Why Right Wing Is Petrified of Letting Voters, Not Electoral College, Pick Presidents

Status
Not open for further replies.

Have you ever read this book?

512xNqJSzQL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg

Well, that tells me all I need to know about what kind of an "educator" you are...

Sounds like he's a very good educator if he expects people he educates to actually work to learn.
 
Well, that tells me all I need to know about what kind of an "educator" you are...

Well see, I don't grade based upon the student's ultimate opinion. Whether I agree or disagree is totally irrelevant. I grade based upon how well thought out, how researched, how well argued, and how well supported their position is. Thus far you are failing my class.



And if a female student, how cute.
 
Well, that tells me all I need to know about what kind of an "educator" you are...

Well see, I don't grade based upon the student's ultimate opinion. Whether I agree or disagree is totally irrelevant. I grade based upon how well thought out, how researched, how well argued, and how well supported their position is. Thus far you are failing my class.



And if a female student, how cute.

looks like someone flunked out of podunk cc
 
Well see, I don't grade based upon the student's ultimate opinion. Whether I agree or disagree is totally irrelevant. I grade based upon how well thought out, how researched, how well argued, and how well supported their position is. Thus far you are failing my class.



And if a female student, how cute.

looks like someone flunked out of podunk cc


How long did you last before they showed you the door?
 
Conservatives wouldn't want to change the system, because of all those low population states the Reps win and the extra electoral weight they carry.
 
Last edited:
Yeah and I assume you base that upon your in-depth knowledge of my personal philosophy and experience with my professional relationships, specifically that of Dean Exley of whom I refer.
No, I base it on the fact that CON$ habitually make up anecdotal crap, which is usually a projection of themselves, that can't be verified.

So in other words you base it upon your own bullshit opinion. Gotcha.
I trust my observations more than your bullshit fantasy.
 
No, I base it on the fact that CON$ habitually make up anecdotal crap, which is usually a projection of themselves, that can't be verified.

So in other words you base it upon your own bullshit opinion. Gotcha.
I trust my observations more than your bullshit fantasy.

Uh huh.....so you are suggesting that universities are not dominated by liberal instructors, liberal administrators, and a liberal agenda? I assume you got your GED and left it at that.
 
The national popular vote has half the states it needs.

So, we're halfway there.

First you would need for there to actually be an Amendment to vote on.

No amendment is required. These states are voluntarily committing their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote (once some number of states whose electoral votes together total 270 sign on), as is their prerogative under Article II, Section 1.
 
Progressives hate our economic model, hate our government model, what the fuck is it they like about America?
 
Last edited:
It would be the best incremental step in breaking the stranglehold the two party system has on our democracy. What if all presidents ran as independents? That suggestion alone is enough to make partisans piss their pants. It's more democracy, more power to an individual vote, I am 100% for it.

How would making the election come down to the vote of a few large cities end the two party system? By making it a one party system?
 
So, we're halfway there.

What does "it has half the states it needs" mean? They are willing to approve a Constitutional Amendment? What?

The way I understand it, individual states would vote to change their election laws to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. Legal as can be and does not touch The Constitution.

You think states should award their votes based on what the voters of other states do? How does disenfranchising a large chunk of the voters make things better? Do you have any idea how many times the electoral college vote was different than the actual popular vote?
 
So, we're halfway there.

First you would need for there to actually be an Amendment to vote on.

No amendment is required. These states are voluntarily committing their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote (once some number of states whose electoral votes together total 270 sign on), as is their prerogative under Article II, Section 1.

And as i said before...that's perfectly legal and constitutional. But there's a reason why it has gained very little support outside blue states. Major cities tend to be in liberal states so it benefits their political ideology with little risk. Look at the map I posted earlier. Such a situation will put the vast majority of determining executive power in the hands of Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Denver, Houston, Chicago, Miami, New York City, Philadelphia, Detroit, Cleveland, and Phoenix, Pittsburgh. Do they represent the United States of America? No. They represent the interests of major cities and what is good for them is not always good for Spokane, Washington; Lewiston, Idaho; Cheyenne, Wyoming; or Bismarck, North Dakota. The Senate was created to ensure the interests of those places were recognized as well.
 
So in other words you base it upon your own bullshit opinion. Gotcha.
I trust my observations more than your bullshit fantasy.

Uh huh.....so you are suggesting that universities are not dominated by liberal instructors, liberal administrators, and a liberal agenda? I assume you got your GED and left it at that.
No university I attended was dominated by Libs, and as a Physicist, I suspect I'm much better educated than you could ever hope to be.
 
Unless they have actually done that, the claim is bullshit. Any state that does do it is just diluting its influence on the national election. It's not in the best interests of any state to do it. Therefore, it will never happen.

The movement for a national popular vote is based on states agreeing to allocate their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner once a majority (in the Electoral College) of states have agreed to do the same. That is, their laws don't take effect until enough other states have passed similar laws. At which point the national popular vote winner is guaranteed to receive 270 electoral votes and assume the presidency.

They're up to 132 electoral votes cumulative at present.

I wonder how California voters would feel after they overwhelmingly vote for a candidate and watch all their votes go to the other candidate. My guess is that, even if it ever happened, it wouldn't last more than one election.
 
I trust my observations more than your bullshit fantasy.

Uh huh.....so you are suggesting that universities are not dominated by liberal instructors, liberal administrators, and a liberal agenda? I assume you got your GED and left it at that.
No university I attended was dominated by Libs, and as a Physicist, I suspect I'm much better educated than you could ever hope to be.

Suspicions can be very...very...VERY dangerous things, my friend. On top of which, as a university professor I wouldn't pound my chest too strongly about education. You run into someone that knows when you're simply talking a line of bullshit and you'll end up pounding something but it won't be your chest.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum List

Back
Top