Election Reform

[P@triot]

3) Get rid of the Electoral College

It's not wonder the left desperately wants to get rid of the Electoral College:

Consider this: Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton may have prevailed in the popular vote in 2016, but she carried just 487 counties in the entire country. Compare that to President Donald Trump, who carried 2,626 counties and the Electoral College.

The 2016 election was a fucking bloodbath. Coast-to-Coast. The entire "blue wall" (Wisconsin, Michigan, West Virginia, Pennsylvania) voted Trump. Imagine losing 2,626 to 487 and then claiming you should be declared the "winner".

The Dumbocrats like Joey want shit-hole NY and shit-hole LA to rule over the entire United States. They not only want two cities controlling the entire nation, but they want the two worst cities (fucking South Central Los Angeles and Queens - uh no fucking thank you!!).

Only 'Sore Losers’ Want to Abolish Electoral College

A poll from 2019 revealed 60% of Democratic voters wanted to abolish the Electoral College—and just 21% wanted to keep it.

www.dailysignal.com

 

[JoeB131]

Bwahahaha!! So nobody needs a "permit" to conceal carry or own fully automatic firearms, right? Oops.

Nope, not if they are part of a well-regulated militia. Oops.

 

[JoeB131]

The 2016 election was a fucking bloodbath. Coast-to-Coast. The entire "blue wall" (Wisconsin, Michigan, West Virginia, Pennsylvania) voted Trump. Imagine losing 2,626 to 487 and then claiming you should be declared the "winner".

West Virginia hasn't been a blue state since 1996... Not sure what you are even talking about here.

The point is, most of the counties Trump won are sparesly populated.

Democracy isn't counties or states, it's PEOPLE. More PEOPLE voted against Trump, both times.

 

[JoeB131]

The Dumbocrats like Joey want shit-hole NY and shit-hole LA to rule over the entire United States. They not only want two cities controlling the entire nation, but they want the two worst cities (fucking South Central Los Angeles and Queens - uh no fucking thank you!!).

Okay, buddy, logic time.

Population of the US. - 328 Million.
Population of New York- 8.4 million
Population of LA - 3.97 million.

Even if they voted as a block, they wouldn't control the country.

 

[P@triot]

Okay, buddy, logic time.

Population of the US. - 328 Million.
Population of New York- 8.4 million
Population of LA - 3.97 million.

Even if they voted as a block, they wouldn't control the country.

328 million Americans....at least 150 million of which are children. Who can't vote. So clearly "logic" isn't your strong point.

Furthermore, if you took away NY and LA, Hitlery go absolutely slaughtered in your precious "popular vote". Two cities would completely control the entire United States. And they are two failed cities. Thanks, but no thanks.

 

[JoeB131]

328 million Americans....at least 150 million of which are children. Who can't vote. So clearly "logic" isn't your strong point.

Okay, about the same percentage of those people in NY and LA are children, too. So clearly logic isn't your strong suit. I'm still waiting for you to explain how two cities with a mere 3-4% of the population are going to dominate the entire country.

This should be good.

Hey did you figure out yet that Lincoln didn't free the slaves until AFTER the south seceded? I know you dropped that topic really quickly.

Furthermore, if you took away NY and LA, Hitlery go absolutely slaughtered in your precious "popular vote". Two cities would completely control the entire United States. And they are two failed cities. Thanks, but no thanks.

The problem is, you can't take them away. The only way they make a difference if a large part of the country went along with them...

The problem with the Worst Idea of Slave Rapists is that that they lived at a time when there were no big cities. The population of NYC in 1780 was 25,000. It wasn't a particularly good idea then, but now it's an awful idea, in that it disenfranchises millions of Americans.

 

[P@triot]

328 million Americans....at least 150 million of which are children. Who can't vote. So clearly "logic" isn't your strong point.

Okay, about the same percentage of those people in NY and LA are children, too. So clearly logic isn't your strong suit. I'm still waiting for you to explain how two cities with a mere 3-4% of the population are going to dominate the entire country.

This should be good.

Hey did you figure out yet that Lincoln didn't free the slaves until AFTER the south seceded? I know you dropped that topic really quickly.

The problem with the Worst Idea of Slave Rapists is that that they lived at a time when there were no big cities. The population of NYC in 1780 was 25,000. It wasn't a particularly good idea then, but now it's an awful idea, in that it disenfranchises millions of Americans.

328 million Americans....at least 150 million of which are children. Who can't vote. So clearly "logic" isn't your strong point.

Okay, about the same percentage of those people in NY and LA are children, too. So clearly logic isn't your strong suit. I'm still waiting for you to explain how two cities with a mere 3-4% of the population are going to dominate the entire country.

This should be good.

Hey did you figure out yet that Lincoln didn't free the slaves until AFTER the south seceded? I know you dropped that topic really quickly.

Furthermore, if you took away NY and LA, Hitlery go absolutely slaughtered in your precious "popular vote". Two cities would completely control the entire United States. And they are two failed cities. Thanks, but no thanks.

The problem is, you can't take them away. The only way they make a difference if a large part of the country went along with them...

The problem with the Worst Idea of Slave Rapists is that that they lived at a time when there were no big cities. The population of NYC in 1780 was 25,000. It wasn't a particularly good idea then, but now it's an awful idea, in that it disenfranchises millions of Americans.

Yeah genius…and in 1780 that was a massive population. Massive. The entire US at that point was 2.7 million. So NYC held 1% of the entire population.

Today, NYC has a population of 8.4 million and the United States has about 330 million. So NYC now holds 2.5% of the entire population.

Proving that the founders were brilliant. They had foresight. I love the fact that the US Constitution enrages you fascists!!

 

[JoeB131]

Yeah genius…and in 1780 that was a massive population. Massive. The entire US at that point was 2.7 million. So NYC held 1% of the entire population.

25,000 was not a massive population. The population of London at that time was 750,000.

The population of Paris was 650,000.

So NY had about 1% of the population. Today it has about 3% of the population of the country.

So your point that we need the Electoral Abomination to keep NYC from dominating the country is STILL kind of silly.

 

[P@triot]

Yeah genius…and in 1780 that was a massive population. Massive. The entire US at that point was 2.7 million. So NYC held 1% of the entire population.

25,000 was not a massive population. The population of London at that time was 750,000.

And neither of those nations were fledgling countries founding a new nation, you low-IQ nitwit

That was a fucking massive population at that time in the United States.

 

[JoeB131]

And neither of those nations were fledgling countries founding a new nation, you low-IQ nitwit

That was a fucking massive population at that time in the United States.

Um, okay, but certainly not enough to swing an election, that's the point. So the idea that the Founding Slave Rapists came up Electoral Mistake to keep that from happening is just... silly.

Here's what really happened.

Half the delegates wanted Congress to pick the president.
Half the delegates wanted a direct election.

The EC was a compromise because everyone was tired and wanted to go home. It was almost immediately a failure, as after Geo. Washington was elected twice unopposed, you got into some real shenanigan's between Adams and Jefferson. That's when they came up with the 12th Amendment, which gives us the effed up system we have now.

 

[P@triot]

Half the delegates wanted Congress to pick the president. Half the delegates wanted a direct election.

The EC was a compromise because everyone was tired and wanted to go home.

Yeah…that’s not even remotely what happened. But the USMB community is used to you making up outrageous shit.

You always project your lack of work ethic on others. Nobody was tired. Nobody wanted to go home. And it wasn’t a “compromise”. It was designed to ensure that two cities couldn’t control the entire United States.

Under a “popular vote” (that low-IQ leftists such as yourself support), candidates would only need promise the world to a couple of large cities (at the detriment of the rest of the nation) and they would win the election.

 

[P@triot]

It was almost immediately a failure, as after Geo. Washington was elected twice unopposed, you got into some real shenanigan's between Adams and Jefferson.

It’s always comical watching you make shit up. Thomas Jefferson literally didn’t even campaign. He had absolutely no desire to leave Monticello (just as George Washington had no desire to leave Mount Vernon).

 

[BlackSand]

As with most problems we face, the solutions are quite simple. Here is all we need to do:

1. Eliminate all campaign finance. Not a single $1 permitted for a campaign
2. Eliminate party affiliations on ballots
3. Moved to a “ranked-choice” ballot (but with different “scoring”)
4. Secure elections and arrange for transparent audits

That’s it. That’s all it takes to solve all of our problems with regards to politicians. These steps will ensure better candidates, a better informed electorate, and restore faith in our election process.

.

Unfortunately, none of that will improve our choices at the polling stations.

The only real problem I have with your ideas is campaign finance reform.
I mean we can cut the little bit of Federal Funding in Presidential elections,
but I am not up for limiting the ability of citizens to financially support the campaigns of candidates they favor,
even if I don't agree with the candidate, or who is supporting them.

I think Voter ID, and an Independent Third Party Compliance Audit conducted by an entity both major parties can agree on, are a must.

,
.​

 

[P@triot]

The only real problem I have with your ideas is campaign finance reform. I mean we can cut the little bit of Federal Funding in Presidential elections, but I am not up for limiting the ability of citizens to financially support the campaigns of candidates they favor

You should have read further before commenting. You completely misunderstood reform #1. You might want to click here.

 

[otto105]

Make 2 forms of photo id mandatory

punishment for election fraud is death

all counting and audits are video recorded with 4k devices

(this will never happen because how will they cheat if it does)

Why do you post like a whiny little victim?

 

[BlackSand]

You should have read further before commenting. You completely misunderstood reform #1. You might want to click here.

.

We didn't misunderstand anything ... At no point was I asking you what you thought may be necessary, for whatever reason you may feel it is justified.
I was pretty clear on how I felt about it, and we can agree to disagree.

.​

 

[P@triot]

We didn't misunderstand anything... At no point was I asking you what you thought may be necessary, for whatever reason you may feel it is justified. I was pretty clear on how I felt about it, and we can agree to disagree.

Soooo let me get this straight. You want US citizens to be able to “financially support” that which requires absolutely no financial support?

That makes zero sense. Zero. That’s some next-level liberal “logic” right there. If campaigns didn’t cost money, why would you want US citizens sending candidates money? WTF?

 

[BlackSand]

Soooo let me get this straight. You want US citizens to be able to “financially support” that which requires absolutely no financial support?

That makes zero sense. Zero. That’s some next-level liberal “logic” right there. If campaigns didn’t cost money, why would you want US citizens sending candidates money? WTF?

.

I said I wanted citizens to be able to financially support the campaign of candidate they prefer.
I never slightly suggest it should be restricted to what you may think is necessary, or for what reason.


I implied that it wasn't up to you, or the Federal Government, to make that choice.
You see, I like this shit called Freedom ... And I'm not real keen on granting the Federal Government the power to make decisions for me.

.​

 

[JoeB131]

Yeah…that’s not even remotely what happened. But the USMB community is used to you making up outrageous shit.

You always project your lack of work ethic on others. Nobody was tired. Nobody wanted to go home. And it wasn’t a “compromise”. It was designed to ensure that two cities couldn’t control the entire United States.

Uh, no. It was a compromise.

Electoral College Fast Facts | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives

Established in Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, the Electoral College is the formal body which elects the President and Vice President of the United States. Each state has as many "electors" in the Electoral College as it has Representatives and Senators in the United States...

history.house.gov

Originally, the Electoral College provided the Constitutional Convention with a compromise between two main proposals: the popular election of the President and the election of the President by Congress.

It’s always comical watching you make shit up. Thomas Jefferson literally didn’t even campaign. He had absolutely no desire to leave Monticello (just as George Washington had no desire to leave Mount Vernon).

Wow, you missed the point. What Home Skule did you learn history at.

Election of 1800 was a fiasco. No one got a majority in the EC< and Aaron Burr, all around scumbag, tried to pull a fast one and get named President in Congress.

1800 United States presidential election - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In February 1801, the members of the House of Representatives balloted as states to determine whether Jefferson or Burr would become president. There were sixteen states, each with one vote; an absolute majority of nine was required for victory. It was the outgoing House of Representatives, controlled by the Federalist Party, that was charged with electing the new president. Jefferson was the great enemy of the Federalists, and a faction of Federalist representatives tried to block him and elect Burr. Most Federalists voted for Burr, giving Burr six of the eight states controlled by Federalists. The seven delegations controlled by Democratic-Republicans all voted for Jefferson, and Georgia's sole Federalist representative also voted for him, giving him eight states. The Vermont delegation was evenly split and cast a blank ballot. The remaining state, Maryland, had five Federalist representatives to three Democratic-Republicans; one of its Federalist representatives voted for Jefferson, forcing that state delegation also to cast a blank ballot.[23]

Publicly, Burr remained quiet between mid-December 1800 and mid-February 1801, when the electoral votes were counted. Behind the scenes, he faced mounting pressure from within the party to step aside if he and Jefferson should tie in electoral votes. However, there was confusion as to whether or not Burr could simply concede the presidency to Jefferson and become vice-president, or whether he would have been forced to withdraw entirely and allow one of the Federalist candidates to become vice-president, as the Constitution was unclear on the matter. Regardless, he refused to disavow the presidency, writing in December 1800 to Representative Samuel Smith that he would not "engage to resign" if chosen president, adding that the question was "unnecessary, unreasonable and impertinent." Rumors circulated that Representative James A. Bayard, a Federalist, had—purportedly in Burr's name—approached Smith and Edward Livingston with offers of political appointments if they voted for Burr.[24]

 

[P@triot]

Uh, no. It was a compromise.

I'm begging you to stop. We've already proven that you don't have the slightest clue about history. I've run circles around you on that topic and humiliated you the other day with indisputable proof that you were dead-wrong and making shit up.

Any time someone mentions a fact, you quickly Google until you find some bat-shit crazy left-wing site, and then you try to pretend like you're informed on the subject.

It's been a fuck'n dreadful strategy for you. Just stop already. Have at least an ounce of self-respect. Good grief!