Zander
Platinum Member
New rules!!
If a Republican wins - The EC is no good!!
If a Democrat wins - The EC is working fine!
If a Republican wins - The EC is no good!!
If a Democrat wins - The EC is working fine!
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.
Why we have it
/----/ Here, I corrected it for you. No need to thank me.
EC was implemented to placate states who's economies depended on agriculture
New rules!!
If a Republican wins - The EC is no good!!
If a Democrat wins - The EC is working fine!
Tiny unpopulated states never have more power than huge populated states.The alternative is those tiny unpopulated states having more power than states with 40 times their populationWhy we have it
Popular vote. Populous places will have influence.Nope. One person, one vote.Why we have it
EC was implemented to placate states who's economies depended on slavery.
One person, one vote.
Exactly what that map shows.
and California, New York, Texas, and Florida would make all the decisions.
You know why?
That's where most of the population is!
New rules!!
If a Republican wins - The EC is no good!!
If a Democrat wins - The EC is working fine!
Naw- it's like this.
If the EC confirms what the people wanted- then it's okay.
When it chooses someone the PEOPLE clearly rejected, it's no good.
Let's leave aside for a moment that it has given us disasters like Trump and Bush-43.
It forces the election to pander to the interests of a few swing states instead of the whole country. If people in California have to spend a lot of money to swing how Nevada turns out, that's kind of a problem, given California has a lot more people.
/—-/ I support the EC. Stop playing stupid./——/ You don’t understand because of your public school education. And it’s been explained many times here.I don't understand the problem with the electoral college. We are nation of states. Each state casts their allotted number of votes for President as determined by the votes of the legal voters that reside within that state. The President receiving the majority of the votes of the states will then be President of those united states. Pretty simple.
The lower populated states are mostly agricultural. They have vastly different needs and views than the heavily populated industrial states. You’d have three or four states running roughshod over the rest of the country.
Look at Virginia.The once solid Red State was invaded by Washington elites who moved into Northern Virginia. Because of their dense population they seized control of the state government. Now they are enacting their liberal agenda with gun grabbing and higher taxes.
So you have a problem with the electoral college?
You make it sound like I don't understand why I SHOULD have a problem with the electoral college. Your response to my post is a bit confusing.
Republicans want to change laws on Electoral College votes, after presidential losses/---/ Actually we accept the EC results - it's Libtards who want to change the rules so they win.If Donnie wins the popular vote but loses the EC, expect a wholesale change in opinions of the EC.
/----/ Link?Republicans want to change laws on Electoral College votes, after presidential losses/---/ Actually we accept the EC results - it's Libtards who want to change the rules so they win.If Donnie wins the popular vote but loses the EC, expect a wholesale change in opinions of the EC.
Wasn't always the case.
Read the post you responded to./----/ Link?Republicans want to change laws on Electoral College votes, after presidential losses/---/ Actually we accept the EC results - it's Libtards who want to change the rules so they win.If Donnie wins the popular vote but loses the EC, expect a wholesale change in opinions of the EC.
Wasn't always the case.
New rules!!
If a Republican wins - The EC is no good!!
If a Democrat wins - The EC is working fine!
Naw- it's like this.
If the EC confirms what the people wanted- then it's okay.
When it chooses someone the PEOPLE clearly rejected, it's no good.
Let's leave aside for a moment that it has given us disasters like Trump and Bush-43.
It forces the election to pander to the interests of a few swing states instead of the whole country. If people in California have to spend a lot of money to swing how Nevada turns out, that's kind of a problem, given California has a lot more people.
/----/ I didn't see the link on my iPhone. But, it's from 2015 and they don't want to eliminate the EC, but change how the votes are distributed. "They instead want Electoral College votes to be divided proportionally, a move that could transform the way the country elects its president." And some states already do this.Read the post you responded to./----/ Link?Republicans want to change laws on Electoral College votes, after presidential losses/---/ Actually we accept the EC results - it's Libtards who want to change the rules so they win.If Donnie wins the popular vote but loses the EC, expect a wholesale change in opinions of the EC.
Wasn't always the case.
/----/ " frustrate Democracy"Why we have it
No, that's really not a good reason to have an antiquated system devised by slave rapists to frustrate Democracy.
You look at the Presidents who were picked by the EC over the will of the people, they are all disasters.
/----/ Here, I corrected it for you. No need to thank me.
EC was implemented to placate states who's economies depended on agriculture
Actually, in 1787, all the states depended on agriculture. The purpose was to give smaller states more of a say so they'd want to stay in the union. It included such craziness as counting black people as only 3/5th of a white person and giving them no vote.
What would work a lot better would be to have runoff elections if no candidate gets 50% of the vote. That would give third parties more traction to get their ideas out and shift the debate from the binary.
Instead we let the minority bully the majority.Popular vote. Populous places will have influence.Nope. One person, one vote.Why we have it
EC was implemented to placate states who's economies depended on slavery.
One person, one vote.
Exactly what that map shows.
and California, New York, Texas, and Florida would make all the decisions.
You know why?
That's where most of the population is!
We live in a Republic which is fifty states that make a Union.
Each State voice matter in the election process and was granted a way to make their State population matter in the process of electing the President.
I know you prefer that States have less say and let the few big States bully the smaller populated States but the founding Fathers were smarter than you when they created this system.
So as you argue the Popular Vote is all that should matter, well it does on your State level but Nationally as a whole for the President it take a back seat to the Electoral College because again we are a Republic of Fifty Individual States and yet you will be daft as usual...
/---/ Care to explain that?Instead we let the minority bully the majority.Popular vote. Populous places will have influence.Nope. One person, one vote.Why we have it
EC was implemented to placate states who's economies depended on slavery.
One person, one vote.
Exactly what that map shows.
and California, New York, Texas, and Florida would make all the decisions.
You know why?
That's where most of the population is!
We live in a Republic which is fifty states that make a Union.
Each State voice matter in the election process and was granted a way to make their State population matter in the process of electing the President.
I know you prefer that States have less say and let the few big States bully the smaller populated States but the founding Fathers were smarter than you when they created this system.
So as you argue the Popular Vote is all that should matter, well it does on your State level but Nationally as a whole for the President it take a back seat to the Electoral College because again we are a Republic of Fifty Individual States and yet you will be daft as usual...
Thanks makes a lotta sense.
View attachment 310647
Explain what?/---/ Care to explain that?Instead we let the minority bully the majority.Popular vote. Populous places will have influence.Nope. One person, one vote.
EC was implemented to placate states who's economies depended on slavery.
One person, one vote.
Exactly what that map shows.
and California, New York, Texas, and Florida would make all the decisions.
You know why?
That's where most of the population is!
We live in a Republic which is fifty states that make a Union.
Each State voice matter in the election process and was granted a way to make their State population matter in the process of electing the President.
I know you prefer that States have less say and let the few big States bully the smaller populated States but the founding Fathers were smarter than you when they created this system.
So as you argue the Popular Vote is all that should matter, well it does on your State level but Nationally as a whole for the President it take a back seat to the Electoral College because again we are a Republic of Fifty Individual States and yet you will be daft as usual...
Thanks makes a lotta sense.
View attachment 310647
Instead we let the minority bully the majority.Popular vote. Populous places will have influence.Nope. One person, one vote.Why we have it
EC was implemented to placate states who's economies depended on slavery.
One person, one vote.
Exactly what that map shows.
and California, New York, Texas, and Florida would make all the decisions.
You know why?
That's where most of the population is!
We live in a Republic which is fifty states that make a Union.
Each State voice matter in the election process and was granted a way to make their State population matter in the process of electing the President.
I know you prefer that States have less say and let the few big States bully the smaller populated States but the founding Fathers were smarter than you when they created this system.
So as you argue the Popular Vote is all that should matter, well it does on your State level but Nationally as a whole for the President it take a back seat to the Electoral College because again we are a Republic of Fifty Individual States and yet you will be daft as usual...
Thanks makes a lotta sense.
View attachment 310647
Instead we let the minority bully the majority.Popular vote. Populous places will have influence.Nope. One person, one vote.
EC was implemented to placate states who's economies depended on slavery.
One person, one vote.
Exactly what that map shows.
and California, New York, Texas, and Florida would make all the decisions.
You know why?
That's where most of the population is!
We live in a Republic which is fifty states that make a Union.
Each State voice matter in the election process and was granted a way to make their State population matter in the process of electing the President.
I know you prefer that States have less say and let the few big States bully the smaller populated States but the founding Fathers were smarter than you when they created this system.
So as you argue the Popular Vote is all that should matter, well it does on your State level but Nationally as a whole for the President it take a back seat to the Electoral College because again we are a Republic of Fifty Individual States and yet you will be daft as usual...
Thanks makes a lotta sense.
View attachment 310647
Untrue and you have known that every President has been elected this way, so why is it now you disagree with it?
Simple, you hate the reality that the Majority of States rejected Clinton and want a system you can rig to make sure Democrats never lose...