The electoral college is a disaster for democracy

[Pogo]

I fully understand your points and your rationale. I simply do not agree with either. The EC gives voice to all americans in presidential elections. Without it the large population centers could control our elections, note the word "could". That possibility presents an unacceptable option and the founders created the EC to prevent such abuses as the large cities might employ in order to put their interests at the top of the heap.

Again -- these "large population centers" did not exist as a factor when the EC was drawn up --- most people lived on farms. So that's not the design at all. Nor does your rationale work anyway --- your arbitrary classification of voters according to where they live is just that --- arbitrary. No "large population center" votes unanimously for a given candidate any more than any state does. That argument simply does not hunt --- where a voter lives has no bearing on how much their vote counts. None. Zero.

To your 2nd sentence -- again as stated throughout this thread and every other thread throughout this campaign and before it ---- the EC does not "give voice" at all --- it takes voice away. You''re sitting right now in a state where no voter has a voice in a POTUS election. Sixteen years ago I was in the same state, which is why I cast a protest vote for a 3P. It was a drop in the bucket but it was the only way I could make my vote count for anything.

Don't you GET that?

Whats funny and somewhat pathetic about this discussion is that most of the EC objectors are Hillary supporters who cannot deal with the fact that she lost.

You claim to not be one of those, but I doubt it seriously.

Then your task of explaining all my previous history making these same points on this same topic, way before the election and before the candidates were nominated, remains untouched.

The fact remains, the large population centers (mostly democrats) would control our elections without the EC. I understand that that is what you want, I get that.

Translation: "my candidate couldn't win the pop vote, waaah".

Poster please. Grow up. You don't get to suppress the votes that go against the way you want. And it's noted that you didn't have the balls to address the actual points in my post at all.

Translation~ I am going to whine like a little bitch for four years.

Get over it pogo , not a damn thing you or your dems can do about it.

On the contrary, we can expose it for what it is and then bask in the warm glow of non-responses. We can get the word out. That's what this thread's been doing for seven hundred posts, and you just made it 701.

Thanks for that.

 

[Redfish]

I fully understand your points and your rationale. I simply do not agree with either. The EC gives voice to all americans in presidential elections. Without it the large population centers could control our elections, note the word "could". That possibility presents an unacceptable option and the founders created the EC to prevent such abuses as the large cities might employ in order to put their interests at the top of the heap.

Again -- these "large population centers" did not exist as a factor when the EC was drawn up --- most people lived on farms. So that's not the design at all. Nor does your rationale work anyway --- your arbitrary classification of voters according to where they live is just that --- arbitrary. No "large population center" votes unanimously for a given candidate any more than any state does. That argument simply does not hunt --- where a voter lives has no bearing on how much their vote counts. None. Zero.

To your 2nd sentence -- again as stated throughout this thread and every other thread throughout this campaign and before it ---- the EC does not "give voice" at all --- it takes voice away. You''re sitting right now in a state where no voter has a voice in a POTUS election. Sixteen years ago I was in the same state, which is why I cast a protest vote for a 3P. It was a drop in the bucket but it was the only way I could make my vote count for anything.

Don't you GET that?

Whats funny and somewhat pathetic about this discussion is that most of the EC objectors are Hillary supporters who cannot deal with the fact that she lost.

You claim to not be one of those, but I doubt it seriously.

Then your task of explaining all my previous history making these same points on this same topic, way before the election and before the candidates were nominated, remains untouched.

The fact remains, the large population centers (mostly democrats) would control our elections without the EC. I understand that that is what you want, I get that.

Translation: "my candidate couldn't win the pop vote, waaah".

Poster please. Grow up. You don't get to suppress the votes that go against the way you want. And it's noted that you didn't have the balls to address the actual points in my post at all.

I fully understand and have addressed, your "points". I simply disagree with them.

Do you think its "fair" the Trump won 3084 counties and hilly lonely won 57? Would it be "fair" if the residents of 60 counties out of 3151 got to choose our presidents?

The EC is the best compromise, it has flaws, yes. But any other system would also have flaws and would disenfranchise more americans than the EC.

and for one final time, what are YOU doing to get a constitutional amendment passed to do away with the EC? Most likely nothing, since you are nothing but a left wing whiner.

 

[Redfish]

I fully understand your points and your rationale. I simply do not agree with either. The EC gives voice to all americans in presidential elections. Without it the large population centers could control our elections, note the word "could". That possibility presents an unacceptable option and the founders created the EC to prevent such abuses as the large cities might employ in order to put their interests at the top of the heap.

Again -- these "large population centers" did not exist as a factor when the EC was drawn up --- most people lived on farms. So that's not the design at all. Nor does your rationale work anyway --- your arbitrary classification of voters according to where they live is just that --- arbitrary. No "large population center" votes unanimously for a given candidate any more than any state does. That argument simply does not hunt --- where a voter lives has no bearing on how much their vote counts. None. Zero.

To your 2nd sentence -- again as stated throughout this thread and every other thread throughout this campaign and before it ---- the EC does not "give voice" at all --- it takes voice away. You''re sitting right now in a state where no voter has a voice in a POTUS election. Sixteen years ago I was in the same state, which is why I cast a protest vote for a 3P. It was a drop in the bucket but it was the only way I could make my vote count for anything.

Don't you GET that?

Whats funny and somewhat pathetic about this discussion is that most of the EC objectors are Hillary supporters who cannot deal with the fact that she lost.

You claim to not be one of those, but I doubt it seriously.

Then your task of explaining all my previous history making these same points on this same topic, way before the election and before the candidates were nominated, remains untouched.

The fact remains, the large population centers (mostly democrats) would control our elections without the EC. I understand that that is what you want, I get that.

Translation: "my candidate couldn't win the pop vote, waaah".

Poster please. Grow up. You don't get to suppress the votes that go against the way you want. And it's noted that you didn't have the balls to address the actual points in my post at all.

Translation~ I am going to whine like a little bitch for four years.

Get over it pogo , not a damn thing you or your dems can do about it.

On the contrary, we can expose it for what it is and then bask in the warm glow of non-responses. We can get the word out. That's what this thread's been doing for seven hundred posts, and you just made it 701.

Thanks for that.

Do you think that your silly posts on this forum will get congress to pass an amendment? Really, are you that naïve?

 

[Pogo]

I fully understand and have addressed, your "points". I simply disagree with them.

Apparently not. You keep running away from them.

Do you think its "fair" the Trump won 3084 counties and hilly lonely won 57? Would it be "fair" if the residents of 60 counties out of 3151 got to choose our presidents?

I don't think it's "fair" -- I think it's "irrelevant". Not to mention "ipse dixit that you didn't bother to document", but as it's irrelevant, it's irrelevant.

County lines are irrelevant. They don't vote. Congressional Discrtict lines are irrelevant. They don't vote. City boundaries lines are irrelevant. They don't vote. State lines lines are irrelevant. They don't vote. The colors "red" and "blue" are irrelevant. They don't vote. VOTERS vote. Classifying them into how-many-people-with-blue-eyes voted for Rump or how-many-people-whose-name-begins-with-a-Q voted for Clinton, is an exercise in Useless which, if combined with $3.75, might get you near a Starbucks coffee.

The EC is the best compromise, it has flaws, yes. But any other system would also have flaws and would disenfranchise more americans than the EC.

Hard to imagine how you could disenfranchise more than over 48% of the electorate -- unless you were to, I dunno, keep the franchise from entire swaths like say, slaves or women. Oh wait, the EC already did that.

and for one final time, what are YOU doing to get a constitutional amendment passed to do away with the EC? Most likely nothing, since you are nothing but a left wing whiner.

I'm taking advantage of the buzz period -- it only comes round every four years yanno -- to raise the issues and spread the ideas. This is one venue to do that among many -- seven thousand readers have been here already. And puerile responses like your posts give me endless opportunities to make the case yet again, and demonstrate that you don't have a counterargument beyond "STFU" (actually the fact that that is your counterargument seals my case).

That IS a beginning. The first step is to admit one has a problem. And step 1a is to articulate what it is.
And here we be.

 

[Redfish]

I fully understand and have addressed, your "points". I simply disagree with them.

Apparently not. You keep running away from them.

Do you think its "fair" the Trump won 3084 counties and hilly lonely won 57? Would it be "fair" if the residents of 60 counties out of 3151 got to choose our presidents?

I don't think it's "fair" -- I think it's "irrelevant". Not to mention "ipse dixit that you didn't bother to document", but as it's irrelevant, it's irrelevant.

County lines are irrelevant. They don't vote. Congressional Discrtict lines are irrelevant. They don't vote. City boundaries lines are irrelevant. They don't vote. State lines lines are irrelevant. They don't vote. The colors "red" and "blue" are irrelevant. They don't vote. VOTERS vote. Classifying them into how-many-people-with-blue-eyes voted for Rump or how-many-people-whose-name-begins-with-a-Q voted for Clinton, is an exercise in Useless which, if combined with $3.75, might get you near a Starbucks coffee.

The EC is the best compromise, it has flaws, yes. But any other system would also have flaws and would disenfranchise more americans than the EC.

Hard to imagine how you could disenfranchise more than over 48% of the electorate -- unless you were to, I dunno, keep the franchise from entire swaths like say, slaves or women. Oh wait, the EC already did that.

and for one final time, what are YOU doing to get a constitutional amendment passed to do away with the EC? Most likely nothing, since you are nothing but a left wing whiner.

I'm taking advantage of the buzz period -- it only comes round every four years yanno -- to raise the issues and spread the ideas. This is one venue to do that among many -- seven thousand readers have been here already. And puerile responses like your posts give me endless opportunities to make the case yet again, and demonstrate that you don't have a counterargument beyond "STFU" (actually the fact that that is your counterargument seals my case).

That IS a beginning. The first step is to admit one has a problem. And step 1a is to articulate what it is.
And here we be.

That's the issue, there is no agreement that the EC is a "problem". You think it is, many others think its not.

The constitution is not going to be changed whether you like the outcome or not. But feel free to continue the useless rant ad infinitum.

 

[Pogo]

I fully understand and have addressed, your "points". I simply disagree with them.

Apparently not. You keep running away from them.

Do you think its "fair" the Trump won 3084 counties and hilly lonely won 57? Would it be "fair" if the residents of 60 counties out of 3151 got to choose our presidents?

I don't think it's "fair" -- I think it's "irrelevant". Not to mention "ipse dixit that you didn't bother to document", but as it's irrelevant, it's irrelevant.

County lines are irrelevant. They don't vote. Congressional Discrtict lines are irrelevant. They don't vote. City boundaries lines are irrelevant. They don't vote. State lines lines are irrelevant. They don't vote. The colors "red" and "blue" are irrelevant. They don't vote. VOTERS vote. Classifying them into how-many-people-with-blue-eyes voted for Rump or how-many-people-whose-name-begins-with-a-Q voted for Clinton, is an exercise in Useless which, if combined with $3.75, might get you near a Starbucks coffee.

The EC is the best compromise, it has flaws, yes. But any other system would also have flaws and would disenfranchise more americans than the EC.

Hard to imagine how you could disenfranchise more than over 48% of the electorate -- unless you were to, I dunno, keep the franchise from entire swaths like say, slaves or women. Oh wait, the EC already did that.

and for one final time, what are YOU doing to get a constitutional amendment passed to do away with the EC? Most likely nothing, since you are nothing but a left wing whiner.

I'm taking advantage of the buzz period -- it only comes round every four years yanno -- to raise the issues and spread the ideas. This is one venue to do that among many -- seven thousand readers have been here already. And puerile responses like your posts give me endless opportunities to make the case yet again, and demonstrate that you don't have a counterargument beyond "STFU" (actually the fact that that is your counterargument seals my case).

That IS a beginning. The first step is to admit one has a problem. And step 1a is to articulate what it is.
And here we be.

That's the issue, there is no agreement that the EC is a "problem". You think it is, many others think its not.

And I've been making the points on exactly why it is a problem for the last year and for years before. And I'll continue to do so until everybody knows. And there's nothing you can do about that.

The constitution is not going to be changed whether you like the outcome or not. But feel free to continue the useless rant ad infinitum.

Thank you, I shall. And you just again bumped the same thread, thanks for that as well. Gives me an opening to reiterate the points against it, from another thread that I think went together well.

Summary: The Electoral College:
(a) renders irrelevant the vote of every voter in a "locked" state whether they agree or disagree with their own state's plurality; (b) creates artificial and entirely bullshit division concepts of "red" and "blue" states; (c) restricts Presidential candidates to so-called "battleground" states and ensures that most Americans will never even see said candidates; (d) makes us all dependent on polls to find out whether it's even worth getting out of bed on Election Day or not; and (e) perpetuates and protects the Duopoly of two lookalike parties both of which have been around way too long and no longer stand for anything except the self-perpetuation of their own power and the Duopoly on which it stands, one nation, divisible, with color-codes and bullshit division-category terms for all.

Those are my arguments. The idea is to counter them with something a bit more tangible than "STFU" or "will never happen".

"Electoral College" is in effect the opposite of "E Pluribus Unum" It's time we wake up to that fact. Even if it means ---- horrors ---- actually questioning the history books we were served as children.

 

[Redfish]

I fully understand and have addressed, your "points". I simply disagree with them.

Apparently not. You keep running away from them.

Do you think its "fair" the Trump won 3084 counties and hilly lonely won 57? Would it be "fair" if the residents of 60 counties out of 3151 got to choose our presidents?

I don't think it's "fair" -- I think it's "irrelevant". Not to mention "ipse dixit that you didn't bother to document", but as it's irrelevant, it's irrelevant.

County lines are irrelevant. They don't vote. Congressional Discrtict lines are irrelevant. They don't vote. City boundaries lines are irrelevant. They don't vote. State lines lines are irrelevant. They don't vote. The colors "red" and "blue" are irrelevant. They don't vote. VOTERS vote. Classifying them into how-many-people-with-blue-eyes voted for Rump or how-many-people-whose-name-begins-with-a-Q voted for Clinton, is an exercise in Useless which, if combined with $3.75, might get you near a Starbucks coffee.

The EC is the best compromise, it has flaws, yes. But any other system would also have flaws and would disenfranchise more americans than the EC.

Hard to imagine how you could disenfranchise more than over 48% of the electorate -- unless you were to, I dunno, keep the franchise from entire swaths like say, slaves or women. Oh wait, the EC already did that.

and for one final time, what are YOU doing to get a constitutional amendment passed to do away with the EC? Most likely nothing, since you are nothing but a left wing whiner.

I'm taking advantage of the buzz period -- it only comes round every four years yanno -- to raise the issues and spread the ideas. This is one venue to do that among many -- seven thousand readers have been here already. And puerile responses like your posts give me endless opportunities to make the case yet again, and demonstrate that you don't have a counterargument beyond "STFU" (actually the fact that that is your counterargument seals my case).

That IS a beginning. The first step is to admit one has a problem. And step 1a is to articulate what it is.
And here we be.

That's the issue, there is no agreement that the EC is a "problem". You think it is, many others think its not.

And I've been making the points on exactly why it is a problem for the last year and for years before. And I'll continue to do so until everybody knows. And there's nothing you can do about that.

The constitution is not going to be changed whether you like the outcome or not. But feel free to continue the useless rant ad infinitum.

Thank you, I shall. And you just again bumped the same thread, thanks for that as well. Gives me an opening to reiterate the points against it, from another thread that I think went together well.

Summary: The Electoral College:
(a) renders irrelevant the vote of every voter in a "locked" state whether they agree or disagree with their own state's plurality; (b) creates artificial and entirely bullshit division concepts of "red" and "blue" states; (c) restricts Presidential candidates to so-called "battleground" states and ensures that most Americans will never even see said candidates; (d) makes us all dependent on polls to find out whether it's even worth getting out of bed on Election Day or not; and (e) perpetuates and protects the Duopoly of two lookalike parties both of which have been around way too long and no longer stand for anything except the self-perpetuation of their own power and the Duopoly on which it stands, one nation, divisible, with color-codes and bullshit division-category terms for all.

Those are my arguments. The idea is to counter them with something a bit more tangible than "STFU" or "will never happen".

"Electoral College" is in effect the opposite of "E Pluribus Unum" It's time we wake up to that fact. Even if it means ---- horrors ---- actually questioning the history books we were served as children.

I understand that you want an argument. Sorry, but I simply disagree with all of your contentions about the EC. Without it the residents of less populated states would have no voice and the large population centers could control our elections and elect people who would put policies in place to help the high population areas at the expense of the rest of the country.

The founders had it right, it works. You don't like it this time because your candidate lost. I get that and understand it. But from a practical standpoint, the constitution is not going to be changed to switch to pure democracy, because pure democracy is the tyranny of the majority, a thing that you dems and libs rant and rave against every day.

 

[Pogo]

Without it the residents of less populated states would have no voice and the large population centers could control our elections and elect people who would put policies in place to help the high population areas at the expense of the rest of the country.

I keep hearing that meme parroted here over and over and over, yet no one has yet demonstrated how it would work. Y'all seem to think endlessly repeating an idea but never proving it somehow makes it a real thing. Whelp --- it doesn't. As I've pointed out relentlessly from the start here, a voter in downtown Manhattan is the same number of voters as one in Winfield Kansas --- one. The definition of "one" is universal and non-negotiable. Unless maybe this is 'math you do as a Republican to make yourself feel better'.

The founders had it right, it works.

Actually the Founders didn't have in mind what we have. They lost control. They originally had in mind that Virginia should run the country, and for four decades it did. But when the whole "winner-take-all" malarkey started snowballing like nuclear proliferation, James Madison proposed a prohibition on it:

>> One of the most common criticisms of plans to modify or eliminate the Electoral College is that to do so would be to deviate from the wisdom of the Founders of the American political system. But the "Father of the Constitution" himself, James Madison, was never in favor of our current system for electing the president, one in which nearly all states award their electoral votes to the statewide popular vote winner. He ultimately backed a constitutional amendment to prohibit this practice.

,,, In 1823, Madison wrote a remarkable letter to George Hay explaining his views of the Electoral College, his strong opposition to states voting as winner-take-all blocs and his view of the origins of the winner-take-all rule. In addition to disenfranchising districts that voted against the preference of the state, Madison worried that statewide voting would increase sectionalism and the strength of geographic parties. He wrote that his views were widely shared by others at the Constitutional Convention, and that the winner-take-all approach had been forced on many states due to its adoption in other states: "The district mode was mostly, if not exclusively in view when the Constitution was framed and adopted; & was exchanged for the general ticket [e.g., winner-take-all rule] & the legislative election, as the only expedient for baffling the policy of the particular States which had set the example." -- Madison and Presidential Vote​

Madison did that despite the fact that it would undermine the power grab his own state of Virginia had benefited from since the country itself began.

>> Attempts to defend the Electoral College based on the fact that it was introduced by brilliant political thinkers such as Madison fail to appreciate the unique political context in which it was created and the fundamental differences between that time and ours. As Madison said of the presidential election system in 1830 and would likely say again today, "a solid improvement of it is a desideratum that ought to be welcomed by all enlightened patriots." << (ibid)
​

You don't like it this time because your candidate lost. I get that and understand it.

I didn't even have a candidate to lose. And I've been on this same track since months and years before the election. You'll find my posts all over this forum saying the same things about the EC for at least the last calendar year. You'll find them especially in the third party threads, which is exactly what I did when I lived there in Louisiana, since I understood that with the EC tossing my vote in the shitcan it was the only recourse I had.

And that link I just quoted above --- it's from 2012. June, long before that election, when there was nothing going on in the EC.

So again, while I understand summa y'all need a rich fantasy life because you can't cope with reality, I don't choose to join it, thanks anyway.

But from a practical standpoint, the constitution is not going to be changed to switch to pure democracy, because pure democracy is the tyranny of the majority, a thing that you dems and libs rant and rave against every day.

I don't even believe in "tyranny of the majority", Doodles. I don't do Doublethink.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Funny, the EC works fine every time a Democrat gets elected... hmmm....

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Fucking whiny babies.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

Hey, who said conservatives hate minorities?

They love that a minority can elect a president. They love that a minority of Senators can block legislation supported by 90% of the American people...

Want a popular vote?
Homosexual marriage, abortion, immigration.
Lets put them all up to a majority vote.

Same sex marriage was found constitutional by the court that was appointed by the president, elected by the electoral college,

and approved by the Senate, the chamber whose membership is determined in a system that favors the small, rural states.

lol, you lose.

Suddenly you are back to having 9 people decide for 350 million.

No, let's use your popular vote idea.

Your map coincides with this one showing where most PEOPLE live. How fascinating.

So you prefer the hunger games scenario.

Obviously you never read the book or saw the movie.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I fully understand and have addressed, your "points". I simply disagree with them.

Apparently not. You keep running away from them.

Do you think its "fair" the Trump won 3084 counties and hilly lonely won 57? Would it be "fair" if the residents of 60 counties out of 3151 got to choose our presidents?

I don't think it's "fair" -- I think it's "irrelevant". Not to mention "ipse dixit that you didn't bother to document", but as it's irrelevant, it's irrelevant.

County lines are irrelevant. They don't vote. Congressional Discrtict lines are irrelevant. They don't vote. City boundaries lines are irrelevant. They don't vote. State lines lines are irrelevant. They don't vote. The colors "red" and "blue" are irrelevant. They don't vote. VOTERS vote. Classifying them into how-many-people-with-blue-eyes voted for Rump or how-many-people-whose-name-begins-with-a-Q voted for Clinton, is an exercise in Useless which, if combined with $3.75, might get you near a Starbucks coffee.

The EC is the best compromise, it has flaws, yes. But any other system would also have flaws and would disenfranchise more americans than the EC.

Hard to imagine how you could disenfranchise more than over 48% of the electorate -- unless you were to, I dunno, keep the franchise from entire swaths like say, slaves or women. Oh wait, the EC already did that.

and for one final time, what are YOU doing to get a constitutional amendment passed to do away with the EC? Most likely nothing, since you are nothing but a left wing whiner.

I'm taking advantage of the buzz period -- it only comes round every four years yanno -- to raise the issues and spread the ideas. This is one venue to do that among many -- seven thousand readers have been here already. And puerile responses like your posts give me endless opportunities to make the case yet again, and demonstrate that you don't have a counterargument beyond "STFU" (actually the fact that that is your counterargument seals my case).

That IS a beginning. The first step is to admit one has a problem. And step 1a is to articulate what it is.
And here we be.

No you a crying like a little bitch..again this is the United States of America ..to say that we are all alike is just a trait of the ugly liberal.

Your ilk is indocterated we are not



.

 

[Pogo]

I fully understand and have addressed, your "points". I simply disagree with them.

Apparently not. You keep running away from them.

Do you think its "fair" the Trump won 3084 counties and hilly lonely won 57? Would it be "fair" if the residents of 60 counties out of 3151 got to choose our presidents?

I don't think it's "fair" -- I think it's "irrelevant". Not to mention "ipse dixit that you didn't bother to document", but as it's irrelevant, it's irrelevant.

County lines are irrelevant. They don't vote. Congressional Discrtict lines are irrelevant. They don't vote. City boundaries lines are irrelevant. They don't vote. State lines lines are irrelevant. They don't vote. The colors "red" and "blue" are irrelevant. They don't vote. VOTERS vote. Classifying them into how-many-people-with-blue-eyes voted for Rump or how-many-people-whose-name-begins-with-a-Q voted for Clinton, is an exercise in Useless which, if combined with $3.75, might get you near a Starbucks coffee.

The EC is the best compromise, it has flaws, yes. But any other system would also have flaws and would disenfranchise more americans than the EC.

Hard to imagine how you could disenfranchise more than over 48% of the electorate -- unless you were to, I dunno, keep the franchise from entire swaths like say, slaves or women. Oh wait, the EC already did that.

and for one final time, what are YOU doing to get a constitutional amendment passed to do away with the EC? Most likely nothing, since you are nothing but a left wing whiner.

I'm taking advantage of the buzz period -- it only comes round every four years yanno -- to raise the issues and spread the ideas. This is one venue to do that among many -- seven thousand readers have been here already. And puerile responses like your posts give me endless opportunities to make the case yet again, and demonstrate that you don't have a counterargument beyond "STFU" (actually the fact that that is your counterargument seals my case).

That IS a beginning. The first step is to admit one has a problem. And step 1a is to articulate what it is.
And here we be.

No you a crying like a little bitch..again this is the United States of America ..to say that we are all alike is just a trait of the ugly liberal.

Your ilk is indocterated we are not

Uh ---- "to say that we are all alike"?

"Indocterated" ? Is that when you're in a hospital surrounded by MDs?

Clearly no aerosol can is safe in your vicinity....

 

[Weatherman2020]

Want a popular vote?
Homosexual marriage, abortion, immigration.
Lets put them all up to a majority vote.

Same sex marriage was found constitutional by the court that was appointed by the president, elected by the electoral college,

and approved by the Senate, the chamber whose membership is determined in a system that favors the small, rural states.

lol, you lose.

Suddenly you are back to having 9 people decide for 350 million.

No, let's use your popular vote idea.

Your map coincides with this one showing where most PEOPLE live. How fascinating.

So you prefer the hunger games scenario.

Obviously you never read the book or saw the movie.

Obviously you never read the US Constitution

 

[NYcarbineer]

Same sex marriage was found constitutional by the court that was appointed by the president, elected by the electoral college,

and approved by the Senate, the chamber whose membership is determined in a system that favors the small, rural states.

lol, you lose.

Suddenly you are back to having 9 people decide for 350 million.

No, let's use your popular vote idea.

Your map coincides with this one showing where most PEOPLE live. How fascinating.

So you prefer the hunger games scenario.

Obviously you never read the book or saw the movie.

Obviously you never read the US Constitution

The Constitution has been wrong time after time.

That's why the Founders wanted future generations to amend it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Funny, the EC works fine every time a Democrat gets elected... hmmm....

When Democrats win, they win the popular vote.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Suddenly you are back to having 9 people decide for 350 million.

No, let's use your popular vote idea.

Your map coincides with this one showing where most PEOPLE live. How fascinating.

So you prefer the hunger games scenario.

Obviously you never read the book or saw the movie.

Obviously you never read the US Constitution

The Constitution has been wrong time after time.

That's why the Founders wanted future generations to amend it.

Ammend it then, twirp. Until you do, it stands. You don't like it, Syria will take your ilk.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Funny, the EC works fine every time a Democrat gets elected... hmmm....

When Democrats win, they win the popular vote.

Take out KKKalifornia, Trump wins the popular vote.

 

[Pogo]

Funny, the EC works fine every time a Democrat gets elected... hmmm....

When Democrats win, they win the popular vote.

Take out KKKalifornia, Trump wins the popular vote.

"Take out" the Cubs, Indians, Dodgers, Mets, Red Sox, Nationals, Tigers, Lions, Bears, Oh My, Wankees, Phillies, Pirates, Orioles, Rays, Marlins, Breves, Reds, White Sox, Royals, Cardinals, Astros, Rangers, Rockies, D-backs, Mariners, As, Giants, Angels, Blue Jays, Brewers and Padres, and the Minnesota Twins win the World Series.

Pointless.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Funny, the EC works fine every time a Democrat gets elected... hmmm....

When Democrats win, they win the popular vote.

Take out KKKalifornia, Trump wins the popular vote.

"Take out" the Cubs, Indians, Dodgers, Mets, Red Sox, Nationals, Tigers, Lions, Bears, Oh My, Wankees, Phillies, Pirates, Orioles, Rays, Marlins, Breves, Reds, White Sox, Royals, Cardinals, Astros, Rangers, Rockies, D-backs, Mariners, As, Giants, Angels, Blue Jays, Brewers and Padres, and the Minnesota Twins win the World Series.

Pointless.

You leftards are too ignorant to know America is not a Democracy, it is a Republic.

But we can make it a Democracy. Then we can vote on abortion, homosexual marriage, immigration, welfare qualifications, prison times and punishments for convicted criminals, etc etc.