The democrats are cheating already!!

[del]

Oh the horror of the majority in this country electing the president

bill clinton wouldn't have been elected if a majority of the popular vote had been required.

you'd know that if you weren't an idiot.

 

[OKTexas]

Guys the problem isnt cheating, its more of unconstitutional, if they want to pass an amendment, then it's ok, if they want to do it any other way....nope...unconstitutional.


But yeah, sure lets give Cali's votes to the popular vote.........seems kind of stupid for democrats to do that....

There is nothing unconstitutional about it. The states are free to decide how they award their electoral votes.

I think you need to read Article 2 again, the Consitution establishes procedures for reporting of the States election results.

 

[hazlnut]

It's just the opposite new York has more electorals than Iowa giving it more say. Just cuz a state has less people doesn't make it any less important.

If New York and California were wiped off the map in an Alien attack -- Iowa would starve and go broke within a mouth.

Without the electoral college many people and states would be disenfranchised. Something liberals whine about all the time.

Once again liberals show their hypocrisy and try to cheat the constitution.

You have to be a liberal sock puppet. Because I just can't accept that any real person is as dumb as you're pretending to be.

 

[Big Black Dog]

If you can't beat 'em - cheat 'em.

 

[TruthSeeker56]

Oh the horror of the majority in this country electing the president

Either all of you leftists are morons who have the math skills of a 1st grader, or you know EXACTLY what this leftist power grab is all about. Which is it?

For those of you leftists who really ARE morons, I'll explain the Electoral College as simply as I can. Go grab your Sponge Bob pre-school calculators, and try to follow along.

1. All of the 50 states, combined, have a total of 538 electoral votes.

2. Electoral votes are based on the number of representatives each state has in the U.S. House Of Representatives (based on the population of each state), plus the two U.S. Senators that each state has.

3. Obviously (at least to many of us), the states that have the most population have more electoral votes. Therefore, the states with lesser populations have less electoral votes.

4. The electoral college LEVELS THE PLAYING FIELD, by not allowing a few states with the highest populations to determine who will be President Of The United States every four years.

5. In case some of you didn't notice, the state legislatures that have "signed on" to this blatant hijacking of all future Presidential elections ARE ALL DEMOCRAT PARTY DOMINATED states. Just a coincidence? Of course not.

6. Lastly, unless we want a handful of densely populated states, who are predominantly left-leaning and governed by Democrat legislatures, determining who our President will be every four years, then you all better re-think your "the electoral college is useless" opinion.

 

[Misty]

Bush ran this country like a liberal. Plus he had 9-11 to deal with.

Obama continued almost all of Bush's policies and he has yet to pass any kind of budget plan.

The economy is not getting better. It's stagnant. If you worked in the real world you would see it with your own eyes and not be propagandized by the liberal media's distorting the truth in order to get obama re-elected.

More people have given up looking for work choosing to retire early or go on unemoyment or welfare.

This country is in decline. And 4 more years of Obama will only keep us on the same downhill slope.

Romney is 100% different than bush or Obama. And his business experience will bring new life to a dying economy.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Guys the problem isnt cheating, its more of unconstitutional, if they want to pass an amendment, then it's ok, if they want to do it any other way....nope...unconstitutional.


But yeah, sure lets give Cali's votes to the popular vote.........seems kind of stupid for democrats to do that....

There is nothing unconstitutional about it. The states are free to decide how they award their electoral votes.

I think you need to read Article 2 again, the Consitution establishes procedures for reporting of the States election results.

The state are free to reward their electors in which ever manner they see fit. They don't even have to let you vote for president and for the first 50 years or so, we didn't. The state legislature could decide who to give the electoral votes to if they wanted without your vote.

 

[Misty]

Not true. Many states, including California, were bound by state law to cast their electoral vote for a specific candidate.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Not true. Many states, including California, were bound by state law to cast their electoral vote for a specific candidate.

Sure. Then the state changed the law.

It's still not "unconstitutional".

 

[Pinocchio]

The electoral college is an antiquated system originally set up to appease the smaller 13 colonies, against the influence of the larger populated colonies.

The US is much more homogenious then the 13 orig colonies and there is no longer a need for the electoral college.

I am not sure how a majority election would favor either party.

Good topic.

 

[OKTexas]

I dont have a problem with this at all! That does not hurt one party more than the other.

Sure it does. If swing states sign on to this their votes go to the national popular vote not the state popular vote. It hurts republicans or brown wouldn't have signed it into law.

This does not stop republicans from winning, it simply attempts to circumvent the issue of a majority of Americans picking someone and that person not winning the election.

It puts all the power in the more populous states and we all know which way they lean. It would basically eliminate the lesser populous from having any influence on picking a president.

 

[Oldguy]

Romney is 100% different than bush

Sure he is. That's why his campaign staff and advisory board are loaded with former Bush administration officials. That's why the same people who funded Bush are funding Romney.

 

[TruthSeeker56]

Romney is 100% different than bush

Sure he is. That's why his campaign staff and advisory board are loaded with former Bush administration officials. That's why the same people who funded Bush are funding Romney.

And you can actually type this tripe with a straight face, after watching the endless Bill Clinton commercials for Obama, and after Obama just brought on John Kerry as an advisor, and after Obama loaded his administration with former Clinton cronies?

No mirrors in your house, eh?

 

[Oldguy]

And you can actually type this tripe with a straight face, after watching the endless Bill Clinton commercials for Obama, and after Obama just brought on John Kerry as an advisor, and after Obama loaded his administration with former Clinton cronies?

No mirrors in your house, eh?

I was responding to a comment about Romney and Bush, not Clinton and Obama.

 

[strollingbones]

Bush ran this country like a liberal. Plus he had 9-11 to deal with.

Obama continued almost all of Bush's policies and he has yet to pass any kind of budget plan.

The economy is not getting better. It's stagnant. If you worked in the real world you would see it with your own eyes and not be propagandized by the liberal media's distorting the truth in order to get obama re-elected.

More people have given up looking for work choosing to retire early or go on unemoyment or welfare.

This country is in decline. And 4 more years of Obama will only keep us on the same downhill slope.

Romney is 100% different than bush or Obama. And his business experience will bring new life to a dying economy.

i am so sick of the conservative soapbox..this country is in decline....blah blah fucking blah....yes harvesting businesses will be very profitable to romney and his cronies

 

[strollingbones]

Romney is 100% different than bush

Sure he is. That's why his campaign staff and advisory board are loaded with former Bush administration officials. That's why the same people who funded Bush are funding Romney.

dont confuse her with facts