The Electoral College

asaratis

Uppity Senior Citizen
Gold Supporting Member
Jun 20, 2009
18,663
7,654
390
Stockbridge
This is why the Electoral College remains an important part of our Presidential election system.




In their infinite wisdom, the founders of our country created a

structure called the "Electoral College" as a control system and to

ensure the individual states were fairly represented. Otherwise one

or two densely populated areas would speak for the whole of the

nation. It was not created as a device to favor Democrats,

Republicans, Whigs, Tories or any other political affiliation. It

was created as a system of "checks and balances" to guard against

any small vocal area, with a specific agenda, speaking for the whole of the nation.


The following list of statistics should put an end to the argument

as to why the Electoral College makes sense.


THERE ARE 3,141 COUNTIES IN THE UNITED STATES.


TRUMP WON 3,084 OF THEM.

CLINTON WON 57.


THERE ARE 62 COUNTIES IN NEW YORK STATE.


TRUMP WON 46 OF THEM.

CLINTON WON 16.


CLINTON WON THE POPULAR VOTE BY APPROX. 1.5 MILLION VOTES.


IN THE 5 COUNTIES THAT ENCOMPASS NYC (BRONX, BROOKLYN, MANHATTAN,RICHMOND & QUEENS) CLINTON RECEIVED WELL OVER 2 MILLION MORE VOTES THAN TRUMP.


IN OTHER WORDS, THESE FIVE (5) COUNTIES ALONE, MORE THAN ACCOUNTED FOR CLINTON WINNING THE POPULAR VOTE FOR THE ENTIRE COUNTRY!!!


THESE 5 COUNTIES COMPRISE 319 SQUARE MILES.

THE UNITED STATES IS COMPRISED OF 3,797,000 SQUARE MILES.


WHEN YOU HAVE A COUNTRY THAT ENCOMPASSES ALMOST 4 MILLION SQUARE MILES OF TERRITORY, IT WOULD BE LUDICROUS TO EVEN SUGGEST THAT THE VOTE OF THOSE WHO INHABIT A MERE 319 SQUARE MILES SHOULD DICTATE THE OUTCOME OF A NATIONAL ELECTION.


LARGE, DENSELY POPULATED CITIES (NYC, CHICAGO, LA, ETC.) DO NOT AND SHOULD NOT SPEAK FOR THE REST OF OUR COUNTRY...AND SOMEHOW THE GENIUSES WHO FOUNDED OUR COUNTRY UNDERSTOOD THIS AND CREATED A SYSTEM TO AVOID THAT CIRCUMSTANCE.


AND NOW YOU UNDERSTAND THE SUPREME IMPORTANCE OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE.


DO SHARE THIS... IT NEEDS TO BE UNDERSTOOD.
 
why should one state, where the average IQ of a very concentrated area {Los Angeles}is lower than the IQ of mentally challenged guinea pig,,decide who will be the next president?,,thats what Hillary and Pelosi believe,,. You take California out of the picture, and Trump wins by a lot of votes !
Yes. Also, if you take the estimated 3 million illegal votes out of the picture, Trump wins the real popular vote. It doesn't really matter though. he won the election.
 
"Without California, Trump would have won the popular vote."

"Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?"

Funny, the rationale used to decide that the areas where people live don't matter, but what only matters are the areas where cattle and farm acres outnumber people.

Why should the population of L.A. get to decide who is the governor of the people in Calistoga? Because there's more people, genius. That's how democracy is supposed to work.

Cleek's Law: Today’s conservatism is the opposite of what liberals want today, updated daily.
 
"Without California, Trump would have won the popular vote."

"Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?"

Funny, the rationale used to decide that the areas where people live don't matter, but what only matters are the areas where cattle and farm acres outnumber people.

Why should the population of L.A. get to decide who is the governor of the people in Calistoga? Because there's more people, genius. That's how democracy is supposed to work.

Cleek's Law: Today’s conservatism is the opposite of what liberals want today, updated daily.
we are a republic not a democracy.
 
why should one state, where the average IQ of a very concentrated area {Los Angeles}is lower than the IQ of mentally challenged guinea pig,,decide who will be the next president?,,thats what Hillary and Pelosi believe,,. You take California out of the picture, and Trump wins by a lot of votes !

Dunning-Kruger.
 
The electoral college is based on the US being an agrarian society, something it no longer is. Today 62.7 percent of the US population lives in urban areas. The founding fathers did not foresee this. The electoral college favors rural areas and gives them more vote per person than people in urban areas. They are also as a population less educated than urban people. They also tend to be more conservative. This is the reason why the two elections in recent times where someone has won the presidency not by the popular vote but by the electoral college have gone to Republicans. Of course Republicans favor keeping the electoral college, not because it is the 'right' thing to do, not because the US is a republic rather than a democracy, but because it favors conservatives over liberals. It's like affirmative action, which they hate. It is affirmative action for conservatives.
 
This is why the Electoral College remains an important part of our Presidential election system.




In their infinite wisdom, the founders of our country created a

structure called the "Electoral College" as a control system and to

ensure the individual states were fairly represented. Otherwise one

or two densely populated areas would speak for the whole of the

nation. It was not created as a device to favor Democrats,

Republicans, Whigs, Tories or any other political affiliation. It

was created as a system of "checks and balances" to guard against

any small vocal area, with a specific agenda, speaking for the whole of the nation.


The following list of statistics should put an end to the argument

as to why the Electoral College makes sense.


THERE ARE 3,141 COUNTIES IN THE UNITED STATES.


TRUMP WON 3,084 OF THEM.

CLINTON WON 57.


THERE ARE 62 COUNTIES IN NEW YORK STATE.


TRUMP WON 46 OF THEM.

CLINTON WON 16.


CLINTON WON THE POPULAR VOTE BY APPROX. 1.5 MILLION VOTES.


IN THE 5 COUNTIES THAT ENCOMPASS NYC (BRONX, BROOKLYN, MANHATTAN,RICHMOND & QUEENS) CLINTON RECEIVED WELL OVER 2 MILLION MORE VOTES THAN TRUMP.


IN OTHER WORDS, THESE FIVE (5) COUNTIES ALONE, MORE THAN ACCOUNTED FOR CLINTON WINNING THE POPULAR VOTE FOR THE ENTIRE COUNTRY!!!


THESE 5 COUNTIES COMPRISE 319 SQUARE MILES.

THE UNITED STATES IS COMPRISED OF 3,797,000 SQUARE MILES.


WHEN YOU HAVE A COUNTRY THAT ENCOMPASSES ALMOST 4 MILLION SQUARE MILES OF TERRITORY, IT WOULD BE LUDICROUS TO EVEN SUGGEST THAT THE VOTE OF THOSE WHO INHABIT A MERE 319 SQUARE MILES SHOULD DICTATE THE OUTCOME OF A NATIONAL ELECTION.


LARGE, DENSELY POPULATED CITIES (NYC, CHICAGO, LA, ETC.) DO NOT AND SHOULD NOT SPEAK FOR THE REST OF OUR COUNTRY...AND SOMEHOW THE GENIUSES WHO FOUNDED OUR COUNTRY UNDERSTOOD THIS AND CREATED A SYSTEM TO AVOID THAT CIRCUMSTANCE.


AND NOW YOU UNDERSTAND THE SUPREME IMPORTANCE OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE.


DO SHARE THIS... IT NEEDS TO BE UNDERSTOOD.

The problem is only TWELVE STATES get to vote for the president. Which means the states don't get represented properly.

So, your argument shows that the electoral college is well past its sell by date.

If you have Proportional Representation, the main cities wouldn't speak for the rest of the country. It would be each person having a vote and that vote would count. That would mean that ALL THE PEOPLE would be EQUAL.

Right now only 20% of the people actually get a vote for who their president is, in a country that goes around the world telling others about democracy, it's pathetic.
 
Pure Democracy is mob rule.

But who is talking about "pure democracy"?

Proportional Representation isn't pure democracy and it isn't mob rule, but it's much fairer and leads to a proper system where people have a choice.
 
I am sure small states with snowflake populations like Vermont would vote to repeal the Constitution, but others, like the Dakotas and so on, would be justified in withdrawing from the union. The conditions were set for statehood and were never limited because the Democrats might be butt hurt.
 
If infinite wisdom includes embracing a system that led to catastrophic civil war, it is indeed a strange use of the term.
 
This is why the Electoral College remains an important part of our Presidential election system.




In their infinite wisdom, the founders of our country created a

structure called the "Electoral College" as a control system and to

ensure the individual states were fairly represented. Otherwise one

or two densely populated areas would speak for the whole of the

nation.

Actually, that was a fucking retarded argument 200 years ago, and it's a totally retarded argument now.

The Founders counted blacks as 3/5 of white people and thought state legislatures should pick the electors, who would also be independent actors who could ignore the wishes of the voters or the legislators. They also expected the President to usually be picked by Congress.

THERE ARE 3,141 COUNTIES IN THE UNITED STATES.


TRUMP WON 3,084 OF THEM.

CLINTON WON 57.

FALSE!!!

FACT CHECK: Trump Won 3,084 of 3,141 Counties, Clinton Won 57
 
why should one state, where the average IQ of a very concentrated area {Los Angeles}is lower than the IQ of mentally challenged guinea pig,,decide who will be the next president?,,thats what Hillary and Pelosi believe,,. You take California out of the picture, and Trump wins by a lot of votes !
Yes. Also, if you take the estimated 3 million illegal votes out of the picture, Trump wins the real popular vote. It doesn't really matter though. he won the election.

There were illegal votes. Also, why should a county in Shitstain, Alaska that is 10,000 sq miles with three people have more say than a county in NY with 3 million people. It is about the PEOPLE being represented, NOT a piece of dirt.
 
The problem is only TWELVE STATES get to vote for the president. Which means the states don't get represented properly.

So, your argument shows that the electoral college is well past its sell by date.

If you have Proportional Representation, the main cities wouldn't speak for the rest of the country. It would be each person having a vote and that vote would count. That would mean that ALL THE PEOPLE would be EQUAL.

Right now only 20% of the people actually get a vote for who their president is, in a country that goes around the world telling others about democracy, it's pathetic.

I agree. The EC votes should be split proportionally as it does in a couple of the states. That means dems in Texas get a say and repubs in NY get a say.
 
The problem is only TWELVE STATES get to vote for the president. Which means the states don't get represented properly.

So, your argument shows that the electoral college is well past its sell by date.

If you have Proportional Representation, the main cities wouldn't speak for the rest of the country. It would be each person having a vote and that vote would count. That would mean that ALL THE PEOPLE would be EQUAL.

Right now only 20% of the people actually get a vote for who their president is, in a country that goes around the world telling others about democracy, it's pathetic.

I agree. The EC votes should be split proportionally as it does in a couple of the states. That means dems in Texas get a say and repubs in NY get a say.
Every state may voluntarily do so. The big states should, thereby giving the voters of less-popular parties a say. In the small states it would make little differnce except one vote here, one vote there.
 
This is why the Electoral College remains an important part of our Presidential election system.




In their infinite wisdom, the founders of our country created a

structure called the "Electoral College" as a control system and to

ensure the individual states were fairly represented. Otherwise one

or two densely populated areas would speak for the whole of the

nation. It was not created as a device to favor Democrats,

Republicans, Whigs, Tories or any other political affiliation. It

was created as a system of "checks and balances" to guard against

any small vocal area, with a specific agenda, speaking for the whole of the nation.


The following list of statistics should put an end to the argument

as to why the Electoral College makes sense.


THERE ARE 3,141 COUNTIES IN THE UNITED STATES.


TRUMP WON 3,084 OF THEM.

CLINTON WON 57.


THERE ARE 62 COUNTIES IN NEW YORK STATE.


TRUMP WON 46 OF THEM.

CLINTON WON 16.


CLINTON WON THE POPULAR VOTE BY APPROX. 1.5 MILLION VOTES.


IN THE 5 COUNTIES THAT ENCOMPASS NYC (BRONX, BROOKLYN, MANHATTAN,RICHMOND & QUEENS) CLINTON RECEIVED WELL OVER 2 MILLION MORE VOTES THAN TRUMP.


IN OTHER WORDS, THESE FIVE (5) COUNTIES ALONE, MORE THAN ACCOUNTED FOR CLINTON WINNING THE POPULAR VOTE FOR THE ENTIRE COUNTRY!!!


THESE 5 COUNTIES COMPRISE 319 SQUARE MILES.

THE UNITED STATES IS COMPRISED OF 3,797,000 SQUARE MILES.


WHEN YOU HAVE A COUNTRY THAT ENCOMPASSES ALMOST 4 MILLION SQUARE MILES OF TERRITORY, IT WOULD BE LUDICROUS TO EVEN SUGGEST THAT THE VOTE OF THOSE WHO INHABIT A MERE 319 SQUARE MILES SHOULD DICTATE THE OUTCOME OF A NATIONAL ELECTION.


LARGE, DENSELY POPULATED CITIES (NYC, CHICAGO, LA, ETC.) DO NOT AND SHOULD NOT SPEAK FOR THE REST OF OUR COUNTRY...AND SOMEHOW THE GENIUSES WHO FOUNDED OUR COUNTRY UNDERSTOOD THIS AND CREATED A SYSTEM TO AVOID THAT CIRCUMSTANCE.


AND NOW YOU UNDERSTAND THE SUPREME IMPORTANCE OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE.


DO SHARE THIS... IT NEEDS TO BE UNDERSTOOD.

Worst argument ever.
 
The problem is only TWELVE STATES get to vote for the president. Which means the states don't get represented properly.

So, your argument shows that the electoral college is well past its sell by date.

If you have Proportional Representation, the main cities wouldn't speak for the rest of the country. It would be each person having a vote and that vote would count. That would mean that ALL THE PEOPLE would be EQUAL.

Right now only 20% of the people actually get a vote for who their president is, in a country that goes around the world telling others about democracy, it's pathetic.

I agree. The EC votes should be split proportionally as it does in a couple of the states. That means dems in Texas get a say and repubs in NY get a say.

I think the EC should be gotten rid of entirely and everyone gets one vote and the person who gets the most votes wins. Well, not entirely that simple, for the president a run off system is the best.
 
Pure Democracy is mob rule.

But who is talking about "pure democracy"?

Proportional Representation isn't pure democracy and it isn't mob rule, but it's much fairer and leads to a proper system where people have a choice.

You already have proportional representation in the House and unfortunately the Senate. The elections of the House, Senate and Presidency were set up as another check on the system, which of course Democrats want to remove.
 
Pure Democracy is mob rule.

But who is talking about "pure democracy"?

Proportional Representation isn't pure democracy and it isn't mob rule, but it's much fairer and leads to a proper system where people have a choice.

You already have proportional representation in the House and unfortunately the Senate. The elections of the House, Senate and Presidency were set up as another check on the system, which of course Democrats want to remove.

No, there is no Proportional Representation in the House.

The BIGGEST problem with Proportional Representation is that NOBODY UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS in America. Yet everyone "knows" how bad it is.

The House has First Past The Post.
 

Forum List

Back
Top