Truthmatters
Diamond Member
- May 10, 2007
- 80,182
- 2,272
- 1,283
- Banned
- #41
but not the people in the big cities huh?
jsut the rural voters count
jsut the rural voters count
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.
.
I guess this is easier than listening to GOP rising star (for now) Bobby Jindal:
The first step in getting the voters to like us is to demonstrate that we like them.
.
but not the people in the big cities huh?
jsut the rural voters count
but not the people in the big cities huh?
jsut the rural voters count
Really?? I said that?? No...
It is very simple to understand..
The electoral college is necessary within the balance of power
Districts have been redrawn for a LONG time.. funny how the DEMs have no problems with it when THEY do it.. they will be redrawn again sometime in the future as well, and you will have screaming by some groups of people... but it is STILL better than direct popular vote for the president
but not the people in the big cities huh?
jsut the rural voters count
Really?? I said that?? No...
It is very simple to understand..
The electoral college is necessary within the balance of power
Districts have been redrawn for a LONG time.. funny how the DEMs have no problems with it when THEY do it.. they will be redrawn again sometime in the future as well, and you will have screaming by some groups of people... but it is STILL better than direct popular vote for the president
The plan isn't to redraw districts, its to have states where the Democrat wins become district by district states (like Maine and Nebraska) while those that are for Republicans remain winner takes all. The scheme reduces the number of Democratic electoral votes for the same popular vote.
Really?? I said that?? No...
It is very simple to understand..
The electoral college is necessary within the balance of power
Districts have been redrawn for a LONG time.. funny how the DEMs have no problems with it when THEY do it.. they will be redrawn again sometime in the future as well, and you will have screaming by some groups of people... but it is STILL better than direct popular vote for the president
The plan isn't to redraw districts, its to have states where the Democrat wins become district by district states (like Maine and Nebraska) while those that are for Republicans remain winner takes all. The scheme reduces the number of Democratic electoral votes for the same popular vote.
And they have that RIGHT... just like the states who choose to have the possibility to split their electoral votes now... and popular vote does not and should not matter for president.. we have a branch that is chosen by popular vote
Why should my county not have a voice in the electoral process?
Libs have overwhelmed Tucson. They moved from California and come here and try to do the same exact things that they moved away from.
Why should our country(Cochise) which is overwhelmingly conservative be represented by a liberal voted by the majority (Pima County)?
We do not have conservative representation for our county.
Cochise Country should have equal electoral votes.
This is the way our Republic is suppose to work, so that the majority does not drown out the minority.
they really dont like democracy
Say's the one who wants a one party rule.
Yes sir eee, that' democracy alright.
and you want the minority to rule
Really?? I said that?? No...
It is very simple to understand..
The electoral college is necessary within the balance of power
Districts have been redrawn for a LONG time.. funny how the DEMs have no problems with it when THEY do it.. they will be redrawn again sometime in the future as well, and you will have screaming by some groups of people... but it is STILL better than direct popular vote for the president
The plan isn't to redraw districts, its to have states where the Democrat wins become district by district states (like Maine and Nebraska) while those that are for Republicans remain winner takes all. The scheme reduces the number of Democratic electoral votes for the same popular vote.
And they have that RIGHT... just like the states who choose to have the possibility to split their electoral votes now... and popular vote does not and should not matter for president.. we have a branch that is chosen by popular vote
The plan isn't to redraw districts, its to have states where the Democrat wins become district by district states (like Maine and Nebraska) while those that are for Republicans remain winner takes all. The scheme reduces the number of Democratic electoral votes for the same popular vote.
And they have that RIGHT... just like the states who choose to have the possibility to split their electoral votes now... and popular vote does not and should not matter for president.. we have a branch that is chosen by popular vote
No one is disputing they have a right to rig the electoral college. Having the right does not make it right. The fact it can be rigged in such a way is also a huge argument against the current form.
BTW, if you could point to a Congress in which more people voted for Republican House candidates than Democratic, yet the Democrats won a majority in the House - I'd love to hear about it.
GOP Version2013: Battling Not Just Democrats but Democracy | The Nation
Shaken by the overwhelming defeats of 2012a 5 million popular-vote defeat in the presidential race, an Electoral College wipeout, the loss of two US Senate seats in a year where they had been expected to gain, a 1.4 million popular vote deficit in US House races nationwide and the loss of seven of eleven gubernatorial races that were in playRepublican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus has made it clear that he wants his partisan minions to use what power they retain to rig the electoral process.
The Virginia example is blatant.
But it is not isolated. It is part of a national strategy to allow Republicans to win even when they lose. And its primary focus will be on gerrymandering not just state legislatures and the US House but on rigging the Electoral College.
Last week, Priebus urged Republican governors and legislators to take up what was once a fringe scheme to change the rules for distribution of Electoral College votes.
Under the Priebus plan, electoral votes from battleground states that now regularly back Democrats for president would be allocated not to the statewide winner but to the winners of individual congressional districts.
The GOP is desperate. They are fighting for their lives. I expect that more underhanded schemes will be launched in the coming months. But each will be short lived, at best. The Poor GOP...
why should this country be FORCED to do what the minority of the minority party wants.
that is what you back
And they have that RIGHT... just like the states who choose to have the possibility to split their electoral votes now... and popular vote does not and should not matter for president.. we have a branch that is chosen by popular vote
No one is disputing they have a right to rig the electoral college. Having the right does not make it right. The fact it can be rigged in such a way is also a huge argument against the current form.
BTW, if you could point to a Congress in which more people voted for Republican House candidates than Democratic, yet the Democrats won a majority in the House - I'd love to hear about it.
And the DEMs have the right in their states or whatever to do as they choose with it when they can... I neither agree nor disagree with the whole state or the by district approach.. that is up to those who make those decisions
This is only being made a stink of because it is not DEMs doing it to their own advantage
Not Constitutional.The system of affirming the Presidency by the Electoral College blunts the sharp elbows of a direct and straight majority popular vote.
Affirming the Presidency by Congressional districts would blunt the sharp elbows of the Electoral College.
Would save a lot of money, too! No Presidential elections would be required.
Just let the people voted into the House of Representatives cast their vote for President.
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
And it matters HOW??? The legislature is chosen in a different way than the executive ON PURPOSE, as stated beforeNo one is disputing they have a right to rig the electoral college. Having the right does not make it right. The fact it can be rigged in such a way is also a huge argument against the current form.
BTW, if you could point to a Congress in which more people voted for Republican House candidates than Democratic, yet the Democrats won a majority in the House - I'd love to hear about it.
And the DEMs have the right in their states or whatever to do as they choose with it when they can... I neither agree nor disagree with the whole state or the by district approach.. that is up to those who make those decisions
This is only being made a stink of because it is not DEMs doing it to their own advantage
BTW, if you could point to a Congress in which more people voted for Republican House candidates than Democratic, yet the Democrats won a majority in the House - I'd love to hear about it.
The system of affirming the Presidency by the Electoral College blunts the sharp elbows of a direct and straight majority popular vote.
Affirming the Presidency by Congressional districts would blunt the sharp elbows of the Electoral College.
Would save a lot of money, too! No Presidential elections would be required.
Just let the people voted into the House of Representatives cast their vote for President.
Gore....hard guess there! I still say it should be by popular vote......I don't think just certain states should be the deciding factor in an election.
Gore....hard guess there! I still say it should be by popular vote......I don't think just certain states should be the deciding factor in an election.