11 Democrat states have formed a pact to sabotage the Electoral College

[Ame®icano]

This scheme is unconstitutional as it seeks to amend the constitution without going through the required process of amending the constitution. So it won't survive the first challenge.

I'm not sure about that.

The U.S. Constitution (Article II, Section 1) gives the states exclusive control over awarding their electoral votes: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors....”

 

[Ame®icano]

Here's a challenge:

Make a logical, argument for why we should use the electoral college without mentioning "democrats".

The Electoral College serves the purpose of States Rights, not the populous. Many of us choose to live in a State that we feel reflects our own values, and that win or lose, we want to at least have sent a message to the parties. If we base the election on the popular vote, why would we even need States or their individual political systems?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Here's a challenge:

Make a logical, argument for why we should use the electoral college without mentioning "democrats".

The Electoral College serves the purpose of States Rights, not the populous. Many of us choose to live in a State that we feel reflects our own values, and that win or lose, we want to at least have sent a message to the parties. If we base the election on the popular vote, why would we even need States or their individual political systems?

How will a national popular vote suddenly make state governments disappear?

 

[Ame®icano]

The Democrats lose one election because of the Electoral College, so like the mind-numbed robots they are, they wage war against the Electoral College system. It never occurs to them that it could easily have gone the other way.

States can decide how they allocate their votes

Than you wouldn't mind if Ohio and Florida pass the legislation to give all of their electoral votes to whomever California doesn’t.

 

[Ame®icano]

I seriously think they don't really understand anything. They just repeat their government prescribed talking points and have complete trust in their government officials, as ignorant as that is.

They do understand everything too well, I say. They know that there is no way they can win if they play by the rules, so they're attempting to change the rules. They like majority rule only when they're majority. When they're not, they use courts to overrule the majority. Remember California's Prop 8.

Let's decide everything with majority rule. Let's have referendums on gay marriage, abortion and on and on. These, majority rule for President, are the same people who run to the 9th circuit every time they disagree with the majority. They can't stand losing.

 

[Ame®icano]

The Democrats lose one election because of the Electoral College, so like the mind-numbed robots they are, they wage war against the Electoral College system. It never occurs to them that it could easily have gone the other way.

States can decide how they allocate their votes

They may run into an issue with "one person one vote" that is the law of the land via the 14th amendment (which remember only applies to the States, not the feds) if the majorities wishes in the State are ignored and all the EC votes go to the person who "lost" the Statewide vote.

The Electoral College violates one man one vote

Votes in smaller states have more electoral clout than in populated states

What rule is that in the United states?


We are not a democracy , if we were gays would not be able to get married .

A majority of Americans support gay marriage
Welcome to the 21st century

Nope, it doesn't.

 

[Ame®icano]

"11 Democrat states have formed a pact to sabotage the Electoral College"

View attachment 192669

These Democrats seek to 'silence' the voices of millions of Americans across the country due to their ignorance and refusal to accept the outcome of an election....

 

[Montrovant]

Here's a challenge:

Make a logical, argument for why we should use the electoral college without mentioning "democrats".

The Electoral College serves the purpose of States Rights, not the populous. Many of us choose to live in a State that we feel reflects our own values, and that win or lose, we want to at least have sent a message to the parties. If we base the election on the popular vote, why would we even need States or their individual political systems?

Is the only reason to have states with their own political systems for presidential elections?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The Democrats lose one election because of the Electoral College, so like the mind-numbed robots they are, they wage war against the Electoral College system. It never occurs to them that it could easily have gone the other way.

States can decide how they allocate their votes

Than you wouldn't mind if Ohio and Florida pass the legislation to give all of their electoral votes to whomever California doesn’t.

You think that's likely to happen?

 

[Ame®icano]

Great news. Thanks Connecticut.

But in reality we need an amendment to not only abolish the EC Constitutiionally, but also to reform elections in general and abolish the corrupt monopoly the two parties have on our political system.

Q: How Can the Constitution Be Changed?
A: Under Article Five, the Constitution can be amended in two ways: through a two-thirds majority vote in Congress or by a two-thirds vote of a national convention at the request of at least two-thirds of the states. To become operative, three-quarters of the states, or state ratifying conventions, must ratify.

Go for it.

 

[Ame®icano]

it's not unwarranted, it's the end result of the purpose of the system.

Why do people feel the need to do so much at the federal level anyway? Blue States have shown they can go nuts with laws they like, why do they feel the need to force it on everyone else?

We need to do things at the level where they are most efficient

Doing something 50 times at the state level is not as efficient as doing it once at the federal level

Even if the people in 40 of those 50 States don't want it?

Who says they don’t want it?

Say the 10 largest states want a plastic bag ban. They can pass it themselves just fine, but they want to be "efficient" and try to pass it at the federal level.

Now say 40 States don't want to do it, but when you make your changes you want, now those 10 populous States can force their wants on the other 40 that want nothing to do with it.

Get it yet?

Suppose 40 States want to implement Jim Crow laws and 10 don’t.

We need a strong federal government to protect the persecuted minority

You, Democrats, already did that, and lost.

 

[Ame®icano]

Without the Electoral College we have MOB RULE.

The American people are a mob?

No, just Democrats.

 

[xyz]

Imagine if Kucinich (D) was running against Evan McMullin (R). I think the tables would be turned the other way around in terms of parties.

 

[Ame®icano]

Actually she did not win the popular vote, the conservative/libertarian candidates got the most votes... easily

Donald J. Trump Republican 62,980,160
Hillary R. Clinton Democratic 65,845,063
Gary Johnson Libertarian 4,488,931
Jill Stein Green 1,457,050

Beside this above...

Those numbers are not official, since vote counting ceased once Hillary conceded to Trump. There were roughly 4 million absentee and provisional ballots never officially counted after the Electoral college had been won by Trump. Counting ceased as did the counting of votes in every precinct where it was determined that the remaining votes left would not be enough to change an outcome based on percentage. Once a certain percentage of actual votes cast is reached for a candidate, counting ceases and those remaining votes are not counted because they are inconsequential at that point.

The leftist media will never report this axiomatic fact as they will never report that unofficial counting of ALL votes by various outfits and NGO's reveal a quite different picture of who actually won the actual popular vote...and that could as well be Trump. The "popular vote" used by the media is only the votes counted up to the certification of the Electoral College count. The remaining votes may take weeks to count in order to get a fairly accurate enumeration.

 

[Ame®icano]

Insane how one loss to an Outsider and some want to change what has worked for you since forever...

Don’t forget Dubya. That’s 2 of the last 3 Presidents installed thanks to a broken electoral system against the will of the people. Slavery ended over 150 years ago, meaning the EC has been obsolete for over a century and a half.

The electoral college had nothing to do with slavery. In fact, it was the electoral college that made it possible to end slavery, since Abraham Lincoln earned only 39 percent of the popular vote in the election of 1860, but won a crushing victory in the EC.

The electoral college is at the core of our system of federalism and is working precisely as it was intended. Preventing big-city populations from dominating the election of a president.

Democrats are just butthurt over EC, because without it Lincoln would not be a President, and they would still have their slaves.

 

[Pogo]

I seriously think they don't really understand anything. They just repeat their government prescribed talking points and have complete trust in their government officials, as ignorant as that is.

They do understand everything too well, I say. They know that there is no way they can win if they play by the rules, so they're attempting to change the rules. They like majority rule only when they're majority.

Reeeeeally.

What "rules" would be "changed"?

Cue crickets.....

 

[Pogo]

Actually she did not win the popular vote, the conservative/libertarian candidates got the most votes... easily

Donald J. Trump Republican 62,980,160
Hillary R. Clinton Democratic 65,845,063
Gary Johnson Libertarian 4,488,931
Jill Stein Green 1,457,050

Beside this above...

Those numbers are not official, since vote counting ceased once Hillary conceded to Trump. There were roughly 4 million absentee and provisional ballots never officially counted after the Electoral college had been won by Trump. Counting ceased as did the counting of votes in every precinct where it was determined that the remaining votes left would not be enough to change an outcome based on percentage. Once a certain percentage of actual votes cast is reached for a candidate, counting ceases and those remaining votes are not counted because they are inconsequential at that point.

The leftist media will never report this axiomatic fact as they will never report that unofficial counting of ALL votes by various outfits and NGO's reveal a quite different picture of who actually won the actual popular vote...and that could as well be Trump. The "popular vote" used by the media is only the votes counted up to the certification of the Electoral College count. The remaining votes may take weeks to count in order to get a fairly accurate enumeration.

Vote counting does not "cease" when someone 'concedes', klown. In 2016 it DID go on for weeks, which is not unusual. So the total PV numbers are already known, and that's what was posted.

Furthermore it is the state votes that are 'certified', not the Electoral College. And once each one is so certified, yes they are "official". And there's nothing self-delusion can do about that.

 

[Pogo]

Insane how one loss to an Outsider and some want to change what has worked for you since forever...

Don’t forget Dubya. That’s 2 of the last 3 Presidents installed thanks to a broken electoral system against the will of the people. Slavery ended over 150 years ago, meaning the EC has been obsolete for over a century and a half.

The electoral college had nothing to do with slavery. In fact, it was the electoral college that made it possible to end slavery, since Abraham Lincoln earned only 39 percent of the popular vote in the election of 1860, but won a crushing victory in the EC.

The electoral college is at the core of our system of federalism and is working precisely as it was intended. Preventing big-city populations from dominating the election of a president.

Democrats are just butthurt over EC, because without it Lincoln would not be a President, and they would still have their slaves.

Lincoln got way more (popular) votes than any other candidate, so there is no way he would not have been President with or without the Electoral College. Period.

Prove me wrong.


Cue even more crickets.

 

[BlackFlag]

Insane how one loss to an Outsider and some want to change what has worked for you since forever...

Don’t forget Dubya. That’s 2 of the last 3 Presidents installed thanks to a broken electoral system against the will of the people. Slavery ended over 150 years ago, meaning the EC has been obsolete for over a century and a half.

The electoral college had nothing to do with slavery. In fact, it was the electoral college that made it possible to end slavery, since Abraham Lincoln earned only 39 percent of the popular vote in the election of 1860, but won a crushing victory in the EC.

The electoral college is at the core of our system of federalism and is working precisely as it was intended. Preventing big-city populations from dominating the election of a president.

Democrats are just butthurt over EC, because without it Lincoln would not be a President, and they would still have their slaves.

Strange how you cons hate Lincoln and worship those old Democrats

 

[Ame®icano]

Here's a challenge:

Make a logical, argument for why we should use the electoral college without mentioning "democrats".

The Electoral College serves the purpose of States Rights, not the populous. Many of us choose to live in a State that we feel reflects our own values, and that win or lose, we want to at least have sent a message to the parties. If we base the election on the popular vote, why would we even need States or their individual political systems?

How will a national popular vote suddenly make state governments disappear?

Who said state governments would disappear? I was talking about states rights.