More Proof That LIbEralism is a Mental Disease: Electors planning to undermine Electoral College

[Bob Blaylock]

Democratic presidential electors revolt against Trump

At least a half-dozen Democratic electors have signed onto an attempt to block Donald Trump from winning an Electoral College majority, an effort designed not only to deny Trump the presidency but also to undermine the legitimacy of the institution.

The presidential electors, mostly former Bernie Sanders supporters who hail from Washington state and Colorado, are now lobbying their Republican counterparts in other states to reject their oaths — and in some cases, state law — to vote against Trump when the Electoral College meets on Dec. 19.

Even the most optimistic among the Democratic electors acknowledges they're unlikely to persuade the necessary 37 Republican electors to reject Trump — the number they'd likely need to deny him the presidency and send the final decision to the House of Representatives. And even if they do, the Republican-run House might simply elect Trump anyway.

·
·
·​

And, according to another article…

A number of Democratic Electoral College electors are planning to use their votes to undermine the election process in opposition to President-elect Donald Trump, Politico is reporting.

·
·
·​

They are also contemplating whether to cast their votes for someone other than Hillary Clinton, like Mitt Romney or Gov. John Kasich (R-Ohio).​

All that these fools have any chance of accomplishing is to make Mr. Trump's victory even more impressive, and to show the nation what sort of fools they are. They may deprive Mrs. Clinton of the votes that they had pledged to her, but I would have to say that their chances are pretty close to zero of persuading even as much as one of Mr. Trump's pledged delegates to turn against him.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Hillary currently has over 2 million more votes than Trump. Unless Trump shows some amount of respect to the popular vote, then the electoral college is a failure, and must be replaced.

I think after the disastrous Dubya years, and 4 years of a petulant reality TV star failing the nation, America will be ready to reconsider the electoral college.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Bob Blaylock
The Electors have every right to vote their conscience.
But if they want to carry on a hateful campaign to harass and accuse other people for voting theirs,
that just makes THEM look bad. Why not respect everyone's rights to vote equally?

Dear TheOldSchool
A. Why not require candidates to win BOTH the popular AND the electoral vote?
Wouldn't that satisfy BOTH requirements, and not put one over the other?
Require winners to represent BOTH the majority of voters AND the majority of states proportionally.

B. Why not improve the system by having each state
assign the Electoral votes PER DISTRICT to the majority winner in EACH?

So candidates like Clinton COULD gain votes from states where the split was almost 50/50.

Wouldn't that solve the problem, too?
And also satisfy people who WANT the votes distributed and not just
concentrated in denser populated urban areas.

How is that fair to voters who live spread out working farms across the Midwest?

Again, if you are EQUALLY worried about those voters 'weighing more' than
high concentrated urban voters, then THAT'S the SAME reason that the
Electoral College supporters don't want to be outweighed either!!!

BOTH want to make sure their votes are counted fairly.

so why not require BOTH popular AND electoral majority to win?
Wouldn't that satisfy both requirements so nobody feels cheated by the other approach?

 

[TheOldSchool]

Dear Bob Blaylock
The Electors have every right to vote their conscience.
But if they want to carry on a hateful campaign to harass and accuse other people for voting theirs,
that just makes THEM look bad. Why not respect everyone's rights to vote equally?

Dear TheOldSchool
A. Why not require candidates to win BOTH the popular AND the electoral vote?
Wouldn't that satisfy BOTH requirements, and not put one over the other?
Require winners to represent BOTH the majority of voters AND the majority of states proportionally.

B. Why not improve the system by having each state
assign the Electoral votes PER DISTRICT to the majority winner in EACH?

So candidates like Clinton COULD gain votes from states where the split was almost 50/50.

Wouldn't that solve the problem, too?
And also satisfy people who WANT the votes distributed and not just
concentrated in denser populated urban areas.

How is that fair to voters who live spread out working farms across the Midwest?

Again, if you are EQUALLY worried about those voters 'weighing more' than
high concentrated urban voters, then THAT'S the SAME reason that the
Electoral College supporters don't want to be outweighed either!!!

BOTH want to make sure their votes are counted fairly.

so why not require BOTH popular AND electoral majority to win?
Wouldn't that satisfy both requirements so nobody feels cheated by the other approach?

You need to seriously consider therapy.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

A. Why not require candidates to win BOTH the popular AND the electoral vote?
Wouldn't that satisfy BOTH requirements, and not put one over the other?
Require winners to represent BOTH the majority of voters AND the majority of states proportionally.

·
·
·​

so why not require BOTH popular AND electoral majority to win?
Wouldn't that satisfy both requirements so nobody feels cheated by the other approach?

What you seem to be calling for is two different contests, with two different sets of rules, and a requirement that a candidate must win both in order to be elected. So what do we do, then, when each set of rules produces a different result?

In very close races, I don't believe that it is feasible to count the popular vote with enough accuracy to assure that the correct result was obtained. THink back to the 2000 election, when it came down to one state, and they kept counting the votes over and over again, and arguing about “hanging chads” and “dimpled chads” and all other manners in which a ballot might not have been properly punched, and how to try to discern what a voter intended from an imperfect ballot. Now, try to imagine this on the national scale, rather than in just one state. If we were to think we really needed to know the national popular vote result from 2000, we'd still be counting and recounting, and we'd still not know for sure. Al Gore is widely-believed to have won the popular vote, even though he ultimately lost the electoral vote, but for all intents and purposes, the popular vote has to be considered a tie, as the margin is well within any rational margin of error. One advantage of the electoral system that we use is that it often has the result of turning what would otherwise have been a tie into a meaningful, reliable result.

B. Why not improve the system by having each state
assign the Electoral votes PER DISTRICT to the majority winner in EACH?

So candidates like Clinton COULD gain votes from states where the split was almost 50/50.

·
·
·​

How is that fair to voters who live spread out working farms across the Midwest?

Again, if you are EQUALLY worried about those voters 'weighing more' than
high concentrated urban voters, then THAT'S the SAME reason that the
Electoral College supporters don't want to be outweighed either!!!

BOTH want to make sure their votes are counted fairly.

The Constitution leaves it to each state to determine how it will choose its electors. It doesn't even have to be by an election of the people. I believe there are one or two states that choose them by congressional district rather than by state, but nearly all states have evolved into a “winner takes all” method based on the popular vote of the entire state.

Our national government was not set up to reflect a direct popular vote. The Connecticut Compromise established a balance between the power of the individual people, and the power of the states. That's why our Congress consists of two houses, the House of Representatives, which represents the people, and the Senate, which represents the states. There are plenty of arguments to be made for and against this balance, and those arguments certainly were made back when the structure of our government was being set up, and this is what was ultimately decided. The distribution of the Electoral College reflects this same balance, giving each state two electors, to represent each state equally as in the Senate, plus a number of additional electors proportional to its population, to represent the people, as in the House of Representatives.

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

A. Why not require candidates to win BOTH the popular AND the electoral vote?
Wouldn't that satisfy BOTH requirements, and not put one over the other?
Require winners to represent BOTH the majority of voters AND the majority of states proportionally.

·
·
·​

so why not require BOTH popular AND electoral majority to win?
Wouldn't that satisfy both requirements so nobody feels cheated by the other approach?

What you seem to be calling for is two different contests, with two different sets of rules, and a requirement that a candidate must win both in order to be elected. So what do we do, then, when each set of rules produces a different result?

In very close races, I don't believe that it is feasible to count the popular vote with enough accuracy to assure that the correct result was obtained. THink back to the 2000 election, when it came down to one state, and they kept counting the votes over and over again, and arguing about “hanging chads” and “dimpled chads” and all other manners in which a ballot might not have been properly punched, and how to try to discern what a voter intended from an imperfect ballot. Now, try to imagine this on the national scale, rather than in just one state. If we were to think we really needed to know the national popular vote result from 2000, we'd still be counting and recounting, and we'd still not know for sure. Al Gore is widely-believed to have won the popular vote, even though he ultimately lost the electoral vote, but for all intents and purposes, the popular vote has to be considered a tie, as the margin is well within any rational margin of error. One advantage of the electoral system that we use is that it often has the result of turning what would otherwise have been a tie into a meaningful, reliable result.

B. Why not improve the system by having each state
assign the Electoral votes PER DISTRICT to the majority winner in EACH?

So candidates like Clinton COULD gain votes from states where the split was almost 50/50.

·
·
·​

How is that fair to voters who live spread out working farms across the Midwest?

Again, if you are EQUALLY worried about those voters 'weighing more' than
high concentrated urban voters, then THAT'S the SAME reason that the
Electoral College supporters don't want to be outweighed either!!!

BOTH want to make sure their votes are counted fairly.

The Constitution leaves it to each state to determine how it will choose its electors. It doesn't even have to be by an election of the people. I believe there are one or two states that choose them by congressional district rather than by state, but nearly all states have evolved into a “winner takes all” method based on the popular vote of the entire state.

Our national government was not set up to reflect a direct popular vote. The Connecticut Compromise established a balance between the power of the individual people, and the power of the states. That's why our Congress consists of two houses, the House of Representatives, which represents the people, and the Senate, which represents the states. There are plenty of arguments to be made for and against this balance, and those arguments certainly were made back when the structure of our government was being set up, and this is what was ultimately decided. The distribution of the Electoral College reflects this same balance, giving each state two electors, to represent each state equally as in the Senate, plus a number of additional electors proportional to its population, to represent the people, as in the House of Representatives.

Finally!!!! Reading someone who knows what the hell they're talking about is a breath of fresh air!

 

[emilynghiem]

A. Why not require candidates to win BOTH the popular AND the electoral vote?
Wouldn't that satisfy BOTH requirements, and not put one over the other?
Require winners to represent BOTH the majority of voters AND the majority of states proportionally.

·
·
·​

so why not require BOTH popular AND electoral majority to win?
Wouldn't that satisfy both requirements so nobody feels cheated by the other approach?

What you seem to be calling for is two different contests, with two different sets of rules, and a requirement that a candidate must win both in order to be elected. So what do we do, then, when each set of rules produces a different result?

In very close races, I don't believe that it is feasible to count the popular vote with enough accuracy to assure that the correct result was obtained. THink back to the 2000 election, when it came down to one state, and they kept counting the votes over and over again, and arguing about “hanging chads” and “dimpled chads” and all other manners in which a ballot might not have been properly punched, and how to try to discern what a voter intended from an imperfect ballot. Now, try to imagine this on the national scale, rather than in just one state. If we were to think we really needed to know the national popular vote result from 2000, we'd still be counting and recounting, and we'd still not know for sure. Al Gore is widely-believed to have won the popular vote, even though he ultimately lost the electoral vote, but for all intents and purposes, the popular vote has to be considered a tie, as the margin is well within any rational margin of error. One advantage of the electoral system that we use is that it often has the result of turning what would otherwise have been a tie into a meaningful, reliable result.

B. Why not improve the system by having each state
assign the Electoral votes PER DISTRICT to the majority winner in EACH?

So candidates like Clinton COULD gain votes from states where the split was almost 50/50.

·
·
·​

How is that fair to voters who live spread out working farms across the Midwest?

Again, if you are EQUALLY worried about those voters 'weighing more' than
high concentrated urban voters, then THAT'S the SAME reason that the
Electoral College supporters don't want to be outweighed either!!!

BOTH want to make sure their votes are counted fairly.

The Constitution leaves it to each state to determine how it will choose its electors. It doesn't even have to be by an election of the people. I believe there are one or two states that choose them by congressional district rather than by state, but nearly all states have evolved into a “winner takes all” method based on the popular vote of the entire state.

Our national government was not set up to reflect a direct popular vote. The Connecticut Compromise established a balance between the power of the individual people, and the power of the states. That's why our Congress consists of two houses, the House of Representatives, which represents the people, and the Senate, which represents the states. There are plenty of arguments to be made for and against this balance, and those arguments certainly were made back when the structure of our government was being set up, and this is what was ultimately decided. The distribution of the Electoral College reflects this same balance, giving each state two electors, to represent each state equally as in the Senate, plus a number of additional electors proportional to its population, to represent the people, as in the House of Representatives.

1. We can make the margin wide enough where it has to be a clear super majority, like 2/3 or 3/4
Not just 51% that is easily manipulated

If we went back to a system where the executive offices could be held by representatives from different parties we could get a super majority

2. By counting all votes toward representation by party, there would be greater participation. Each party would be responsible for its own voting members so any fraud would affect their own party.

3. The main thing that I would push to correct is allowing representation by party. Taking turns only letting one party dominate govt. is as problematic as electing religious leaders of one denomination to have govt representation while denying the same to other groups. The parties have become like warring political religions.

So why not let them govern their own memberships and keep their beliefs out of govt Except where the public Agrees on policies.

If we only run and elect leaders who can represent and work with people and beliefs of ALL parties, then we would see consensus on policies written by collaboration and mutual agreement not competition and forced compromise.

So we could have super majorities decide elections and pass laws by changing how we use political parties for representation and inclusion, not competing to outbully and overrule each other leaving half the nation out of the process each time.
pvsi

 

[LuckyDuck]

Hillary currently has over 2 million more votes than Trump. Unless Trump shows some amount of respect to the popular vote, then the electoral college is a failure, and must be replaced.

I think after the disastrous Dubya years, and 4 years of a petulant reality TV star failing the nation, America will be ready to reconsider the electoral college.

Replace the Electoral College and only the large cities will actually have a voice in who is elected. America's small towns and rural areas will no longer have a viable vote as they would be unable to compete with the large cities, which tend to be democratic. Once you have only one party candidates in power, you lose freedom; thus begins the quick slide to Marxism and history and present day shows how evil Marxism is.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Hillary currently has over 2 million more votes than Trump. Unless Trump shows some amount of respect to the popular vote, then the electoral college is a failure, and must be replaced.

I think after the disastrous Dubya years, and 4 years of a petulant reality TV star failing the nation, America will be ready to reconsider the electoral college.

Replace the Electoral College and only the large cities will actually have a voice in who is elected. America's small towns and rural areas will no longer have a viable vote as they would be unable to compete with the large cities, which tend to be democratic. Once you have only one party candidates in power, you lose freedom; thus begins the quick slide to Marxism and history and present day shows how evil Marxism is.

We have the Senate to represent each state equally and the House of Representatives for small and big towns to have a voice. Once you have only one party in power, put there by a scared and xenophobic minority desperate to surrender their freedoms, you lose freedom; thus begins the quick slide to Fascism and history and present day shows how evil Fascism is.

 

[LuckyDuck]

Hillary currently has over 2 million more votes than Trump. Unless Trump shows some amount of respect to the popular vote, then the electoral college is a failure, and must be replaced.

I think after the disastrous Dubya years, and 4 years of a petulant reality TV star failing the nation, America will be ready to reconsider the electoral college.

Replace the Electoral College and only the large cities will actually have a voice in who is elected. America's small towns and rural areas will no longer have a viable vote as they would be unable to compete with the large cities, which tend to be democratic. Once you have only one party candidates in power, you lose freedom; thus begins the quick slide to Marxism and history and present day shows how evil Marxism is.

We have the Senate to represent each state equally and the House of Representatives for small and big towns to have a voice. Once you have only one party in power, put there by a scared and xenophobic minority desperate to surrender their freedoms, you lose freedom; thus begins the quick slide to Fascism and history and present day shows how evil Fascism is.

The office of president is determined nationally; eliminate the Electoral College and again, only the biggest cities decide the president and he/she has the power to suspend the Constitution in an emergency.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Hillary currently has over 2 million more votes than Trump. Unless Trump shows some amount of respect to the popular vote, then the electoral college is a failure, and must be replaced.

I think after the disastrous Dubya years, and 4 years of a petulant reality TV star failing the nation, America will be ready to reconsider the electoral college.

Replace the Electoral College and only the large cities will actually have a voice in who is elected. America's small towns and rural areas will no longer have a viable vote as they would be unable to compete with the large cities, which tend to be democratic. Once you have only one party candidates in power, you lose freedom; thus begins the quick slide to Marxism and history and present day shows how evil Marxism is.

We have the Senate to represent each state equally and the House of Representatives for small and big towns to have a voice. Once you have only one party in power, put there by a scared and xenophobic minority desperate to surrender their freedoms, you lose freedom; thus begins the quick slide to Fascism and history and present day shows how evil Fascism is.

The office of president is determined nationally; eliminate the Electoral College and again, only the biggest cities decide the president and he/she has the power to suspend the Constitution in an emergency.

Or you can admit that you rubes don't care to create a platform that appeals to most Americans. Hopefully the next census straightens the EC out a bit.

 

[LuckyDuck]

Hillary currently has over 2 million more votes than Trump. Unless Trump shows some amount of respect to the popular vote, then the electoral college is a failure, and must be replaced.

I think after the disastrous Dubya years, and 4 years of a petulant reality TV star failing the nation, America will be ready to reconsider the electoral college.

Replace the Electoral College and only the large cities will actually have a voice in who is elected. America's small towns and rural areas will no longer have a viable vote as they would be unable to compete with the large cities, which tend to be democratic. Once you have only one party candidates in power, you lose freedom; thus begins the quick slide to Marxism and history and present day shows how evil Marxism is.

We have the Senate to represent each state equally and the House of Representatives for small and big towns to have a voice. Once you have only one party in power, put there by a scared and xenophobic minority desperate to surrender their freedoms, you lose freedom; thus begins the quick slide to Fascism and history and present day shows how evil Fascism is.

The office of president is determined nationally; eliminate the Electoral College and again, only the biggest cities decide the president and he/she has the power to suspend the Constitution in an emergency.

Or you can admit that you rubes don't care to create a platform that appeals to most Americans. Hopefully the next census straightens the EC out a bit.

Just FYI, I didn't vote for either Trump, who I consider a reincarnation of P.T. Barnum, or Clinton. I'm a centrist and this country needs a centrist candidate, one who takes on policies of both parties without straying too far one way or another.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Hillary currently has over 2 million more votes than Trump. Unless Trump shows some amount of respect to the popular vote, then the electoral college is a failure, and must be replaced.

I think after the disastrous Dubya years, and 4 years of a petulant reality TV star failing the nation, America will be ready to reconsider the electoral college.

Replace the Electoral College and only the large cities will actually have a voice in who is elected. America's small towns and rural areas will no longer have a viable vote as they would be unable to compete with the large cities, which tend to be democratic. Once you have only one party candidates in power, you lose freedom; thus begins the quick slide to Marxism and history and present day shows how evil Marxism is.

We have the Senate to represent each state equally and the House of Representatives for small and big towns to have a voice. Once you have only one party in power, put there by a scared and xenophobic minority desperate to surrender their freedoms, you lose freedom; thus begins the quick slide to Fascism and history and present day shows how evil Fascism is.

The office of president is determined nationally; eliminate the Electoral College and again, only the biggest cities decide the president and he/she has the power to suspend the Constitution in an emergency.

Or you can admit that you rubes don't care to create a platform that appeals to most Americans. Hopefully the next census straightens the EC out a bit.

Just FYI, I didn't vote for either Trump, who I consider a reincarnation of P.T. Barnum, or Clinton. I'm a centrist and this country needs a centrist candidate, one who takes on policies of both parties without straying too far one way or another.

Well the EC just handed you a man who promised to govern like a fringe lunatic, and unless all that was just more of his pathological lying then we're in for some serious shit.

 

[Meathead]

Replace the Electoral College and only the large cities will actually have a voice in who is elected. America's small towns and rural areas will no longer have a viable vote as they would be unable to compete with the large cities, which tend to be democratic. Once you have only one party candidates in power, you lose freedom; thus begins the quick slide to Marxism and history and present day shows how evil Marxism is.

We have the Senate to represent each state equally and the House of Representatives for small and big towns to have a voice. Once you have only one party in power, put there by a scared and xenophobic minority desperate to surrender their freedoms, you lose freedom; thus begins the quick slide to Fascism and history and present day shows how evil Fascism is.

The office of president is determined nationally; eliminate the Electoral College and again, only the biggest cities decide the president and he/she has the power to suspend the Constitution in an emergency.

Or you can admit that you rubes don't care to create a platform that appeals to most Americans. Hopefully the next census straightens the EC out a bit.

Just FYI, I didn't vote for either Trump, who I consider a reincarnation of P.T. Barnum, or Clinton. I'm a centrist and this country needs a centrist candidate, one who takes on policies of both parties without straying too far one way or another.

Well the EC just handed you a man who promised to govern like a fringe lunatic, and unless all that was just more of his pathological lying then we're in for some serious shit.

Assuming that you supported Hillary, are you sure you want to bring pathological lying into the equation?

Seriously?

 

[LuckyDuck]

Replace the Electoral College and only the large cities will actually have a voice in who is elected. America's small towns and rural areas will no longer have a viable vote as they would be unable to compete with the large cities, which tend to be democratic. Once you have only one party candidates in power, you lose freedom; thus begins the quick slide to Marxism and history and present day shows how evil Marxism is.

We have the Senate to represent each state equally and the House of Representatives for small and big towns to have a voice. Once you have only one party in power, put there by a scared and xenophobic minority desperate to surrender their freedoms, you lose freedom; thus begins the quick slide to Fascism and history and present day shows how evil Fascism is.

The office of president is determined nationally; eliminate the Electoral College and again, only the biggest cities decide the president and he/she has the power to suspend the Constitution in an emergency.

Or you can admit that you rubes don't care to create a platform that appeals to most Americans. Hopefully the next census straightens the EC out a bit.

Just FYI, I didn't vote for either Trump, who I consider a reincarnation of P.T. Barnum, or Clinton. I'm a centrist and this country needs a centrist candidate, one who takes on policies of both parties without straying too far one way or another.

Well the EC just handed you a man who promised to govern like a fringe lunatic, and unless all that was just more of his pathological lying then we're in for some serious shit.

Well, someone had to be in there. As bad as he is, at least it isn't that bitch Clinton. All we can do now is just see how it plays out once he's in the White House. Obama and Clinton were heading us down a path with a military confrontation with Russia, another nuclear armed nation, with ties to China and who do military exercises with them.

 

[TheOldSchool]

We have the Senate to represent each state equally and the House of Representatives for small and big towns to have a voice. Once you have only one party in power, put there by a scared and xenophobic minority desperate to surrender their freedoms, you lose freedom; thus begins the quick slide to Fascism and history and present day shows how evil Fascism is.

The office of president is determined nationally; eliminate the Electoral College and again, only the biggest cities decide the president and he/she has the power to suspend the Constitution in an emergency.

Or you can admit that you rubes don't care to create a platform that appeals to most Americans. Hopefully the next census straightens the EC out a bit.

Just FYI, I didn't vote for either Trump, who I consider a reincarnation of P.T. Barnum, or Clinton. I'm a centrist and this country needs a centrist candidate, one who takes on policies of both parties without straying too far one way or another.

Well the EC just handed you a man who promised to govern like a fringe lunatic, and unless all that was just more of his pathological lying then we're in for some serious shit.

Assuming that you supported Hillary, are you sure you want to bring pathological lying into the equation?

Seriously?

Absolutely. Trump's lies convinced just under half the nation that denying freedom and liberty to people is the solution to their problems. Hell, we should all be praying that he is in fact a pathological liar, because of what will happen to the Nation if he actually does plan to keep any of his promises.

 

[TheOldSchool]

We have the Senate to represent each state equally and the House of Representatives for small and big towns to have a voice. Once you have only one party in power, put there by a scared and xenophobic minority desperate to surrender their freedoms, you lose freedom; thus begins the quick slide to Fascism and history and present day shows how evil Fascism is.

The office of president is determined nationally; eliminate the Electoral College and again, only the biggest cities decide the president and he/she has the power to suspend the Constitution in an emergency.

Or you can admit that you rubes don't care to create a platform that appeals to most Americans. Hopefully the next census straightens the EC out a bit.

Just FYI, I didn't vote for either Trump, who I consider a reincarnation of P.T. Barnum, or Clinton. I'm a centrist and this country needs a centrist candidate, one who takes on policies of both parties without straying too far one way or another.

Well the EC just handed you a man who promised to govern like a fringe lunatic, and unless all that was just more of his pathological lying then we're in for some serious shit.

Well, someone had to be in there. As bad as he is, at least it isn't that bitch Clinton. All we can do now is just see how it plays out once he's in the White House. Obama and Clinton were heading us down a path with a military confrontation with Russia, another nuclear armed nation, with ties to China and who do military exercises with them.

Oh you thought Clinton was a meanie?

Well congratulations, you got your psychopath in there to entertain himself with the lives of us peasants. If you haven't already, go buy a gun and a few months worth of supplies.

 

[Meathead]

Absolutely. Trump's lies convinced just under half the nation that denying freedom and liberty to people is the solution to their problems. Hell, we should all be praying that he is in fact a pathological liar, because of what will happen to the Nation if he actually does plan to keep any of his promises.

Ya gotta do a lot fucking better than that given that your candidate herself is widely regarded as a sleaze and pathological liar in her own right. It's a bit like Nazis accusing Jews of genocide or blacks of any other demographic of low intelligence.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Absolutely. Trump's lies convinced just under half the nation that denying freedom and liberty to people is the solution to their problems. Hell, we should all be praying that he is in fact a pathological liar, because of what will happen to the Nation if he actually does plan to keep any of his promises.

Ya gotta do a lot fucking better than that given that your candidate herself is widely regarded as a sleaze and pathological liar in her own right. It's a bit like Nazis accusing Jews of genocide or blacks of any other demographic of low intelligence.

Widely regarded as a sleaze and pathological liar, despite little actual solid evidence for either. I wonder what wild speculations you all would have invented about Bernie. Now that you've even demonized fact-checking, the sky's the limit.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Bob Blaylock
The Electors have every right to vote their conscience.
But if they want to carry on a hateful campaign to harass and accuse other people for voting theirs,
that just makes THEM look bad. Why not respect everyone's rights to vote equally?

Dear TheOldSchool
A. Why not require candidates to win BOTH the popular AND the electoral vote?
Wouldn't that satisfy BOTH requirements, and not put one over the other?
Require winners to represent BOTH the majority of voters AND the majority of states proportionally.

B. Why not improve the system by having each state
assign the Electoral votes PER DISTRICT to the majority winner in EACH?

So candidates like Clinton COULD gain votes from states where the split was almost 50/50.

Wouldn't that solve the problem, too?
And also satisfy people who WANT the votes distributed and not just
concentrated in denser populated urban areas.

How is that fair to voters who live spread out working farms across the Midwest?

Again, if you are EQUALLY worried about those voters 'weighing more' than
high concentrated urban voters, then THAT'S the SAME reason that the
Electoral College supporters don't want to be outweighed either!!!

BOTH want to make sure their votes are counted fairly.

so why not require BOTH popular AND electoral majority to win?
Wouldn't that satisfy both requirements so nobody feels cheated by the other approach?

You need to seriously consider therapy.

Dear TheOldSchool
All therapy is based on forgiveness and overcoming fears. I'm not afraid of discussing new ideas and changes. And I'm constantly having to forgive misunderstandings that lead to comments like yours that come across as unfair, judgmental and rude.

If you are afraid that "I need therapy" that's your own fear. Please don't project your fears on me and say it's my fault if you're the one uncomfortable with me.

I have no problem with exploring solutions to partisan domination in elections based on winner taking all the votes.

You also posted you could see this system changing.

Are you not comfortable with the concept of proportional representation by party? Of forming consensus on laws between various parties of different beliefs?

Ironically, TheOldSchool, the process of conflict resolution is VERY therapeutic. It Does involve forgiveness of differences and overcoming fears.

I agree with you that we should see improvements to the Electoral College system.

But I don't agree with your rude comment. Exploring new ideas is like opening up a can of worms.

If you are not open but afraid of that process, please don't blame your fears on me. That's your own fear you need to confront the source of. I can support you in that, but can't do your work for you.

Sorry if I gave you the wrong impression. By being willing to discuss more possibilities than you are comfortable with.

I'm not afraid of the process of change and sorry you feel the need to judge me for your own insecurity about this.

That was rude and uncalled for.

Yours truly,
Emily Nghiem