement to pressure members of the Electoral College in states where the popular vote went for Al Gore to ignore that and instead vote in line with the national popular vote — thus making Bush president.[...]
Gore was even preemptively criticized for winning under these circumstances. It “would be an outrage” said Rep. Ray LaHood, R.-Ill. NBC’s Chris Matthews said that “knowing him as we do, [Gore] may have no problem taking the presidential oath after losing the popular vote to George W. Bush.” (Matthews lost interest in this issue when the opposite occurred. He later said that he himself had voted for Bush in 2000.)
On November 1, Michael Kramer, formerly Time’s political columnist, wrote about the Bush campaign’s plans in the New York Daily News, where he was managing editor:
So what if Gore wins such crucial battleground states as Florida, Michigan and Pennsylvania and thus captures the magic 270 electoral votes while Bush wins the overall nationwide popular vote?
“The one thing we don’t do is roll over,” says a Bush aide. “We fight.”
How? The core of the emerging Bush strategy assumes a popular uprising, stoked by the Bushies themselves, of course.
In league with the campaign – which is preparing talking points about the Electoral College’s essential unfairness – a massive talk-radio operation would be encouraged. “We’d have ads, too,” says a Bush aide, “and I think you can count on the media to fuel the thing big-time. Even papers that supported Gore might turn against him because the will of the people will have been thwarted.”
Local business leaders will be urged to lobby their customers, the clergy will be asked to speak up for the popular will and Team Bush will enlist as many Democrats as possible to scream as loud as they can. “You think ‘Democrats for Democracy’ would be a catchy term for them?” asks a Bush adviser.
The universe of people who would be targeted by this insurrection is small – the 538 currently anonymous folks called electors, people chosen by the campaigns and their state party organizations as a reward for their service over the years.
On November 3, the Boston Herald reported that if Bush won the popular vote, his campaign “would likely challenge the legitimacy of a Gore win, casting it as an affront to the people’s will and branding the Electoral College as an antiquated relic.”
It Isn’t Just Donald Trump. The Bush Campaign Plotted to Reject Election Results in 2000
Before the November results proved they didn't have to worry about the popular vote, the Demwits could foresee a situation where Trump could have gotten overwhelming support in the states he won, but barely lose in the states he lost.I am talking about how only after The Hag & Co. lost did the electoral college suddenly become a problem that needed fixed.remember wanting to change the rules after The Hag lost?
The Electoral College has ALWAYS been a problem that "needed fixed". And again for the slow readers --- it comes up every four years specifically because that's when it's in play. What exactly does the EC do between elections?
The Electoral College has ALWAYS been a problem that "needed fixed". And again for the slow readers --- it comes up every four years specifically because that's when it's in play. What exactly does the EC do between elections?
What is the Electoral College supposed to do between presidential elections? Nothing. So what? We have a presidential election once every four years. Funny how that works out.
Our Sacred Cow, the Constitution, which we are brainwashed into believing in by the mind control of the Establishment, sets up a united political class subservient to them against the will of the majority.Oh how quickly they forget...
While it’s almost forgotten now, the George W. Bush campaign was planning to challenge the results of the 2000 vote if he lost the electoral vote, but won the popular vote. His campaign hoped to spark a national movement to pressure members of the Electoral College in states where the popular vote went for Al Gore to ignore that and instead vote in line with the national popular vote — thus making Bush president.[...]
Gore was even preemptively criticized for winning under these circumstances. It “would be an outrage” said Rep. Ray LaHood, R.-Ill. NBC’s Chris Matthews said that “knowing him as we do, [Gore] may have no problem taking the presidential oath after losing the popular vote to George W. Bush.” (Matthews lost interest in this issue when the opposite occurred. He later said that he himself had voted for Bush in 2000.)
On November 1, Michael Kramer, formerly Time’s political columnist, wrote about the Bush campaign’s plans in the New York Daily News, where he was managing editor:
So what if Gore wins such crucial battleground states as Florida, Michigan and Pennsylvania and thus captures the magic 270 electoral votes while Bush wins the overall nationwide popular vote?
“The one thing we don’t do is roll over,” says a Bush aide. “We fight.”
How? The core of the emerging Bush strategy assumes a popular uprising, stoked by the Bushies themselves, of course.
In league with the campaign – which is preparing talking points about the Electoral College’s essential unfairness – a massive talk-radio operation would be encouraged. “We’d have ads, too,” says a Bush aide, “and I think you can count on the media to fuel the thing big-time. Even papers that supported Gore might turn against him because the will of the people will have been thwarted.”
Local business leaders will be urged to lobby their customers, the clergy will be asked to speak up for the popular will and Team Bush will enlist as many Democrats as possible to scream as loud as they can. “You think ‘Democrats for Democracy’ would be a catchy term for them?” asks a Bush adviser.
The universe of people who would be targeted by this insurrection is small – the 538 currently anonymous folks called electors, people chosen by the campaigns and their state party organizations as a reward for their service over the years.
On November 3, the Boston Herald reported that if Bush won the popular vote, his campaign “would likely challenge the legitimacy of a Gore win, casting it as an affront to the people’s will and branding the Electoral College as an antiquated relic.”
It Isn’t Just Donald Trump. The Bush Campaign Plotted to Reject Election Results in 2000
Plain silly to want to change the rules after the game. Republicans and Democrats are the same, whatever gets them power is what they are for.
The more time goes by the more I find the two parties are all about power and not the common people that support them.
Decades ago the Republican Party was all for single payer health care and the Democrats opposed it and now it has reversed. If one is for it, the other has to be against it. Pretty stupid.
