The Electoral College

[william the wie]

well the left wants the US to be France II. Large nations that operate effectively are federations similar to the US as with India, China and Russia.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The red text is in error. If you believe that, why discuss the topic with you?

Oh please. Come on. Are you that stupid too? The overall vote is what counts. Not the amount of votes in one state or when those votes are counted.

Where did you get that stupid idea? Read your Constitution dumb ass!

That's what the thread is about. Do you have your head so far up your own ass that you cannot see?

This is the thing about the cons here: you cannot conduct a discussion without being incredibly disgusting. It clarifies the level of your intelligence and intent. The electoral college gives rural areas more weight per individual vote than urban areas. That is a fact. It is tilted to favor conservative areas: fact. I'm done here. I don't discuss anything with loutish neanderthals.

OK. Let me explain in it to you in word you might understand!

You don't have a fucking clue as to what you are talking about! Educate yourself!

Clear enough?

The fact of the matter is that you are the one who doesn't get it, or doesn't want to. Wilful ignorance.

I am a former social studies teacher who has obviously spent many years more studying government and teaching it than you. Your foreign residence has obviously confused you to how our government works. Again, your comments show that you are clueless regarding how the electoral college functions because you ascribe characteristics to it that are present only in your imagination.

 

[TheOldSchool]

well the left wants the US to be France II. Large nations that operate effectively are federations similar to the US as with India, China and Russia.

Wow

 

[Wyatt earp]

"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.

And these people in highly populate cities vote for 50 cent gas taxes why?


Are they that fucking stupid?

 

[Wyatt earp]

I want to know why blue cities folks are so fucking stupid why do they vote for $12 bucks a pack of smokes $4 bucks for a Snickers bar and a 80 cent tax on big gulps


To pay for 150 grand a year dog catchers and run off jobs


Blue cities folks have to be the most stupidest people in America

 

[Wyatt earp]

Why do you blue cities folks do it for what purpose ?

 

[Unkotare]

The 3 million ALL came from California before California was counted Trump was up by a Million VOTES. California ALONE changed that. What part of that don't you understand?

LOL You're ridiculous. It doesn't matter when the vote was counted; the overall vote across the country is what counts. It's just amazing your brain power isn't enough to understand this simple issue. California votes later because it is in a later time zone. Their votes are counted later. It's the overall vote that counts. Across the country. Good God, it is too simple. Maybe ask someone to help you out with this: maybe a statistician or mathematician.

The red text is in error. If you believe that, why discuss the topic with you?

Oh please. Come on. Are you that stupid too? The overall vote is what counts. Not the amount of votes in one state or when those votes are counted.

Where did you get that stupid idea? Read your Constitution dumb ass!

That's what the thread is about. Do you have your head so far up your own ass that you cannot see?

This is the thing about the cons here: you cannot conduct a discussion without being incredibly disgusting. It clarifies the level of your intelligence and intent. The electoral college gives rural areas more weight per individual vote than urban areas. That is a fact. It is tilted to favor conservative areas: fact. I'm done here. I don't discuss anything with loutish neanderthals.

You are wrong, you do not understand the Constitution, and running away doesn't change that.

 

[Slyhunter]

All in California. Before California was counted Trump was up by a million. Sorry but one State does not get to decide who the President is.

California doesn't decide the vote. They just vote later than most of the country because of the time difference. The majority of the people in the US decide the popular vote. Again, the fact that California's votes were counted last does not mislead me, though it apparently misleads you. It's not a matter of one state electing a president, if we went by popular vote: it's a matter of Pacific Time versus Central and Eastern time: DUH!

The 3 million ALL came from California before California was counted Trump was up by a Million VOTES. California ALONE changed that. What part of that don't you understand?

LOL You're ridiculous. It doesn't matter when the vote was counted; the overall vote across the country is what counts. It's just amazing your brain power isn't enough to understand this simple issue. California votes later because it is in a later time zone. Their votes are counted later. It's the overall vote that counts. Across the country. Good God, it is too simple. Maybe ask someone to help you out with this: maybe a statistician or mathematician.

The red text is in error. If you believe that, why discuss the topic with you?

Oh please. Come on. Are you that stupid too? The overall vote is what counts. Not the amount of votes in one state or when those votes are counted.

Lets say we got rid of the Electoral College. What reason then would there be for the smaller states, like Rhode Island, Or the huge states in the mid-west to not succeed from the Union?

 

[asaratis]

The red text is in error. If you believe that, why discuss the topic with you?

Oh please. Come on. Are you that stupid too? The overall vote is what counts. Not the amount of votes in one state or when those votes are counted.

Where did you get that stupid idea? Read your Constitution dumb ass!

That's what the thread is about. Do you have your head so far up your own ass that you cannot see?

This is the thing about the cons here: you cannot conduct a discussion without being incredibly disgusting. It clarifies the level of your intelligence and intent. The electoral college gives rural areas more weight per individual vote than urban areas. That is a fact. It is tilted to favor conservative areas: fact. I'm done here. I don't discuss anything with loutish neanderthals.

OK. Let me explain in it to you in word you might understand!

You don't have a fucking clue as to what you are talking about! Educate yourself!

Clear enough?

The fact of the matter is that you are the one who doesn't get it, or doesn't want to. Wilful ignorance.

You've made two additional posts since you said you were out of here. Was that just another liberal lie?

 

[Meathead]

National Popular Vote

The National Popular Vote interstate compact would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

The National Popular Vote bill has now passed a total of 35 state legislative chambers in 23 states. The National Popular Vote bill will take effect when enacted into law by states possessing 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 electoral votes). It has been enacted into law in 11 states possessing 165 electoral votes (CA, DC, HI, IL, MA, MD, NJ, NY, RI, VT, WA). The bill will take effect when enacted by states possessing an additional 105 electoral votes.

Purdy funny there partner. Each state that approves is definitely snowflake and thus deep blue.

Changes in the Constitution do not happen by getting a majority of electors. Very stupid and short sighted especially on the smaller states, HI, RI and VT where doubtless butt hurt abounds..

This isn't about a change in the constitution, you dumb inbred shit.

Whew!

Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

 

[Slyhunter]

National Popular Vote

The National Popular Vote interstate compact would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

The National Popular Vote bill has now passed a total of 35 state legislative chambers in 23 states. The National Popular Vote bill will take effect when enacted into law by states possessing 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 electoral votes). It has been enacted into law in 11 states possessing 165 electoral votes (CA, DC, HI, IL, MA, MD, NJ, NY, RI, VT, WA). The bill will take effect when enacted by states possessing an additional 105 electoral votes.

Purdy funny there partner. Each state that approves is definitely snowflake and thus deep blue.

Changes in the Constitution do not happen by getting a majority of electors. Very stupid and short sighted especially on the smaller states, HI, RI and VT where doubtless butt hurt abounds..

This isn't about a change in the constitution, you dumb inbred shit.

If your not going to change the constitution how are you going to get rid of the Electoral vote?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

National Popular Vote

The National Popular Vote interstate compact would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

The National Popular Vote bill has now passed a total of 35 state legislative chambers in 23 states. The National Popular Vote bill will take effect when enacted into law by states possessing 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 electoral votes). It has been enacted into law in 11 states possessing 165 electoral votes (CA, DC, HI, IL, MA, MD, NJ, NY, RI, VT, WA). The bill will take effect when enacted by states possessing an additional 105 electoral votes.

Purdy funny there partner. Each state that approves is definitely snowflake and thus deep blue.

Changes in the Constitution do not happen by getting a majority of electors. Very stupid and short sighted especially on the smaller states, HI, RI and VT where doubtless butt hurt abounds..

This isn't about a change in the constitution, you dumb inbred shit.

If your not going to change the constitution how are you going to get rid of the Electoral vote?

The stupid interstate compact.

 

[TheOldSchool]

National Popular Vote

The National Popular Vote interstate compact would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

The National Popular Vote bill has now passed a total of 35 state legislative chambers in 23 states. The National Popular Vote bill will take effect when enacted into law by states possessing 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 electoral votes). It has been enacted into law in 11 states possessing 165 electoral votes (CA, DC, HI, IL, MA, MD, NJ, NY, RI, VT, WA). The bill will take effect when enacted by states possessing an additional 105 electoral votes.

Purdy funny there partner. Each state that approves is definitely snowflake and thus deep blue.

Changes in the Constitution do not happen by getting a majority of electors. Very stupid and short sighted especially on the smaller states, HI, RI and VT where doubtless butt hurt abounds..

This isn't about a change in the constitution, you dumb inbred shit.

If your not going to change the constitution how are you going to get rid of the Electoral vote?

The constitution gives states control over how they award their electoral votes. All explained in the link I posted.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

National Popular Vote

The National Popular Vote interstate compact would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

The National Popular Vote bill has now passed a total of 35 state legislative chambers in 23 states. The National Popular Vote bill will take effect when enacted into law by states possessing 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 electoral votes). It has been enacted into law in 11 states possessing 165 electoral votes (CA, DC, HI, IL, MA, MD, NJ, NY, RI, VT, WA). The bill will take effect when enacted by states possessing an additional 105 electoral votes.

Purdy funny there partner. Each state that approves is definitely snowflake and thus deep blue.

Changes in the Constitution do not happen by getting a majority of electors. Very stupid and short sighted especially on the smaller states, HI, RI and VT where doubtless butt hurt abounds..

This isn't about a change in the constitution, you dumb inbred shit.

If your not going to change the constitution how are you going to get rid of the Electoral vote?

The constitution gives states control over how they award their electoral votes. All explained in the link I posted.

Yes but I suspect that the Constitutions promise that a republican form of Government is protected will come up if a State tries to change its vote from one person to another.

 

[TheOldSchool]

National Popular Vote

The National Popular Vote interstate compact would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

The National Popular Vote bill has now passed a total of 35 state legislative chambers in 23 states. The National Popular Vote bill will take effect when enacted into law by states possessing 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 electoral votes). It has been enacted into law in 11 states possessing 165 electoral votes (CA, DC, HI, IL, MA, MD, NJ, NY, RI, VT, WA). The bill will take effect when enacted by states possessing an additional 105 electoral votes.

Purdy funny there partner. Each state that approves is definitely snowflake and thus deep blue.

Changes in the Constitution do not happen by getting a majority of electors. Very stupid and short sighted especially on the smaller states, HI, RI and VT where doubtless butt hurt abounds..

This isn't about a change in the constitution, you dumb inbred shit.

If your not going to change the constitution how are you going to get rid of the Electoral vote?

The constitution gives states control over how they award their electoral votes. All explained in the link I posted.

Yes but I suspect that the Constitutions promise that a republican form of Government is protected will come up if a State tries to change its vote from one person to another.

Maybe. I guess the Supreme Court could decide to legislate that states cannot determine how to award their own electoral votes. If it ever comes to that, it will be funny to see Gorsuch twist himself into knots trying to justify ignoring the constitution.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Purdy funny there partner. Each state that approves is definitely snowflake and thus deep blue.

Changes in the Constitution do not happen by getting a majority of electors. Very stupid and short sighted especially on the smaller states, HI, RI and VT where doubtless butt hurt abounds..

This isn't about a change in the constitution, you dumb inbred shit.

If your not going to change the constitution how are you going to get rid of the Electoral vote?

The constitution gives states control over how they award their electoral votes. All explained in the link I posted.

Yes but I suspect that the Constitutions promise that a republican form of Government is protected will come up if a State tries to change its vote from one person to another.

Maybe. I guess the Supreme Court could decide to legislate that states cannot determine how to award their own electoral votes. If it ever comes to that, it will be funny to see Gorsuch twist himself into knots trying to justify ignoring the constitution.

It wont be ignoring the Constitution it is patently Undemocratic to make a States vote go for a person the State did not vote for.

 

[TheOldSchool]

This isn't about a change in the constitution, you dumb inbred shit.

If your not going to change the constitution how are you going to get rid of the Electoral vote?

The constitution gives states control over how they award their electoral votes. All explained in the link I posted.

Yes but I suspect that the Constitutions promise that a republican form of Government is protected will come up if a State tries to change its vote from one person to another.

Maybe. I guess the Supreme Court could decide to legislate that states cannot determine how to award their own electoral votes. If it ever comes to that, it will be funny to see Gorsuch twist himself into knots trying to justify ignoring the constitution.

It wont be ignoring the Constitution it is patently Undemocratic to make a States vote go for a person the State did not vote for.

We are a Republic, not a Democracy. Go and tell Nebraska and Maine that it's "ignoring the constitution" to give some of their electoral votes to the loser.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If your not going to change the constitution how are you going to get rid of the Electoral vote?

The constitution gives states control over how they award their electoral votes. All explained in the link I posted.

Yes but I suspect that the Constitutions promise that a republican form of Government is protected will come up if a State tries to change its vote from one person to another.

Maybe. I guess the Supreme Court could decide to legislate that states cannot determine how to award their own electoral votes. If it ever comes to that, it will be funny to see Gorsuch twist himself into knots trying to justify ignoring the constitution.

It wont be ignoring the Constitution it is patently Undemocratic to make a States vote go for a person the State did not vote for.

We are a Republic, not a Democracy. Go and tell Nebraska and Maine that it's "ignoring the constitution" to give some of their electoral votes to the loser.

That is not undemocratic since it is proportional and based on congressional districts, flipping a State vote from one candidate that won the State to one that LOST is in fact undemocratic and unrepublican both protected and promised to the States BY the Constitution.

 

[TheOldSchool]

The constitution gives states control over how they award their electoral votes. All explained in the link I posted.

Yes but I suspect that the Constitutions promise that a republican form of Government is protected will come up if a State tries to change its vote from one person to another.

Maybe. I guess the Supreme Court could decide to legislate that states cannot determine how to award their own electoral votes. If it ever comes to that, it will be funny to see Gorsuch twist himself into knots trying to justify ignoring the constitution.

It wont be ignoring the Constitution it is patently Undemocratic to make a States vote go for a person the State did not vote for.

We are a Republic, not a Democracy. Go and tell Nebraska and Maine that it's "ignoring the constitution" to give some of their electoral votes to the loser.

That is not undemocratic since it is proportional and based on congressional districts, flipping a State vote from one candidate that won the State to one that LOST is in fact undemocratic and unrepublican both protected and promised to the States BY the Constitution.

Not true. States can allocate their electoral votes any way that they want.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yes but I suspect that the Constitutions promise that a republican form of Government is protected will come up if a State tries to change its vote from one person to another.

Maybe. I guess the Supreme Court could decide to legislate that states cannot determine how to award their own electoral votes. If it ever comes to that, it will be funny to see Gorsuch twist himself into knots trying to justify ignoring the constitution.

It wont be ignoring the Constitution it is patently Undemocratic to make a States vote go for a person the State did not vote for.

We are a Republic, not a Democracy. Go and tell Nebraska and Maine that it's "ignoring the constitution" to give some of their electoral votes to the loser.

That is not undemocratic since it is proportional and based on congressional districts, flipping a State vote from one candidate that won the State to one that LOST is in fact undemocratic and unrepublican both protected and promised to the States BY the Constitution.

Not true. States can allocate their electoral votes any way that they want.

No they can not violate the protections of the Constitution which specifically protects the states form of Government.