Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You mean the Trump landslide?
There's no such thing. He won the election on a technicality, just like Bush the first time.
Technicality? The Electoral College is not a technicality, it is how every President has been elected. It is that kind of dishonesty that creates the division.
No, this doesn't create any division, I'm not saying Trump isn't going to be president.
You are intentionally trying to cheapen his victory by calling it a technicality and you know it and that is why you are being dishonest. Now you are pretending to take the high road, only idiots wouldn't realize what you are doing.
The victory was cheapened by the fact that he lost the popular vote by 2.5 million. That's where we are.
Yes, it's in the Constitution and I'm not saying Trump didn't win. I'm saying it's time to end the EC. It's two different things.
It isn't going away... it is there for a reason and it works well. There is no way in hell you're going to get a majority of the states to amend the constitution over this.
You still can't really explain the reason though. And you don't need a constitutional amendment to render the EC meaningless.
Not an easy task, not impossible either.
It is explained quite elegantly in the Federalist Papers.
Really? Why don't you quote your favorite part and make an argument for keeping it?
I don't have a favorite part. I'm sure if you Google it, you can find it and read it.
But I know you won't.
You have one point I'll admit. The vast majority of morons voted for Hillary....too bad they were all concentrated in ny and Ca...There's no such thing. He won the election on a technicality, just like Bush the first time.
Technicality? The Electoral College is not a technicality, it is how every President has been elected. It is that kind of dishonesty that creates the division.
No, this doesn't create any division, I'm not saying Trump isn't going to be president.
You are intentionally trying to cheapen his victory by calling it a technicality and you know it and that is why you are being dishonest. Now you are pretending to take the high road, only idiots wouldn't realize what you are doing.
The victory was cheapened by the fact that he lost the popular vote by 2.5 million. That's where we are.
What made his victory real cheap was him claiming millions voted illegally. That's cheap.
There's no such thing. He won the election on a technicality, just like Bush the first time.
Technicality? The Electoral College is not a technicality, it is how every President has been elected. It is that kind of dishonesty that creates the division.
No, this doesn't create any division, I'm not saying Trump isn't going to be president.
You are intentionally trying to cheapen his victory by calling it a technicality and you know it and that is why you are being dishonest. Now you are pretending to take the high road, only idiots wouldn't realize what you are doing.
The victory was cheapened by the fact that he lost the popular vote by 2.5 million. That's where we are.
In your mind, however we have never in history elected a President with the popular vote. He won by doing what he needed to do to win the Presidency, the same way Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt and every other President has won. You are being dishonest. You are dividing and creating contention. But go ahead, your crying won't change a thing.
It isn't going away... it is there for a reason and it works well. There is no way in hell you're going to get a majority of the states to amend the constitution over this.
You still can't really explain the reason though. And you don't need a constitutional amendment to render the EC meaningless.
Not an easy task, not impossible either.
It is explained quite elegantly in the Federalist Papers.
Really? Why don't you quote your favorite part and make an argument for keeping it?
I don't have a favorite part. I'm sure if you Google it, you can find it and read it.
But I know you won't.
Do you like the part where Hamilton felt the electors should have the ability to overwrite the will of the people if they thought they elected the wrong one? How would that fly today if the person who won the popular vote lost because electors thought the public were too stupid to pick the right guy?
That is what the founders had in mind.
Technicality? The Electoral College is not a technicality, it is how every President has been elected. It is that kind of dishonesty that creates the division.
No, this doesn't create any division, I'm not saying Trump isn't going to be president.
You are intentionally trying to cheapen his victory by calling it a technicality and you know it and that is why you are being dishonest. Now you are pretending to take the high road, only idiots wouldn't realize what you are doing.
The victory was cheapened by the fact that he lost the popular vote by 2.5 million. That's where we are.
In your mind, however we have never in history elected a President with the popular vote. He won by doing what he needed to do to win the Presidency, the same way Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt and every other President has won. You are being dishonest. You are dividing and creating contention. But go ahead, your crying won't change a thing.
I'm not arguing Trump did something wrong by winning the electoral college. I'm just saying it wasn't really that close in the popular vote and the electoral college serves no purpose other than to overly distort a win or change the results of an election from whoever won the popular vote.
Please try to focus.
Think of it this way.. assume we only have 2 states, one with 1,000,000 people and the other with 5,000,000. Without the EC the latter would select the president, every time.
How many times must it be explained that the EC insures that every state has a say. California, New York and Illinois would call all the shots.You mean the Trump landslide?
There's no such thing. He won the election on a technicality, just like Bush the first time.
Technicality? The Electoral College is not a technicality, it is how every President has been elected. It is that kind of dishonesty that creates the division.
No, this doesn't create any division, I'm not saying Trump isn't going to be president.
You are intentionally trying to cheapen his victory by calling it a technicality and you know it and that is why you are being dishonest. Now you are pretending to take the high road, only idiots wouldn't realize what you are doing.
The victory was cheapened by the fact that he lost the popular vote by 2.5 million. That's where we are.
What made his victory real cheap was him claiming millions voted illegally. That's cheap.
Think of it this way.. assume we only have 2 states, one with 1,000,000 people and the other with 5,000,000. Without the EC the latter would select the president, every time.
Well, a couple of things wrong with that analogy. FIrst being we are 50 states, not 2. Second if you really want to use the two state analogy, most likely the 5,000,000 state is probably going to pick the winner every time with or without the electoral college. 5 to 1? Wouldn't be close.
But what if the states were 60 million to 500 thousand? How would your lame analogy work then?
Let's try this another way. I say one vote equals one person. What do you think one vote should be worth?
A vote in your state.Think of it this way.. assume we only have 2 states, one with 1,000,000 people and the other with 5,000,000. Without the EC the latter would select the president, every time.
Well, a couple of things wrong with that analogy. FIrst being we are 50 states, not 2. Second if you really want to use the two state analogy, most likely the 5,000,000 state is probably going to pick the winner every time with or without the electoral college. 5 to 1? Wouldn't be close.
But what if the states were 60 million to 500 thousand? How would your lame analogy work then?
Let's try this another way. I say one vote equals one person. What do you think one vote should be worth?
You still can't really explain the reason though. And you don't need a constitutional amendment to render the EC meaningless.
Not an easy task, not impossible either.
It is explained quite elegantly in the Federalist Papers.
Really? Why don't you quote your favorite part and make an argument for keeping it?
I don't have a favorite part. I'm sure if you Google it, you can find it and read it.
But I know you won't.
Do you like the part where Hamilton felt the electors should have the ability to overwrite the will of the people if they thought they elected the wrong one? How would that fly today if the person who won the popular vote lost because electors thought the public were too stupid to pick the right guy?
That is what the founders had in mind.
Not a fan.. and it has never happened as far as I know.... soooo.......
Think of it this way.. assume we only have 2 states, one with 1,000,000 people and the other with 5,000,000. Without the EC the latter would select the president, every time.
Well, a couple of things wrong with that analogy. FIrst being we are 50 states, not 2. Second if you really want to use the two state analogy, most likely the 5,000,000 state is probably going to pick the winner every time with or without the electoral college. 5 to 1? Wouldn't be close.
But what if the states were 60 million to 500 thousand? How would your lame analogy work then?
Let's try this another way. I say one vote equals one person. What do you think one vote should be worth?
Uhm, I dunno, one vote?
No, this doesn't create any division, I'm not saying Trump isn't going to be president.
You are intentionally trying to cheapen his victory by calling it a technicality and you know it and that is why you are being dishonest. Now you are pretending to take the high road, only idiots wouldn't realize what you are doing.
The victory was cheapened by the fact that he lost the popular vote by 2.5 million. That's where we are.
In your mind, however we have never in history elected a President with the popular vote. He won by doing what he needed to do to win the Presidency, the same way Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt and every other President has won. You are being dishonest. You are dividing and creating contention. But go ahead, your crying won't change a thing.
I'm not arguing Trump did something wrong by winning the electoral college. I'm just saying it wasn't really that close in the popular vote and the electoral college serves no purpose other than to overly distort a win or change the results of an election from whoever won the popular vote.
Please try to focus.
She won the popular vote by less than 3/4 of 1%.
The only times in history where the EC and popular votes differed, Republicans won all four contests. They have the sagebrush and jackrabbit vote.Democrats win = EC good
Democrats lose = EC bad
How many times must it be explained that the EC insures that every state has a say. California, New York and Illinois would call all the shots.There's no such thing. He won the election on a technicality, just like Bush the first time.
Technicality? The Electoral College is not a technicality, it is how every President has been elected. It is that kind of dishonesty that creates the division.
No, this doesn't create any division, I'm not saying Trump isn't going to be president.
You are intentionally trying to cheapen his victory by calling it a technicality and you know it and that is why you are being dishonest. Now you are pretending to take the high road, only idiots wouldn't realize what you are doing.
The victory was cheapened by the fact that he lost the popular vote by 2.5 million. That's where we are.
What made his victory real cheap was him claiming millions voted illegally. That's cheap.
But, I for one am happy it worked out this way. This gives libs something to try to hang their hats on and helps fuel their protests and objections and ups the entertainment value.
Republicans have been blasting Hillary for over 30 years. They've used tens of millions of tax payer money going after her. The full power of the FBI, the CIA and one congressional investigation after another.Conservatives and Liberals: The election is over. I think both sides need to stop inflaming this situation. Democrats need to stop the protests, show business tours, and accept the results of the election. Republicans need to stop the name calling, trash talking and other "in your face" behavior. I know it's too much to ask for American voters to behave like civilized people, but hope springs eternal.
Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton displayed good manners and respect in their speeches immediately after the election. Maybe American voters should do the same.
Since you addressed it to this board, note the number of butt hurt threads they are starting blasting Trump compared to the few threads blasting Hillary since the election. And seriously, you only see Republicans name calling?
A vote in your state.Think of it this way.. assume we only have 2 states, one with 1,000,000 people and the other with 5,000,000. Without the EC the latter would select the president, every time.
Well, a couple of things wrong with that analogy. FIrst being we are 50 states, not 2. Second if you really want to use the two state analogy, most likely the 5,000,000 state is probably going to pick the winner every time with or without the electoral college. 5 to 1? Wouldn't be close.
But what if the states were 60 million to 500 thousand? How would your lame analogy work then?
Let's try this another way. I say one vote equals one person. What do you think one vote should be worth?
Well, the electoral college says no state can have less than three electoral votes. That means a state like Wyoming, with such a small population, is way over represented. One of it's electoral votes is 43 times greater than one in California. You do the math.A vote in your state.Think of it this way.. assume we only have 2 states, one with 1,000,000 people and the other with 5,000,000. Without the EC the latter would select the president, every time.
Well, a couple of things wrong with that analogy. FIrst being we are 50 states, not 2. Second if you really want to use the two state analogy, most likely the 5,000,000 state is probably going to pick the winner every time with or without the electoral college. 5 to 1? Wouldn't be close.
But what if the states were 60 million to 500 thousand? How would your lame analogy work then?
Let's try this another way. I say one vote equals one person. What do you think one vote should be worth?
Now, why should a vote in your state mean more or less than someone else? Why is that fair? Please try to explain that.
